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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Yes, that is what you said but there is no rule that allows to do this. The rule does not give you speciifc permission to point to a location on the table in order to place it.

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.

I'm not ignoring anything. The issue is you can't place the model on another model. It needs to be placed on the table. You are the one ignoring rules.

 DarthOvious] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Yes, that is what you said but there is no rule that allows to do this. The rule does not give you speciifc permission to point to a location on the table in order to place it.

Ah, apparently you keep missing the phrase "compromise";; that usually involves altering the written rule to something you both agree on, in game, as allowed by the rulebook. I have pointed out the actual rule, which is that I can place it on your models. If you wish to play strict rules - and you seem to want to - then you will have no issue with this. If you wish to compromise, that is not a problem. I have stated this a number of times, you just keep on missing it.

To reiterate: we are not stating this is a written rule. We havent done.

DarthOvious wrote:

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.

I'm not ignoring anything. The issue is you can't place the model on another model. It needs to be placed on the table. You are the one ignoring rules.

No, you are stating that misplaced "deploy" is the same as deepstrike "place", because they both end up as deployed. Dont try to avoid that mistake you made by attempting to change the subject. Accept this mistake, and move on.

 Mywik wrote:

1. I didnt

Fair enough, poor choice of words. I will change to say that it was claimed by some people.

2. I didnt - but i do now as its true.

OK, so you argue this now?

3. I didnt

Fair enough, poor choice of words. I will change to say that it was claimed by some people.

4. I did and backed it up with rules.

Did you? I must have missed it because I didn't see you back it up with any rules. I however showed that deep strike was a deployment and that placing the models were part of the deployment.

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.

So I place one model down and then I place the other models in a concentric circle around the first and I do this over another unit. Please tell me again how this stops me from placing the unit over another unit. It only says that the formation needs to be valid. It does not say that the location needs to be valid. So again, what rule is being used to deny that i can do this without denying the deployment of deep strike over another unit in the first place?

If you are going to argue that you deploy a unit over another one for deep strike, then your opponent can do the same in the case of a misplaced result. There is nothing that stops the latter without stopping the former.

Darth - agaain, this is what you keep missing

The first part of DS is placing the model where you would like the unit to arrive; this must mean the unit has not arrived. Indeed, it cannot "arrive", and be deployed, until after you resolve scatter and any mishap.

This is different to being deployed in a valid formation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DarthOvious] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Yes, that is what you said but there is no rule that allows to do this. The rule does not give you speciifc permission to point to a location on the table in order to place it.

Ah, apparently you keep missing the phrase "compromise";; that usually involves altering the written rule to something you both agree on, in game, as allowed by the rulebook. I have pointed out the actual rule, which is that I can place it on your models. If you wish to play strict rules - and you seem to want to - then you will have no issue with this. If you wish to compromise, that is not a problem. I have stated this a number of times, you just keep on missing it.

And I have stated multiple times that you cannot place your model on top of my models. It needs to be placed on the table. Table=/= models. Also table =/= model and table either. You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. The rulebook does not give you this permission.

To reiterate: we are not stating this is a written rule. We havent done.

Right, but you're going to argue for it anyway despite the fact that it is clearly not RAI.

No, you are stating that misplaced "deploy" is the same as deepstrike "place", because they both end up as deployed. Dont try to avoid that mistake you made by attempting to change the subject. Accept this mistake, and move on.

The rulebook explicitely says that deep strike is a deployment. It also explicitely state that the placing of the first model is part of the actual deployment. This is abundantly clear yet you want to deny it. Once I will quote the rule book for this.

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.......................

The placement of the first model is part of the deployment as made abundantly clear by the rule book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - agaain, this is what you keep missing

Not missing anything.

The first part of DS is placing the model where you would like the unit to arrive; this must mean the unit has not arrived. Indeed, it cannot "arrive", and be deployed, until after you resolve scatter and any mishap.

And yet the rulebook explictely says it is part of deployment.

This is different to being deployed in a valid formation.

Formation meaning placing the models in base contact around the first one in a concentric circle, as noted by bullet point two.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
@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.

I took saturday off to watch the world cup and drink beer, Sunday and monday was ill.

If there's something specific, then help yourself and say so, in catch up mode.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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?

In that case, check out the answers I have given previously to this exact question, you must have missed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Further refusal will be assumed to acceptance of the RAW.

Further refusal of what?
Your question above and this, conflate to a nonsense.

First you need to find the answers that I have actually given, find a refusal, then find a further refusal.

Your ultimatums are empty (hey Bausk, not really a difficult prediction).


One thing though, being away for a while is good for clarity, I think.

Deep strike is deploying, surely no-one still thinks otherwise?

When a unit becomes available, that has to deep strike (you declared it would, special rules apply) and you choose to deploy that unit, you are now deploying the unit.
Place a model on the table.
This is a cast iron rule and must be seen to be done.

My opinion of that is that it is fine to house rule that a marker of some kind is fine.

The divergence of opinion here, is that this "marker" model, say a coin can be placed on the table, possibly even if it can't be (crowded unit below) physically placed.
Another side requires this "marker", even if it is a coin, to only be placed on the table if it really was representative of the size/shape of the model, not necessarily physically. In other words, though the coin is placed, we can only place the coin in a location on the table, where what it represents could be placed (a blood angels land raider, for eg).

The other side cites potentially broken models as reason enough to not place the actual model, which is fine, as that's part of why you can't place it there in the first place, along with no explicit permission to do so.

So, the model scatters and is placed, the unit has not deployed, it is still deploying.
DEploy by placing the rest of the models until all of the (surviving) models are on the board.
The unit has now fully deployed.

Alternatively, the unit scatters, the model cannot be deployed, the unit mishaps, the unit has not yet deployed.

Again, it may be possible that the model scatters, is placed, another "x" many are deployed, some cannot be = mishap.

Mishap 1 = that's it, deep strike over.
4-6 = on-going reserves.
2-3 = deep strike attempt continues, the rules have not run their course.

Misplaced.
Enemy deploys (note deploys) the unit anywhere on the table (except ... but including difficult terrain which of course counts as dangerous for deep striking units) ... valid formation, no scatter.

Clearly, misplaced is a deployment (deploy the unit), that is still deep striking, which is why we get the mention of dangerous terrain for deep striking units, because that's what this is, a deep striking unit.

Only when this unit is placed, that is fully deployed, will the deep strike rules have run their entire course.
Choose another unit to deploy.

 DarthOvious wrote:


So I place one model down and then I place the other models in a concentric circle around the first and I do this over another unit. Please tell me again how this stops me from placing the unit over another unit. It only says that the formation needs to be valid. It does not say that the location needs to be valid. So again, what rule is being used to deny that i can do this without denying the deployment of deep strike over another unit in the first place?

BRB pg. 36 says:

If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly rnodel, or on top of or within I " of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.

This quote talks about not being able to deploy because of being e.g. on another unit. Note at this point that the misplaced result requires you to deploy the unit. So your question is answered at this point. Because misplacement explicitly talks about valid deployment you can never place the unit legally on another unit. Absolutely undisputable.

To get this together:
Ive shown that misplaced requires legal deployment of the unit. Overlapping bases with another unit is explicitly forbidden while deploying for a valid deepstrike formation

This means even if you rule that initial deepstrike placement is legal on top of another unit you cant possibly deploy a unit that suffered misplaced in a position where it would mishap.

The fact that the deep strike rules are talking about placement instead of deployment could be an oversight or it could be intentional. I dont care either way tbh. If my opponent wants a 50% chance of his unit being useless or dead i'll let him do it.

Let me add thrawn's I shall not yield rule. It states when he comes back to play he must be 1" away from an enemy model or be moved 1"away from enemy models. It's not a movement but it takes place in the movement phase and still follows the 1" rule

 Mywik wrote:
BRB pg. 36 says:

If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly rnodel, or on top of or within I " of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.

Why does this paragraph stop me from deploying in such a manner using the misplaced rule?

This quote talks about not being able to deploy because of being e.g. on another unit. Note at this point that the misplaced result requires you to deploy the unit. So your question is answered at this point. Because misplacement explicitly talks about valid deployment you can never place the unit legally on another unit. Absolutely undisputable.

I have underlined and bolded the part where you are wrong. The rule book says this:

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.

A formation =/= a location

Nowhere does it say that I need to put the unit in a valid deployment. This is your mistake.

It does not say I have to place it in a valid location, it just says that it needs to be deployed in a valid formation. Do I need to pull the dictionary out again to show you the meaning of words? Apparently I am not allowed to according to you so I hesitate to do so, but please, go ahead and look up the word formation for yourself.

To get this together:
Ive shown that misplaced requires legal deployment of the unit. Overlapping bases with another unit is explicitly forbidden while deploying for a valid deepstrike formation

The formation refers to bullet point two where you place one model in the centre and then arrange the other models around it. That is what is meant by formation. Once again a location is not a formation. The misplaced rule does not state that I need to put the unit in a valid location.

This means even if you rule that initial deepstrike placement is legal on top of another unit you cant possibly deploy a unit that suffered misplaced in a position where it would mishap.

Wrong and I have explained why above.

The fact that the deep strike rules are talking about placement instead of deployment could be an oversight or it could be intentional. I dont care either way tbh. If my opponent wants a 50% chance of his unit being useless or dead i'll let him do it.

Once again the rule book says the following, why do you keep ignoring this?

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.......................

Placing the first model is part of the deployment. You cannot deny this. How many times do I need to state this? How many times are you going to ignore this? If you want to argue that you haven't finished deployment at this point then you never actually finish deployment of any unit until you have placed the whole unit i.e. last model. This means when the misplaced rule says this

Your opponent may deploy the unit anywhere on the table.......

I don't actually finish deploying until I place the last model.

Look at the rules side by side.

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.

and

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.......................

Notice how both rules say the word deploy in the same tense? So how on earth you can claim that one is talking about before deployment while the other rule is talking about after deployment is beyond me.

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.

A formation =/= a location

Nowhere does it say that I need to put the unit in a valid deployment. This is your mistake.

It does not say I have to place it in a valid location, it just says that it needs to be deployed in a valid formation. Do I need to pull the dictionary out again to show you the meaning of words? Apparently I am not allowed to according to you so I hesitate to do so, but please, go ahead and look up the word formation for yourself.

Deep Strike mishaps:

If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly rnodel, or on top of or within I " of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the deepstrike mishap table

This proves you wrong. The rest of your post is therefor wrong too and doesnt need to be adressed. If you mishap - did you follow the misplacement requirement of having a valid deepstrike formation? You cant ever mishap from misplaced.

This is my last post in this thread.

 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.

A formation =/= a location

Nowhere does it say that I need to put the unit in a valid deployment. This is your mistake.

It does not say I have to place it in a valid location, it just says that it needs to be deployed in a valid formation. Do I need to pull the dictionary out again to show you the meaning of words? Apparently I am not allowed to according to you so I hesitate to do so, but please, go ahead and look up the word formation for yourself.

Deep Strike mishaps:

If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly rnodel, or on top of or within I " of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the deepstrike mishap table

This proves you wrong. The rest of your post is therefore wrong too and doesnt need to be adressed. If you mishap - did you follow the misplacement requirement of having a valid deepstrike formation? You cant ever mishap from misplaced.

Yes, but only if you count the unit being deployed before you place the models in a formation

So essentially what you are saying is that if the unit is placed again to cause another mishap then a valid formation does not occur and thus the misplaced rule doesn't get required? You do realise that to argue such a thing that you would need to argue that the deep strike formation occurs during/after deployment and thus deployment does not occur after placing all your deep strike models but during or before it? Don't you?

For instance instead of this:

1) Place models in a valid formation

2) Unit counts as deployed.


You are now arguing this

1) Deploy unit

2) Followed by placing unit in a valid formation

So this means that the two following rules both count for this same purpose.

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.

and

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.......................

In the first quote you have argued that the formation occurs at the same time or after deploying and thus you cannot cause another mishap because this would result in the formation not being made. However as clearly shown by the second rule here, the placement of the first model also counts as being part of deployment.

So in essence your arguments are inconsistent. For one case (misplaced result) you are arguing this:

1) Deploy unit

2) Place models in a deep strike formation

In the other case you are arguing for this chain of events:

1) Place first model, roll for scatter, place rest of the models

2) Unit counts as deployed

Once again when you place the first model on the table this counts as part of the deployment. You cannot argue in one case that deployment does not occur until after all the models are set-up in a formation and then argue in the other case that deployment occues before the models are set-up in a formation.

Did I make myself clear here?

Still no citation for models, bases and hulls being the table? Now that we have Reaper to thank for a citation of what the table is and as we know models are clearly defined throughout the book we can look to these references.

Looking at them so far I've found no mention or indication that models, bases or hulls are the table or equal to the table. So unless someone can cite something to the contrary then it's pretty obvious that you cannot place the lead model on another model, bases or hull.

"If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed"
'Meaning they are not deployed before that point, meaning that the initial placement isnt them being deployed....

Misplaced makes no reference to this.

Play by the houserule that you can mishap a model from misplaced all you like, that will not make it the rule.

Another "i'm out". Nothing productive for 8 pages, just hostility and trolling from one or two posters.

Except the one solid 100% raw based argument from me, who Nos has on ignore. LoL

You have to place them where they would land safely in the first instance, i.e. where you could actually place it, and safely disembark (remember, if you can't disembark for any reason, the unit inside is destroyed). There has to be space for it.

Then, as per "Inertial Guidance" rule, if you scatter onto anything (note that this doesn't just include units, also includes impassable terrain), you REDUCE your scatter distance so that you can safely land the pod.

Gone are the days where you could potentially drop on a unit and force it to move.

 Skabfang wrote:
You have to place them where they would land safely in the first instance,

This is not true at all.

There is no rule stating you must place the model where it would land safely.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed"
'Meaning they are not deployed before that point, meaning that the initial placement isnt them being deployed....

This is what I am trying to clarrify. What chain of events are you two using? Are you even using the same chain of events? What you're stating here is the unit is not deployed until after the placement of all models. So I am now trying to clarrify why the word "deploy" is any different in the mishap rule.

Misplaced makes no reference to this.

I don't understand how you can argue this. The same word "deploy" is used. The exact same term i.e.

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.

This is the exact same term used ealrier on in the deep strike rules.

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.......................

So I am asking for a chronological order in which you are applying things and why.

Play by the houserule that you can mishap a model from misplaced all you like, that will not make it the rule.

I don't play this way anyway, because I don't play that you can deploy a deep striking unit over another unit to begin with. I am being devils advocate in this instance because for some reason you want to be able to deploy on top of another unit while at the same time you will deny your opponet this in the case of a misplacement.

Another "i'm out". Nothing productive for 8 pages, just hostility and trolling from one or two posters.

Hostility? Is this the same hostility that you took out the thread and posted in a different thread?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/560099.page#6195718

3 posts down and we find this, bolded emphasis mine.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You dont shoot eh shell first, then plasma. ALL shooting from a single unit is simultaneous (unless there is an exception explicitly listed - just for you fuusa!) however the effect of the rad shell is as soon as the unit is hit, as BOB stated. Thus they are -1T prior to rolling to wound.

So you take your beef with one person from this thread and then make a passive aggressive post in another thread and yet I am the one being hostile? I think you need to take a look in the mirror.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Skabfang wrote:
You have to place them where they would land safely in the first instance,

This is not true at all.

There is no rule stating you must place the model where it would land safely.

Yes. Agreed. Rest of you read the rules.

1) pick a point anywhere you want on the battlefield
2) roll scatter
3) see if end result causes mishap
3a) if end result causes mishap, but it's a DP reduce scatter if possible to avoid mishap. If not...
4) roll on mishap table and follow it

If your opponent doesn't want your model on theirs, just mark it.

This is it. RAW. Easy. Nothing that needs arguments. Just like challenges... oh, yeah, nevermind.

The process doesn't start with pucjing a point. it starts with placing a model from the deepstriking unit anywhere on the table. The table was cited as being defined as the table, board or game surface and terrain by Reaper. In this citation there is no mention of models, bases or hulls being included as being a part of the table. If we look up every single description and definition of a model, base and hull none are refered as being the table with the exception of wrecks and a reference for movment for jump infanty and alike.

until there is such an indication thst models, bases or hulls are a part of the table then placing your lead model for deepstrike on any is not possible as you are not placing your lead model on the table.

 Bausk wrote:
The process doesn't start with pucjing a point. it starts with placing a model from the deepstriking unit anywhere on the table. The table was cited as being defined as the table, board or game surface and terrain by Reaper. In this citation there is no mention of models, bases or hulls being included as being a part of the table. If we look up every single description and definition of a model, base and hull none are refered as being the table with the exception of wrecks and a reference for movment for jump infanty and alike.

until there is such an indication thst models, bases or hulls are a part of the table then placing your lead model for deepstrike on any is not possible as you are not placing your lead model on the table.

It is possible as the rules tell us to place it anywhere, I am being nice by pointing to a location instead of forcibly putting my Drop pod in Anywhere, while having no regard for the model that is currently at that location, and making a complete mess of the model that occupies the location I am putting my drop pod....

The rule is; Place a model anywhere on the table. You are attepting to place your model on the table but that particular section has models, bases or hulls between your model and the valid surface (the table). You are not then placing your model on the table, as there is something you have no permission to place your model on in the way. So you are unable to place your model there at all as there is no exception and no allwance to hypothetically place your model outside of WMS, which as we all know only applies to terrain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Place anywhere on the table is a pretty specific instruction. You are required to phyaically place the mpdel on the table. Yes?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The process doesn't start with pucjing a point. it starts with placing a model from the deepstriking unit anywhere on the table. The table was cited as being defined as the table, board or game surface and terrain by Reaper. In this citation there is no mention of models, bases or hulls being included as being a part of the table. If we look up every single description and definition of a model, base and hull none are refered as being the table with the exception of wrecks and a reference for movment for jump infanty and alike.

until there is such an indication thst models, bases or hulls are a part of the table then placing your lead model for deepstrike on any is not possible as you are not placing your lead model on the table.

It is possible as the rules tell us to place it anywhere, I am being nice by pointing to a location instead of forcibly putting my Drop pod in Anywhere, while having no regard for the model that is currently at that location, and making a complete mess of the model that occupies the location I am putting my drop pod....

Are you sure the rule says Anywhere? because I thought it said Anywhere on the table. Can you do the following and if not why not?

1) Can you place the model in my Bath Tub?

2) Can you place the model on my sofa?

3) Can you place the model on top of the Empire State Building?

4) Can you place the model on top of a helicopter landing pad?

5) Can you place the model on the moon?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The process doesn't start with pucjing a point. it starts with placing a model from the deepstriking unit anywhere on the table. The table was cited as being defined as the table, board or game surface and terrain by Reaper. In this citation there is no mention of models, bases or hulls being included as being a part of the table. If we look up every single description and definition of a model, base and hull none are refered as being the table with the exception of wrecks and a reference for movment for jump infanty and alike.

until there is such an indication thst models, bases or hulls are a part of the table then placing your lead model for deepstrike on any is not possible as you are not placing your lead model on the table.

It is possible as the rules tell us to place it anywhere, I am being nice by pointing to a location instead of forcibly putting my Drop pod in Anywhere, while having no regard for the model that is currently at that location, and making a complete mess of the model that occupies the location I am putting my drop pod....

Are you sure the rule says Anywhere? because I thought it said Anywhere on the table. Can you do the following and if not why not?

1) Can you place the model in my Bath Tub?

2) Can you place the model on my sofa?

3) Can you place the model on top of the Empire State Building?

4) Can you place the model on top of a helicopter landing pad?

5) Can you place the model on the moon?

Right anywhere on the table (I thought that was clear from the context of what we were talking about). So you have to place the model on the table.

Instead of crushing other models to achieve this I would let my opponent point to a spot and tell me where his Pod is centered instead of crushing models...

Ok so rather than follow the RAW by physically placing your model on the table you're making up a rule exception so you can hypothetically place your model under another model that's on the table. It all make sense now.

 Bausk wrote:
Ok so rather than follow the RAW by physically placing your model on the table you're making up a rule exception so you can hypothetically place your model under another model that's on the table. It all make sense now.

Better to do that than to crush models to place your Drop Pod, since you are told to place it anywhere (On the table).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The process doesn't start with pucjing a point. it starts with placing a model from the deepstriking unit anywhere on the table. The table was cited as being defined as the table, board or game surface and terrain by Reaper. In this citation there is no mention of models, bases or hulls being included as being a part of the table. If we look up every single description and definition of a model, base and hull none are refered as being the table with the exception of wrecks and a reference for movment for jump infanty and alike.

until there is such an indication thst models, bases or hulls are a part of the table then placing your lead model for deepstrike on any is not possible as you are not placing your lead model on the table.

It is possible as the rules tell us to place it anywhere, I am being nice by pointing to a location instead of forcibly putting my Drop pod in Anywhere, while having no regard for the model that is currently at that location, and making a complete mess of the model that occupies the location I am putting my drop pod....

Are you sure the rule says Anywhere? because I thought it said Anywhere on the table. Can you do the following and if not why not?

1) Can you place the model in my Bath Tub?

2) Can you place the model on my sofa?

3) Can you place the model on top of the Empire State Building?

4) Can you place the model on top of a helicopter landing pad?

5) Can you place the model on the moon?

Right anywhere on the table (I thought that was clear from the context of what we were talking about). So you have to place the model on the table.

Instead of crushing other models to achieve this I would let my opponent point to a spot and tell me where his Pod is centered instead of crushing models...

No go back to find what your own post that defines what the table is.

I think the point is, that if I choose a spot and intend to put a drop pod on the table, given enough force, I am going to reach the table eventually, no matter how many models there are between the pod and the table.

Of course the models between the spot i chose and the drop pod I am placing are going to get crushed beyond recognition, but this is what RAW allows me to do, because the table is there to be reached, it's just the matter of brute force required to push through the models.

Not sure if you're trolling or just not willing to be wrong. I'm usually all for leaving the debate open rather than calling for someone to concede Nos ultimatum style but if this is your rebuttal....

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Ok so rather than follow the RAW by physically placing your model on the table you're making up a rule exception so you can hypothetically place your model under another model that's on the table. It all make sense now.

Better to do that than to crush models to place your Drop Pod, since you are told to place it anywhere (On the table).

Can I ask - reading through this thread - does anyone actually play like this or even consider it?

Things like putting models on top of other peoples models etc?

No one I play with even consider this sort of behaviour - whilst its easy to talk about on forums does nayone really behave like this in the real world?

Is RAW really that important to people?

I point to where I want my Mawloc to arrive rather than crushing enemy models, yes.