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.

I don't think it ever was.

Mind = Blown.

It's understandable a squad cannot MOVE on top of a Rhino. But DEPLOYING on top of it is completely different in terms.

And as to the Rhino moving and them not moving with it... What, is this MINECRAFT? Learn some basic physics principles. We're not trying to figure out how plasma guns work (or don't, for me usually). If you're standing on something, and it goes "Vroom", you're gonna go with it unless you tumble off. Maybe not a problem if it goes a slow 6" movement.

 Pyeatt wrote:
And as to the Rhino moving and them not moving with it... What, is this MINECRAFT? Learn some basic physics principles. We're not trying to figure out how plasma guns work (or don't, for me usually). If you're standing on something, and it goes "Vroom", you're gonna go with it unless you tumble off. Maybe not a problem if it goes a slow 6" movement.

We're not talking about physics. We're talking about game rules that don't allow you to move two units at the same time.

 insaniak wrote:

We're not talking about physics. We're talking about game rules that don't allow you to move two units at the same time.

moving two units at the same time? Like moving a rhino with a squad inside?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should mention I hate plasma. Thanks much.

The squad inside the rhino isn't on the table.

 Pyeatt wrote:
moving two units at the same time? Like moving a rhino with a squad inside?

No, like moving two units that are just near each other on the table.

 insaniak wrote:
I don't think it ever was.

If the board was never defined in the book, then the original definition would be the long, thin, flat piece of wood or other hard material you are playing on. Thus the RAW would be that models can never move voluntarily off the surface you are playing on or the Citadel scenery models which have implicitly implied permission to have models move on and across them.

I don't think there is any implicate permission to move them on top of another Citadel non-scenery model.

That would stop you from moving across any non-difficult or -impassable terrain piece as well.

If you put a aegis defence line on top of a rhino would the rhino be able to move? Would a marine be able to fire the quadgun if its right next to the firepoint

 insaniak wrote:
That would stop you from moving across any non-difficult or -impassable terrain piece as well.

Incorrect.

Under Terrain Types it says "All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below"
This tells us that every legal terrain has a terrain type, anything other is a house rule.

Under Terrain Types is Open Ground.

OPEN GROUND wrote:Open ground covers everything from dusty plains to rolling hills. Models in open ground are often said to be 'out in the open'. No additional rules are needed for open ground and, unless otherwise specified, special rules and abilities that affect terrain do not affect open ground. The surface of the Realm of the Battle Gameboard is considered open ground.

This tells us that even hills are considered to have a terrain type and that type is open ground.

Buildings, Ruins, Battlefield Debris, Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, Impassable Terrain, and Battlements are also covered here. If they are not covered here and do not fit into the groups provided, or do not have their own self contained rules, then they are a house ruled terrain.

 Vespid wrote:
If you put a aegis defence line on top of a rhino would the rhino be able to move? Would a marine be able to fire the quadgun if its right next to the firepoint

This reminds me of video games where glitches can arise which can then become exploits.

Luckily we are playing a human game where glitches can simply be disregarded.

If you deploy on top of models...

I deploy on my side for da cover, I mean, I don't believe the BRB tells me the models have to be placed base down during deployment. Only that the models are placed in the deployment area.

Rules don't say a awful lot of things. Doesn't make it a good idea.

Nothing states that models can only be removed by being destroyed. remove your army, oh look I win.

As Nem said, deploying a vehicle on its side?

What about deploying a bastion upside down so no enemy can reach the access point?

Pretty sure that every sensible person will agree that deploying on top of a vehicle is not permitted. just accept that your army is of trained space marines, they're going to ride in the rhinos, not on top of them.

 some bloke wrote:
Nothing states that models can only be removed by being destroyed.

That's not how it works. You would need something which says that they can be removed.

 some bloke wrote:
Nothing states that models can only be removed by being destroyed. remove your army, oh look I win.

As Nem said, deploying a vehicle on its side?

What about deploying a bastion upside down so no enemy can reach the access point?

Pretty sure that every sensible person will agree that deploying on top of a vehicle is not permitted. just accept that your army is of trained space marines, they're going to ride in the rhinos, not on top of them.

this post just blew my mind. Upside down Bastions for the win!!!!

 some bloke wrote:
Nothing states that models can only be removed by being destroyed. remove your army, oh look I win.

As Nem said, deploying a vehicle on its side?

What about deploying a bastion upside down so no enemy can reach the access point?

Pretty sure that every sensible person will agree that deploying on top of a vehicle is not permitted. just accept that your army is of trained space marines, they're going to ride in the rhinos, not on top of them.

40k 101. Permissive rule set. Unless you can find a rule saying you can just remove your opponent's army... you can't.

Deploying models on their sides and bastions upside down is clear modelling for advantage. Good luck getting that past an opponent.

And sensibility has no place on YMDC! (Mostly joking. We debate RaW, not common sense.)

 Kriswall wrote:
Deploying models on their sides and bastions upside down is clear modelling for advantage. Good luck getting that past an opponent.

And sensibility has no place on YMDC! (Mostly joking. We debate RaW, not common sense.)

You said it yourself: Pure RaW.

Inverted Bastions are not MFA, as both sides could not use them (or deploy inside, then agreed).

The issue is, 7th Edition seems to have removed a lot of very nice easy rules, and left players to use common sense.

We all agree that models must be placed "the Right Way up". But where it the RaW for that?


As a side note:
a 6th Ed FAQ that was just perfect:
"BRB FAQ Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10) A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules. "

 BlackTalos wrote:
As a side note:
a 6th Ed FAQ that was just perfect:
"BRB FAQ Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10) A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules. "

What was even more perfect was the rule in the editions before that, that explained that other models were treated like impassable terrain. Thus not requiring it to be spelt out in an FAQ...

 Vespid wrote:
I read somewhere that you can deploying units any where within 12" of the board, which means you can place units on top of transports or other vehicles is this true? Does that mean you can for example place a 5 man devastor or tactical squad on top of a rhino and move and shot with full ballistic skill of your heavy weapons as they didnt move?

tecnically your no longer on the board and or edge.

I actually have an older force, including a old, custom made land raider spartan. This is the older, custom made (with plans from an old WD) spartan, not a newer FW one. If you look at my sig you can see my ancient army from a few years back. Anyway, it looks more or less like this:

Observant people will notice that there are two terminators sitting on top of the spartan, manning the heavy bolters. While I grant you this model is somewhat obsolete, the recess to place models there is one of the deliberate, built into the plans design features. Would these models be considered 'on top' of the land raider or simply inside it? Is it now open topped?

 Kojiro wrote:
I actually have an older force, including a old, custom made land raider spartan. This is the older, custom made (with plans from an old WD) spartan, not a newer FW one. If you look at my sig you can see my ancient army from a few years back. Anyway, it looks more or less like this:

Observant people will notice that there are two terminators sitting on top of the spartan, manning the heavy bolters. While I grant you this model is somewhat obsolete, the recess to place models there is one of the deliberate, built into the plans design features. Would these models be considered 'on top' of the land raider or simply inside it? Is it now open topped?

Is it me, or are the aussie's trolling everyone? Everything about this thread is just silly. If someone did this to me, I would just laugh and shoot that unit to hell as it probably wont be able to recieve a cover save from my insane amount of hate lances.

 Kojiro wrote:
I actually have an older force, including a old, custom made land raider spartan. This is the older, custom made (with plans from an old WD) spartan, not a newer FW one. If you look at my sig you can see my ancient army from a few years back. Anyway, it looks more or less like this:

Observant people will notice that there are two terminators sitting on top of the spartan, manning the heavy bolters. While I grant you this model is somewhat obsolete, the recess to place models there is one of the deliberate, built into the plans design features. Would these models be considered 'on top' of the land raider or simply inside it? Is it now open topped?

They're vehicle crew, and there are no rules for vehicle crew like you would find on Dark Eldar Raiders, etc.

Saw this previously in another thread. I'm going with no.

But deploy second and if your opponent does it, just make a totem poll with the long range dudes at the top ignoring LOS.

Wonder how blasts would work? Different levels after all

no different levels, everything gets hit i think. str10ap1 large blast, take the rhino and the troops on top of it

Yup, they're all on the same level. If my opponent tried to stack models like that, I'd just pull out my Plasma Cannons and laugh a deep, hearty laugh as a hit tags every single model in his column.

Would the Marines give the Rhino a cover save

This wouldn't prevent the models from being assaulted, either. When charging you're allowed to come within 1" of enemy models. You might have to do a disordered charge so that you can get both units, but it might be worth it.

I'm still going with no, though.

Plus, if you can deploy a model on top of a rhino, then neither unit could move...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Plus, if you can deploy a model on top of a rhino, then neither unit could move...

I disagree. Where is that rule?
I have "cannot move through". Unless one of the Rhino's chimneys goes through the base of a model on top, he can move.
"move through" =/= "move under".

As for the models on top: moving over the Rhino never constitutes moving through it?

those arguing that "Move over" and "Move under" isn't "move through", remember there are no levels any more, moving is just moving, over and under doesn't exist!

also want to clarify my pervious posts concerning upside down bastions were intended as sarcasm to draw out the clear ludicrosity of these deployment ideas.