Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the final location is used to determin the final location of the unit that is using the deepstrike rule, at this point you are asked to check if it conforms with usual restrictions for deployment, if you are not able to conform you suffer a misshap.

The final location of what exactly?

If you are deploying a unit, by following the instructions, you will have one model on the table (lets assume 10 man infantry unit).
At this point, the unit has not been deployed, models are deploying.
If, whilst placing models, you find that you cannot deploy them, you mishap.
= you mishap while deploying models, not after the unit has deployed.

It could be the first model that you attempt to place that causes the mishap, zero models or units deployed.
The second model causing mishap leaving 9 models that were never deployed and so on.
Deploying a unit is sequential, in that you place models sequentially, after scatter you can mishap at any point.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
in terms of placing on top of a unit of models, as units are not impassable they are valid locations to target, again as has been said many times, it is very possible to place a drop pod (for example) on top of a unit in a manner that it touches the table, however as the person who doesn't place the model would take alot of issues with puting a big lump on top of thier models so its perfectly acceptable to put the ypothetical start point (and if your really trying to say otherwise you are either a) trolling or b) a phallis that I would be glad to not play against)

Where am I really trying to say otherwise?
Find it.
So put an end to your insults please.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of arguements suporting the fact that a model may have a start point for the deepstrike on top of another, the arguements agasint are very weak thus far over the course of the thread, mainly taking aspects of the rule instead of the whole package in an attempt to break it.

I think that's probably true, but I'm not trying to break anything, I am pointing out what's wrong in some of the claims.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the deep strike rules haven't altered much for the last couple of editions if even at all, its highly unlikely its as comlex as some of you are trying to make it sound.

Maybe not, but with the change re-models formerly being impassable terrain, the greater view has changed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Nos essentially quoted a rule and you said he's wrong.

Untrue.
He did far more than quote a rule, that is clear if you would but read without blinkers.
He said anywhere is anywhere and demanded a restriction.
Restriction found.

Even he didn't defend himself, you defended him saying he was right.
Shortly after he broaches this point again, but this time it looks like this ...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Anywhere (minus explicit restrictions) is generally considered to mean exactly that.

Funny how that has changed, isn't it? Why has he felt the need to change what he previously thought to be true?
You know, the exact point I was criticising him about???
He was asking for a restriction he thought was not there, it is.
He knows he's wrong, ^ that is a cloaked admission, thank-you.

 Bausk wrote:

Also good to see it's about the time that you fallback on callimg strawman on every generalized thread based statement. Can't wait for the next step of your argument procedure where you repeatedly post an ultimatum to concede and refuse to address any counter claims.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
So instead of using an actual rule that doesn't apply you made up a rule similar to WMS that allows you to hypothetically place the model. Thanks for clearing that up Nos. List your post as how you would play it next time rather than claiming made up rules are RAW.

Also good to see it's about the time that you fallback on callimg strawman on every generalized thread based statement. Can't wait for the next step of your argument procedure where you repeatedly post an ultimatum to concede and refuse to address any counter claims.

#

personalized attacks on people go against the forum rules for YMDC.

@bausk.
This is proof that the truth is no defence.

 Bausk wrote:
Read base as in the slot base a model is on and the base of the hull, I said bottom of the vehicle to be clearer.

models are also defined before the phase break down. Units are defined in their own section, specific models are also defined in their own section.

Basic v advanced =/= rules never interact. In this case the definition of what a model amd unit is applys as much as any other section in the rule book.

There is permission tp place the lead model anywhere on the table (read as anywhere on the distinct playable area) yes. But this is not the same as permission to place the lead model on top of another model or unit.

My point with vehicles not having a RAW expressly defined top and base (bottome of the hull) but it being blatant RAI unwritten is that it's similar to my argument.

While it's not expressly spelled out that you can't place a model ontop of another model or unit it's blatant that its not possible to do so physically. And unlike WMS and its exception for terrain there is no exception listed anywhere in all of 40k allowing a model to be placed on top of abother model or unit that is active/alive.

The table (read as playable area) is not defined as far as I'm aware but as models are and nowhere in thier definition or description are there defined as the table are not the table obviously.

So they are by extension not an applicable location by definition.

but yet you are altering the wording of the rules to suite your purpose.

self editing a rule with a 'read as' is substituting the rule as written with your personal interpretation, i.e. you enter the how you would play it.

note that at no point have I ever said that it utilises the WMS rule, as there is not a need to, the hypothetical placement is a matter of courtesy, but we seem to end up in an endless cycle that your digging your heels in to circumvent the placement of a model, the fact is that there still is no explicitly stated rule to say you cannot place upon another unit as permission has already been given for anywhere to literally mean anywhere on the table and there is no preventative placement, if I wanted to I could place my deepstrike point on impassable terrain, it will result in mishap if I roll a hit, there is no real difference in the matter in terms of how the rule works and functions, placement will not result in a mishap but the final location does, this is the important part of the rule.

you still have not answered the question I ask of why do you care this much about someone wanting to force a mishap upon themselves as being a problem with the rule.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@fuusa you have appeared to have skipped over the last couple of posts and dredged up a few older ones, please view my previous post where I explain the process that is involved.

also to address a couple of your posts, your taking a view of my posts out of context, my point is still valid in that the deep strike rule is a self contained rule that needs to be satisfied in its own error correction process before external rules interfere, this is the fundamentals of how basic vs advanced works

No, he just was tired of being attacked for no reason.
He demanded a restriction in the context of the discussion.
I have "but read without blinders".
I'm done with this because it's technically off topic.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Read base as in the slot base a model is on and the base of the hull, I said bottom of the vehicle to be clearer.

models are also defined before the phase break down. Units are defined in their own section, specific models are also defined in their own section.

Basic v advanced =/= rules never interact. In this case the definition of what a model amd unit is applys as much as any other section in the rule book.

There is permission tp place the lead model anywhere on the table (read as anywhere on the distinct playable area) yes. But this is not the same as permission to place the lead model on top of another model or unit.

My point with vehicles not having a RAW expressly defined top and base (bottome of the hull) but it being blatant RAI unwritten is that it's similar to my argument.

While it's not expressly spelled out that you can't place a model ontop of another model or unit it's blatant that its not possible to do so physically. And unlike WMS and its exception for terrain there is no exception listed anywhere in all of 40k allowing a model to be placed on top of abother model or unit that is active/alive.

The table (read as playable area) is not defined as far as I'm aware but as models are and nowhere in thier definition or description are there defined as the table are not the table obviously.

So they are by extension not an applicable location by definition.

but yet you are altering the wording of the rules to suite your purpose.

self editing a rule with a 'read as' is substituting the rule as written with your personal interpretation, i.e. you enter the how you would play it.

note that at no point have I ever said that it utilises the WMS rule, as there is not a need to, the hypothetical placement is a matter of courtesy, but we seem to end up in an endless cycle that your digging your heels in to circumvent the placement of a model, the fact is that there still is no explicitly stated rule to say you cannot place upon another unit as permission has already been given for anywhere to literally mean anywhere on the table and there is no preventative placement, if I wanted to I could place my deepstrike point on impassable terrain, it will result in mishap if I roll a hit, there is no real difference in the matter in terms of how the rule works and functions, placement will not result in a mishap but the final location does, this is the important part of the rule.

you still have not answered the question I ask of why do you care this much about someone wanting to force a mishap upon themselves as being a problem with the rule.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@fuusa you have appeared to have skipped over the last couple of posts and dredged up a few older ones, please view my previous post where I explain the process that is involved.

also to address a couple of your posts, your taking a view of my posts out of context, my point is still valid in that the deep strike rule is a self contained rule that needs to be satisfied in its own error correction process before external rules interfere, this is the fundamentals of how basic vs advanced works

I love it when trying to explain something people seem to focus on irrelevance and miss context. I am not altering the wording of the rules, I was generalizing the term base, then thought that might confuse people so I then referred to the base of the hull as the bottom later in the post. I did not say you are using WMS. I referenced WMS in my previous post, if you followed the context, to point out that you don't have permission to place a model in a location that is occupied by another model. Impassable terrain is different as you are legally able to place models on terrain, there are even exceptions for such an allowance with impassable terrain funnily enough. No such allowance is ever granted for models/units.

Lets go over a few points.

* I don't contest that the model may be placed anywhere on the Table. It's reasonable to assume that 'The Table' refers to the playable area within the confines of the 'Table edge' (as per falling back and reserve walk on's etc) including terrain while allowing for all relevant exceptions.

* Models and units are defined and described thought the rule book. In none of these definitions are they identified as being; The table, terrain or otherwise able to be stacked on top of each others bases or hulls of active models (not wrecked) at any point in a game.

* When scattering a vehicle you are not permitted to change the facing, this retroactively affects your initial placement requiring it to be on the base of its hull.

* You are asked to place the lead model anywhere on the Table. You are not asked to say that the lead model is in a roughly defined location and no such permission outside of WMS for terrain exists.

* Lack of express denial does not equate to permission.


And to answer your irrelevant question; Where WMS you can easily hold the model in place on the terrain piece to determine the location, something you are unable to achieve doing this ridiculous move. Which opens to perception differences, that are easily and often mistakenly exploited, in location and distance that you would not get with actually placing the model.

Bausk - reported for yet again attacking the poster.

Back on ignore

Fuusa - no, I wasnt wrong. Every "absolute" statement in a ruleset like this has to have (allowing for exceptions), because that is how the ruleset is constructed and extended. I am glad you get pleasure from irrelevancies.

So, "anywhere" meaning just that - anywhere (barring the exceptions listed) as it does in all normal rulesets - can anyone cite a rule stating you CANNOT then place it on top of another model?

Further refusal will be assumed to acceptance of the RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - reported for yet again attacking the poster.

Back on ignore

Fuusa - no, I wasnt wrong. Every "absolute" statement in a ruleset like this has to have (allowing for exceptions), because that is how the ruleset is constructed and extended. I am glad you get pleasure from irrelevancies.

So, "anywhere" meaning just that - anywhere (barring the exceptions listed) as it does in all normal rulesets - can anyone cite a rule stating you CANNOT then place it on top of another model?

Further refusal will be assumed to acceptance of the RAW.

But it does not say anywhere. It is a restricted statement.

It says anywhere on the table.

I'm sorry you don't seem to get what a table surface is... But that doesn't suddenly make models, or hovering in mid air, part of the table.

I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

Exactly the point steel. Just going to prewelcome you to Nos' ignore list now to save time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

Are forests and terrain part of the gaming surface?
Yes definately.

Are players units/models part of the gaming surface?
Nope.

Keep trying.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

Are forests and terrain part of the gaming surface?
Yes definately.

Are players units/models part of the gaming surface?
Nope.

Keep trying.

players units/models are not a part of the gaming surface, but the table under them is and as such is included in anywhere...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm sorry you dont get that that precludes placing the models within forests. According to your restricted definition of "the table"

Good job the context of "the table" actually talks about the entire gaming surface. Try again.

Are forests and terrain part of the gaming surface?
Yes definately.

Are players units/models part of the gaming surface?
Nope.

Keep trying.

players units/models are not a part of the gaming surface, but the table under them is and as such is included in anywhere...

Being a permissive rule set and all, you'll have to provide a direct quote stating that you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table.

Because there are tons of examples as to why this is not true. Fliers cant even be over the top of models and they in theory never come near the ground while flying around.

I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have [Move so that they finish with] their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

Fixed that for you with the red...

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

Quite a different situation than the Flyer issue, as you are not moving the DS, you are placing the model anywhere on the table...


(And the Flyer is not a perfect example, it in fact does not apply at all).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have [Move so that they finish with] their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

Fixed that for you with the red...

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

Quite a different situation than the Flyer issue, as you are not moving the DS, you are placing the model anywhere on the table...


(And the Flyer is not a perfect example, it in fact does not apply at all).

And no matter how much you try and discount it.... hovering a drop pod in the air over a units heads is not "on the table". even if you set it down in top of the unit its not "on the table".

Still waiting for any example of something being allowed on the game board on top of an enemy unit........

 insaniak wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
... as I'm sure the deepstriking rules will say that you're not allowed to place a deepstriking unit over another unit already on the table.

They don't.

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway..

No it doesn't

.

Actually IIRC the Mawloc states you move the models you want to appear under aside to place the Mawloc and it's base, moving the models a minimum distance of 1" from impassible terrain and maintaining coherency..

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have [Move so that they finish with] their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

Fixed that for you with the red...

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

Quite a different situation than the Flyer issue, as you are not moving the DS, you are placing the model anywhere on the table...


(And the Flyer is not a perfect example, it in fact does not apply at all).

And no matter how much you try and discount it.... hovering a drop pod in the air over a units heads is not "on the table". even if you set it down in top of the unit its not "on the table".

Still waiting for any example of something being allowed on the game board on top of an enemy unit........

The rules say to " place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" (36)

There is the permission...

On models, thier bases or their hull still isn't the table. Yes ypu have permission to place it on the table under those models but sadly without being able to actually place the model so it's only touching the table/terrain then you're not following the raw. unless you have permission to place on models, bases and hulls or or hypothetically place on them or even temporarily move those models bases and hulls thwn you're plumb out of luck.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said " you can place your models directly on top of enemy models because they are part of the gaming table. " re-read my post...

And you're still wrong.

Flyers are the PERFECT example... They are given permission to ignore all terrain on the table, yet still cant have [Move so that they finish with] their base "on top" of other models. Dangerous, difficult, impassible...they don't care. But models? Nope cant go there.

Fixed that for you with the red...

You are instructed to "Place your drop pod on the table...." or a single model in the case of other deep strikers. If your model doesn't fit and cant reach the gaming surface....too bad, find another location. Find a direct quote where its stated this can be a theoretical location hovering in mid air over another players models heads.

Quite a different situation than the Flyer issue, as you are not moving the DS, you are placing the model anywhere on the table...


(And the Flyer is not a perfect example, it in fact does not apply at all).

And no matter how much you try and discount it.... hovering a drop pod in the air over a units heads is not "on the table". even if you set it down in top of the unit its not "on the table".

Still waiting for any example of something being allowed on the game board on top of an enemy unit........

The rules say to " place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" (36)

There is the permission...

Yup. You sure got permission to place it on the table.

Now find where it says players models are "the table". In fact if "the table" is not a clear statement, when they mishap why dont I just place them on some one elses table? Its a table and they obviosly never said it had to be the game surface we are playing on, or you wouldnt be trying these hovering model shenanigans.

You are instructed to place it on the table. You are not given permission to move or touch the opponents model. If you can place a drop pod on top of an enemy unit with the drop pod on the table top, and without touching or moving the opponents models, I'd like to see it.

I dont need to find where it says "players models are "the table"" because I am putting the model on the table right where the opposing model is, but it just wont fit due to real lify physics. I have permission to place it so we take note of where it is and we are golden.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
You are instructed to place it on the table. You are not given permission to move or touch the opponents model. If you can place a drop pod on top of an enemy unit with the drop pod on the table top, and without touching or moving the opponents models, I'd like to see it.

I just did it, though I had to put the drop pod so the doors open towards the sky instead of fold out like a flower in a downward motion.

text removed.
Reds8n

I cited rules, the fact that you are Ignoring page 36 does not help your argument. (Therefore 1st graph not made up, it has actual rules support).

How is my second sentence " irrelevant and stoopid [Sic]"

Ah so you can't place your model where another model is and have to make up a rule similar to WMS that applies to models, so where is that in the rule book?

If that drop pod scatters I assume you're going to maintain its facing exactly and deploy it illegally upsidown or are you going to make up another rule so you can deploy it legally in its upright position?

 Bausk wrote:
If that drop pod scatters I assume you're going to maintain its facing exactly and deploy it illegally upsidown or are you going to make up another rule so you can deploy it legally in its upright position?

Hold on there, what rule tells you that the drop pod can not be in any position you wish it to be in?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
If that drop pod scatters I assume you're going to maintain its facing exactly and deploy it illegally upsidown or are you going to make up another rule so you can deploy it legally in its upright position?

Hold on there, what rule tells you that the drop pod can not be in any position you wish it to be in?

Do it at a tournament so a referee can boot you to the corner. There is TFG and then there is this. Vehicles are pretty rigid on their deployments, directions and firing arcs. It would be about like trying to argue that if I glue a 45 degree firing arc cannon to the side instead(Vindicator comes to mind.) I can now make a shot from side instead of front armor. Though I can't help but think of WHY I would want to do this except for maybe just to see if anyone tries to hand me a safety helmet.

But more on the subject at hand, I agree with the general consensus.

While it is silly to Deep Strike onto something unless you are DSing a Mawloc, it can be intentionally done but that does not mean the drop pod can rest there without mishap. The whole reason for the mishap table is a risk versus reward when trying to get that jihad unit or incrediably specialized death star to grips with its target. By negating the risk 100%, wheres the fun?

Sorry for all the edits...I really shouldn't post at 4 am.

No one said it could "rest there without mishap" it would mishap if it did not scatter far enough...

 DeathReaper wrote:
No one said it could "rest there without mishap" it would mishap if it did not scatter far enough...

The direct hit he is complaining about being unable to force to scatter from begs to differ.

Steel - so you have made up a distinction between the terrain and models? Despite all being considered a part of te table?

Cool story.

There's also no rule stating that models have to bestandin on thier base, by your implication we could lay the models on the side and play that way to avoid tlos. Good job reaper.

there's no rule stating that any model is to stand upright while active on the table (except laying one over to sinnify gtg) because players are not assumed to be morons. Again just because there is.no express denial does not mean you are permitted to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And tell Nos models are defined clearly thoughout the bpok and are never cited as being the table, terrain or any playable surface.

 Crimson wrote:
Why would anyone care either way? Is people intentionally mishapping their deep strikers some huge, commonly occurring problem, or what?

Its because someone is wrong on the internet.