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.

 Mywik wrote:
Im not arguing that point. I never did. The only thing I am arguing here is that deepstrike=/=misplaced result deployment. I provided rules support. You still failed to provide an answer to why deepstriking and misplacement deployment should be the same although their sequences differ largely per the RAW.

Thats funny, because I was replying to you when you said this to my previous point:

Bald Assertion Fallacy. I have shown multiple times why this sort of thinking is not within the spirit of the game or the spirit of the rules. I have explained the process of actually placing your model on the table and not on top of anybody elses models. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. End of story

You can write "End of Story" as often as you like but that doesnt make you right. You have shown nothing. You have shown how you think the rules should work and claimed this is the intent of the designers.

I can see it right now, it was in relation to the deep strike placement to begin with and not the mishap result but now you want to make a strawman and say that this explicit point was in regards to the other matter of being mishaped. Funny that, isn't it?

Any reason why you need to change the subject at hand and then say that you never argued that to begin with? Not to mention the mishap debate is only dependent if we argue to your version of the rules to begin with anyway.

Stop calling me "boy" and the like. Provide rules that support your position and leave the insults at home. Thank you.

I didn't call you a boy. I was using a figure of speech. I actually said "Boy you keep racking those up don't you?". If I was to say "Boy Glasgow Rangers really played rubbish at the weekend", then this doesn't mean I am calling the person I am talking to a boy. Its an expression of surprise like gosh or golly is and its the manner in which I meant it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't think he meant "boy" as an insult - more of a "Boy howdy is this cool." instead of directly addressing you.

Culture mishmash.

Correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:
Misplacement has rules how to treat the misplaced models. If you want to Break them. Fine.

I don't break them, thats the point. Using your version of the deep strike rules you can break them though. This is because you don't consider deployment to happen until after the deepstrike is settled and not during the deep strike.

You werd arguing that if One can Place Models over Enemy Models You can also Place them over enemY Models After Suffering misplacement results to Force a Different result.
I have shown that misplacement isnt following the Same rules as initial deepstrike.

Why Are You Not following the rules for misplaced but the deepstrike rules After Suffering misplacement? You still didnt answer that question.

 Mywik wrote:
You werd arguing that if One can Place Models over Enemy Models You can also Place them over enemY Models After Suffering misplacement results to Force a Different result.
I have shown that misplacement isnt following the Same rules as initial deepstrike.

Even after I quoted what you said in relation to the specific point that I said you are still arguing. I wouldn't normally mind but it was you who first accussed me of derailing and going off topic first. Once again I will remind you what you said:

Im not arguing that point. I never did. The only thing I am arguing here is that deepstrike=/=misplaced result deployment. I provided rules support. You still failed to provide an answer to why deepstriking and misplacement deployment should be the same although their sequences differ largely per the RAW.

This is what you said and it was in reply to a point I made about the initial placement of the deep strike. Which was thus:

Bald Assertion Fallacy. I have shown multiple times why this sort of thinking is not within the spirit of the game or the spirit of the rules. I have explained the process of actually placing your model on the table and not on top of anybody elses models. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. End of story

You can write "End of Story" as often as you like but that doesnt make you right. You have shown nothing. You have shown how you think the rules should work and claimed this is the intent of the designers.

To also point out that I was only arguing that you could place a unit over another unit with a mishap in accordance to your own defintion on how the deepstrike rules work. This is because you argued that deployment does not happen until after the deep strike is resolved and not during the deep strike.

Your new position here indicates that you believe that deployment happens during deep strike. If this is the case then you do not have permission to enter within 1" during the deep strike rules to begin with and thus cannot target another unit for your intial location of deep strike.

And you did indeed argue all this because as you said earlier on:

You practically concessing your point and still claiming you would pack up your models over someone trying to play by the rules is telling.

When I said I would pack up my models instead of playing that person it was if they were to try deep striking on top of my unit. This statement here confirms that you believe that they are playing within the rules. Thus you were arguing the point that you claim you were not arguing to begin with.

Why Are You Not following the rules for misplaced but the deepstrike rules After Suffering misplacement? You still didnt answer that question.

I did answer it. I answered it plenty of times. It says I can place the unit anywhere on the table. Arriving by deep strike is still arriving by deep strike even if you mishap and even if you get a misplaced result. Now considering that you don't consider deployment to happen until after deep strike then surely this means I can place the unit where I want before deployment begins. If not, then you are arguing that deployment occurs during deep strike and thus the deployment limitations occur at the same time and that you cannot place the unit within another 1" of another unit.

So which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it. If I can't place the unit over another unit during a misplacement then why is this? Surely by your logic the deployment doesn't happen until after the unit is placed on the table.

Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table (excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult) terrain, which of course counts as dangerous for deepstriking units), in a valid Deep Strike formation,but without rolling for scatter.

If you are deploying them on other models are you able to deploy them in a valid deepstrike formation?

Is the same sentence of having them deployed in a valid deepstrike formation part of the placement rules for deepstrike?

Okay, again. Im not trying to validate that you can place the initial deepstriker over other models. And i never did. I tried to argue that initial deepstrike and misplacement follow different rules and that your comment that allowing this tactic would result in being able to do the same while deploying for misplacement and force another DS Mishap roll is not true. No matter how you rule the initial placement rule - the misplacement rules prevent this exact tactic even if initial deepstrike wouldnt prevent it.


To account for the other question. No, the models are not deployed in the first step of arriving by deep strike. RAW they are placed.

You know what would further bolster this enlightening discussion? Some pictures of for example a drop pod placed on top of a unit (full of models). A drop pod placed upside down on a unit, and one placed on its side on top of a unit. Just to show everyone what we are discussing in this thread that so far is completely absent of personal attacks etc. Also throw in pictures of that first model you place (anywhere on the table in the position youd like it to end up on) on another model in a unit (without using WMS which is only good for terrain). A yup some visual aids would be cool for this type of deployment.

 Bausk wrote:
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 [Rules] reaper.

Fixed that for you with the red...

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..

There is no basis for the Text I underlined above, you can not possibly know that...

Fact is they do not say word 1 about the orientation of the models, just that you need to deploy them onto the table.

Since there is permission to deploy and no restrictions about orientation, the models can be in any orientation that the players wish which is following the RAW. the only time it tells you you can not place a model on its side is when a vehicle is wrecked.

FYI GTG does not have the line about laying models down anymore, that was 5th ed, it tells you to place a marker by the unit.

Darth - please follow the tenets. Dont post dictionary definitions, when people are using the contextually defined "table" correctly. Thanks.

I find the irony of you literally arguing semantics, while decrying others for...arguing semantics...quite amusing.

Deploy != Place. You cannot mishap trom this, and proof was given. I dont feel like continualy repeating myself for your benefit alone.

PLay by whatever hosuerule you want, I'm done attempting to debate this.

 Mywik wrote:

Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table (excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult) terrain, which of course counts as dangerous for deepstriking units), in a valid Deep Strike formation,but without rolling for scatter.

If you are deploying them on other models are you able to deploy them in a valid deepstrike formation?

According to you, yes. This is because deep strike is a deployment. The rulebook also says this

Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows

Thus confirming that deep strike is a deployment. If what you say is correct and you cannot place a unit on top of another unit because its not a valid deep strike deployment, then you cannot target another unit to begin with.

Is the same sentence of having them deployed in a valid deepstrike formation part of the placement rules for deepstrike?

Yes. The same is indicated for deep strike as well, which you continually ignored by reasoning that deployment happens after deep strike and not during it. The deep strike rules say "deploy them as follows" which means the bullet points after it are part of deployment.

Okay, again. Im not trying to validate that you can place the initial deepstriker over other models. And i never did. I tried to argue that initial deepstrike and misplacement follow different rules and that your comment that allowing this tactic would result in being able to do the same while deploying for misplacement and force another DS Mishap roll is not true. No matter how you rule the initial placement rule - the misplacement rules prevent this exact tactic even if initial deepstrike wouldnt prevent it.

And you quote mined the rulebook and disregarded that the bullet points laid out are the rules for deploying a deep strike.

To account for the other question. No, the models are not deployed in the first step of arriving by deep strike. RAW they are placed.

The rulebook disagrees with you. It says the following once again:

Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows

What follows this are the bullet points to place the models indicating that this is part of deployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - please follow the tenets. Dont post dictionary definitions, when people are using the contextually defined "table" correctly. Thanks.

You're not defining table correctly.

I find the irony of you literally arguing semantics, while decrying others for...arguing semantics...quite amusing.

The semantics being argued are being argued on your side alone I'm afraid. I am not being semantic about the fact that you can't place your models over my models and then call that putting them on the table.

Deploy != Place. You cannot mishap trom this, and proof was given. I dont feel like continualy repeating myself for your benefit alone.

And yet the rulebook disagrees with you as it says the following:

Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows:

First, place one model from the unit.......................

It specifically says that placing the models in that fashion is part of the deployment, yet you want to argue that its not and that deployment must happen after the deep strike is resolved.

PLay by whatever hosuerule you want, I'm done attempting to debate this.

No, I am actually playing by the proper rules. You are the one using a house rule as clear as daylight.

Deep strike rules are clear. He would have to place one. Model on the table then roll for scatter. Since he said he was placing it on top of your models it was an illegal ploy.


Thread done.

While I agree that technically it is allowed to place on top of a model, I do believe it is an exploit of the rules.

The easiest way to solve this is to just ask games workshop.

Hahahahaha I would love to see GWs reaction to you asking them seriously if you can have a model laying down or upside down while in play. That's classic.

I In all honesty Reaper would you really play like that? Actually I don't think I want to know.

So good to see no one has come up with a citation that models are a playable surface, part of the table or specific allowance to be used as such yet. Let alone anything to back up their claim that modela, bases and hulls are part of the table.

I'll just let that rest until someone says somethong relevant.

 Bausk wrote:
Hahahahaha I would love to see GWs reaction to you asking them seriously if you can have a model laying down or upside down while in play. That's classic.

I In all honesty Reaper would you really play like that? Actually I don't think I want to know.

So good to see no one has come up with a citation that models are a playable surface, part of the table or specific allowance to be used as such yet. Let alone anything to back up their claim that modela, bases and hulls are part of the table.

I'll just let that rest until someone says somethong relevant.

As I said, models are not the game surface, but under them is...


Also, I have a few models that are laying down, why is this an issue? Here is a pic:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1070135

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Hahahahaha I would love to see GWs reaction to you asking them seriously if you can have a model laying down or upside down while in play. That's classic.

I In all honesty Reaper would you really play like that? Actually I don't think I want to know.

So good to see no one has come up with a citation that models are a playable surface, part of the table or specific allowance to be used as such yet. Let alone anything to back up their claim that modela, bases and hulls are part of the table.

I'll just let that rest until someone says somethong relevant.

As I said, models are not the game surface, but under them is...


Also, I have a few models that are laying down, why is this an issue? Here is a pic:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1070135

I believe you may be misinterpreting his statement. Laying down in this case isn't be referred to as a model molded in a laying position, but instead placing your model sideways or any other orientation instead of its base, reducing its LoS.

EDIT: Example
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Cbp1l9py0o/UlybIUdF1VI/AAAAAAAAR8k/RPh49tGshX8/s1600/6.2.1+a+%28600x800%29.jpg

 Nilok wrote:
I believe you may be misinterpreting his statement. Laying down in this case isn't be referred to as a model molded in a laying position, but instead placing your model sideways or any other orientation instead of its base, reducing its LoS.

EDIT: Example
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Cbp1l9py0o/UlybIUdF1VI/AAAAAAAAR8k/RPh49tGshX8/s1600/6.2.1+a+%28600x800%29.jpg

Those models don't need LOS. They are sleeping.

That model is in its upright position, not layed down on its side.

And I agree with you that the surface under the models is the table, I stated as such a few posts ago. But to place your model on it there can be no obstruction, like another model for instance. As you have no permission to place your model on another model, base or hull or specific allowance to count these as the table....you....can...not....place....it.

I really can't make this any clearer.

Oh jeez I don't know if I really want to get involved in this but what the heck haha!

I'm really just confused as to how "First, place one model anywhere on the table, in the position that you would like for it to arrive..." can mean anything other than physically placing a model on the table.

It doesn't say "indicate a point on the table." or "you may place the model several inches above the table" or even "you may place a model and then remove it before it scatters".

I kinda get where the anywhere on the table view may indicate the table below a model, however the "not within 1" " law seems to negate that quite well.

My interpretation atleast is that units can be placed more than an inch away and scatter ontop of an enemy but not intentionally placed.( where the drop pod guidance system would come in to prevent). Though why would anybody want to place it on top of other models and risk the mishap?

Darth -I'm not defining it, the rulebook does. Your definition of "table" has no bearing on the game, and breaks the forum tenets.

Strombones, the rules say you must place the initail model on the table, correct?

Can I choose to attempt to DS onto a battlement? Why or why not?

 Bausk wrote:
That model is in its upright position, not layed down on its side.

And I agree with you that the surface under the models is the table, I stated as such a few posts ago. But to place your model on it there can be no obstruction, like another model for instance. As you have no permission to place your model on another model, base or hull or specific allowance to count these as the table....you....can...not....place....it.

I really can't make this any clearer.

And your not allowed to lay models on their side? Citation needed.

I don't see anywhere in the rules that say you must place the model with the base on the table or terrain pieces.

Please cite a page that disallows me to have my entire army doing handstands with their bases in the air. I can find the relevant sentence if you give me the page number.

That's the point there is none. Though I douby anyone would take someone that does that seriously. As much as mfa get thrown around these forums someone who doesn't know better could be forgiven for assuming it was a rule. Both are a gaming convection based on assmed intent or simple common sense.

Still waiting on anyone's citation on models, bases and hulls being the table, playable surfaces or having an allowance to treat them as such. Or at the very least a citation allowing you to count them as they are not there (aside from jump infanty and movement etc).

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Theres no permission to deepstrike in my rulebook. Theres permission to deploy but no permission to deepstrike.

Then what rule are you using to deploy? What gives you permission to deploy in the middle of the table without scattering because apparently according to you its not the deep strike rule that gives you this permission. If you are not using the deep strike rule to do it then the deep strike rules do not apply to you deploying the unit and thus you cannot deploy said unit in such a manner.

If you happen to have a misplaced result - why are you following the deepstrike and not the "misplaced" rules.

Where are the misplaced rules? They wouldn't happen to be on the deep strike mishap table under the deep strike rules by any chance would they? A model arriving by a mishap is still using the deep strike rule to do so, you cannot mishap in the first place unless you are using the deep strike rule to deploy and only models with the deep strike rule can mishap in the first place.

You are still arriving from deep strike, because you are still using the deep strike rule to make your deployment. The mishap table is part of the deep strike rules and doesn't even get used unless you are arriving from deep strike. This much is abundantly clear.

This is like claiming that just because you crashed and burned after being intercepted with your flyer then this didn't mean that you used the flyer rules to enter from reserve. You still used the flyer rules to enter from reserve, the same way that a misplaced unit is still using the deep strike rules to enter from reserve. They are deep striking, they are just not deep striking where they want to deep strike.

The point was to show, that because you don't consider deployment to occur until after deep strike occurs, this means that when a mishap occurs the deployment is not done until the location of the deep strike is picked. So this means that using your logic, you can choose another unit for the location of the misplacement, since this happens before deployment and that this can be on another unit.

Your refusal to accept this point actually shows that you don't consider deployment to be resolved after the deep strike rule. You consider deployment to occur during the deep strike rule.

The book more than certainly tells you to. If misplaced is using "deepstrike" why is the paragraph not referring to it and instead tells you a different sequence, with different wording?

Why are telling me to deploy while I am using the deepstrike rule? Does this mean you don't consider deployment to happen after the deep strike rule but during it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

He did. But i'll happily repeat it. The misplaced result tells you exactly how to treat models that suffered a "misplaced" result which is different to the deepstrike rules and doesnt involve scattering or rolling on the mishap table (which are not the only differences to deepstrike).

So are you telling me that a deployment and deep strike happen at the same time? The models are arriving from deep strike reserve, the misplaced result doesn't change this and yet you are also telling me that I cannot place the unit over another unit to cause a mishap because I have to deploy said unit. Thus you are equating arriving from deep strike and deployment to happen at the same time. This goes against your argument that deployment happens after deep strike and therefore you can ignore deployment limitations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
As provided above. Intention does not rquire you to discuss with the person what they intended. You can use something called common sense, logic, design basics, etc, etc, to work out an intention.

In general, maybe. Specific to GW - no, you can't. They've FAQed the opposite of what they wrote many many times, and have changed rules multiple times with an FAQ.

When did they change the rules for being to place your model on top of another? Let me help you out here. They didn't.

your expressed opinions demonstrate a lack of proper understanding regarding cause and effect. Specifically that the effect is not the same as the cause.

A Bolter shot may cause a S4 hit but that does not mean a S4 hit is a bolter shot.
A deepstrike may cause a mishap but that does not mean a mishap is a deep strike.

Your arguments also seem to leap about from RAW to RAI to HYWPI as if they were the same debate. They are not so please stop trying to use RAI or HYWPI to counter RAW arguments because it only make you look silly... as if you had not read the tenets of the forum.

Also your posts seem quite hostile and as this is a forum for debate, not angry ranting. I'd suggest a calmer tone in your comments so that people can see your posts as someone trying to make a logical point as opposed to the ravings of an angry internet person.

 Happyjew wrote:
Strombones, the rules say you must place the initail model on the table, correct?

Can I choose to attempt to DS onto a battlement? Why or why not?

My answer would be yes as it is not an enemy model that is subject to the "models in the way" sub paragraph (pg.10) that reads "a model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the assault phase".

If a unit is deep striking onto a piece of neutral terrain i think this would be allowed because of the following. First line in the battlement paragraph (pg. 95) that reads, "many buildings have flat roofs that can accommodate units- we refer to these as battlements". Ofcourse this would be followed by a dangerous terrain test.

If we are making a distinction between "deploy" and "move", the BRB goes on to say that units can "deploy on the battlements, just as deploying inside the building (pg. 95)" albeit this is in your own deployment zone. Counter point being that drop pods are legally allowed to deploy outside of their deployment zones anyhow. We also know that units may move across, onto, or off of battlements because of the leap down from the battlements rule, as well as moving on or off battlements thru the building.

Now if the argument comes to ask if deep strike onto battlements is questionable because said battlements are raised up off the table and thus technically not part of the table then I would ask this. Are you legally allowed to move models onto battlements, physically placing them ontop of bastions and such. The answer is yes. Are you ever allowed to place the base of a model whereas it is suspended in the air?

Furthermore, if it may be argued that enemy fortifications are also enemy models that may be subject to the 1" rule because they are purchased in the FOC. The following paragraph would disagree. "Units can never deploy inside an enemy fortification, nor can they use in game abilities (like scout redeployment) to embark in enemy fortifications before the first turn begins. Once the game begins, units are free to move into or out of any fortifications, friendly or enemy, following the normal rules (pg. 121)"

So you can move into and on fortifications. You can move into or on enemy fortifications. You cannot move through, on, under, or within 1" of an enemy model unless it is the assault phase.

Anyway that's my two cents! My intention is not to ruffle feathers!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uh oh! Just found something to contradict myself haha.

In reference to "placing"...from Blast & Large Blast special rules pg. 33.

"When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and PLACE the relevant blast market with it hole entirely over the base of the target model"....and the scatter like deep strike.

And we all know we never "place" blast markers on the table!

Ok enough 40k research for the night! I feel like a games-workshop grad student right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry. This could also read the other way. As in "place the blast marker OVER the base of a target." clear difference being on the table and over. Ok seriously I'm done.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth -I'm not defining it, the rulebook does. Your definition of "table" has no bearing on the game, and breaks the forum tenets.

OK, show me where the rulebook defines the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:


your expressed opinions demonstrate a lack of proper understanding regarding cause and effect. Specifically that the effect is not the same as the cause.

Despite the fact that the wording used is the same. I can place it anywhere on the table and it needs to be in a deep strike formation. That's the point. What part of the mishap do they disagree with? Also the mishap rules are in the deep strike section of the book and the models are still arriving using the deep strike rules. This is abundantly clear.

Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table (excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult) terrain, which of course counts as dangerous for deepstriking units), in a valid Deep Strike formation,but without rolling for scatter.

Lets go through it shall we.

"Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table (excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult) terrain" - As argued by some people this also means you can place the models over other models.

"(excluding impassable and lethal terrain, but including difficult) terrain, which of course counts as dangerous for deepstriking units)" - This bit here confirms that they are arriving by deep strike as it mentions difficult terrain is dangerous for a deepstriking unit. Why mention it if they are not arriving by deep strike?

"in a valid Deep Strike formation" - This refers to the second bullet point where one model is placed and the rest are placed around the first in base contact. It has already been argued by some that placing a model over another model is ok so I don't see how this denies it.

A Bolter shot may cause a S4 hit but that does not mean a S4 hit is a bolter shot.

Unless that S4 hit is under the bolter profile of the rulebook. Then it does specifically in that instance refer to a S4 bolter hit.

A deepstrike may cause a mishap but that does not mean a mishap is a deep strike.

And where is the mishap table? And to quote its full name is it not called THE DEEPSTRIKE mishap table?

I have underlined, capitalised and bolded the important parts for you.

Your arguments also seem to leap about from RAW to RAI to HYWPI as if they were the same debate. They are not so please stop trying to use RAI or HYWPI to counter RAW arguments because it only make you look silly... as if you had not read the tenets of the forum.

You don't get to tell me what to do. The arguments laid out have been perfectly clear if you don't agree with me then I don't care. I'm not the one who wants to find easter egg loop holes in the rules on this. If you think that GW meant for you to physically place you model on top of your opponents models in the game, potentially breaking them in the process then that is your problem and not mine.

Also your posts seem quite hostile and as this is a forum for debate, not angry ranting. I'd suggest a calmer tone in your comments so that people can see your posts as someone trying to make a logical point as opposed to the ravings of an angry internet person.

I have been no more confrontational than the others in this thread and I stand by that. Also stop reading into my comments that I am some sort of angry internet person just because I disagree with you and your assumptions on the rules. Oh yes, I must be angry to ever have to disagree with you. Because only angry people would disagree with you. Give me a break.

 DarthOvious wrote:

A deepstrike may cause a mishap but that does not mean a mishap is a deep strike.

And where is the mishap table? And to quote its full name is it not called THE DEEPSTRIKE mishap table?

I have underlined, capitalised and bolded the important parts for you.

Yes and the deepstrike mishap table doesnt let you deepstrike the unit again if you happen to have a misplaced result. The circumstances and requirements as well as restrictions are not the same. You cant deny that possibly.


Again what about the question if deepstriking onto a battlement would be okay. Since its (according to you) not part of the table.

 DarthOvious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth -I'm not defining it, the rulebook does. Your definition of "table" has no bearing on the game, and breaks the forum tenets.

OK, show me where the rulebook defines the table.

Page 119-121 clearly uses the words Table/Battlefield/Game Board to mean the same thing = The surface you are playing the game upon (Including the terrain).

Good work reaper, now does it include models, bases and hulls on those pages?

 Mywik wrote:

Yes and the deepstrike mishap table doesnt let you deepstrike the unit again if you happen to have a misplaced result. The circumstances and requirements as well as restrictions are not the same. You cant deny that possibly.

The rules used are the same rules you are using in the first place. This is not denied. It says that I can place the unit anywhere on the table. What section of the rulebook are you using to deny that I can do this but retain that you're allowed to place the unit over another unit in the first place. The answer is none. And there is none because you have already discounted any possible rules that can do this.

1) You denied that a unit =/= table in order to place your deepstriking unit over another unit in the first place.

2) You claimed that the 1" restriction was for movement only.

3) You claimed that you could point to the table and say "there" even if you can't place the model because of other units.

4) You claimed that the deployment didn't happen until after the deep strike happens despite the fact the rulebook calls deep strike a deployment.

So I ask once again. What rule are you using to prevent this that still retains you to place the unit over another unit to begin with?

Again what about the question if deepstriking onto a battlement would be okay. Since its (according to you) not part of the table.

Since the rulebook mentions you can do it. The rulebook however doesn't say you can deepstrike on another unit. I agree that on initial reading that terrain would not appear to be included but the rulebook gives specific mentions that it allowed to be done. It does not however give specific mention to deep striking on another unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth -I'm not defining it, the rulebook does. Your definition of "table" has no bearing on the game, and breaks the forum tenets.

OK, show me where the rulebook defines the table.

Page 119-121 clearly uses the words Table/Battlefield/Game Board to mean the same thing = The surface you are playing the game upon (Including the terrain).

Thank You. Any specific mention on models being part of the table?

For 3), that isnt what they said. I *can* place a model on top of other model. The "point" is a sensible compromise, to avoid issues. You keep ignoring this. Dont.
4) You are ignoring WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE the unit to arrive. Until you resolve scatter, and any mishap, the unit HAS NOT ARRIVED. Stop ignoring rules.

 DarthOvious wrote:

1) You denied that a unit =/= table in order to place your deepstriking unit over another unit in the first place.

2) You claimed that the 1" restriction was for movement only.

3) You claimed that you could point to the table and say "there" even if you can't place the model because of other units.

4) You claimed that the deployment didn't happen until after the deep strike happens despite the fact the rulebook calls deep strike a deployment.

So I ask once again. What rule are you using to prevent this that still retains you to place the unit over another unit to begin with?

1. I didnt
2. I didnt - but i do now as its true.
3. I didnt
4. I did and backed it up with rules.

Your question: The fact that the misplacement result needs you to deploy in a valid deepstrike formation and the fact you dont have permission to place units. As stated several times.