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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
There are no rules to prevent you from placing a Space Marine on a Rhino, but there also no rule to permit it.

Sure there is. You're told to place models in your deployment zone. So long as the rhino is in your deployment zone, and barring any rule to the contrary, then placing the marine on top of the rhino satisfies that criteria.

That is still saying "It doesn't tell me I can't". An extreme example, but it would be the same as if someone left a bunch of dice on the board and decided to deploy on top of the dice in their deployment zone to get better line of sight. It's still is in his deployment zone and it doesn't tell him he can't.

As I went over with you earlier though, we only have permission to have models on the board, which is open ground, or Citadel scenery models. We have no permission to have models on dice or on other non-Citadel scenery models.

If you can find any rule that grants permission, explicitly or implicitly, to have models on non-Citadel scenery models, the whole argument will be turned on its head.

Unless you're arguing somehow that the top of the Rhino is not in the deployment zone then the rules do seem to allow it.

 Nilok wrote:

That is still saying "It doesn't tell me I can't".

No, it's saying "permission to do something gives you permission to do something ".


You're given permission to place models in your deployment zone. You don't need specific permission to place a model in This specific spot in the deployment zone. That spot is allowed unless a specific rule says otherwise.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

That is still saying "It doesn't tell me I can't".

No, it's saying "permission to do something gives you permission to do something ".


You're given permission to place models in your deployment zone. You don't need specific permission to place a model in This specific spot in the deployment zone. That spot is allowed unless a specific rule says otherwise.

Can you then tell me how your argument prevents the dice example since it is still in your deployment zone?

It doesn't. Nor do the rules cover what to do if the tape you are measuring range with blocks your LOS, or if you accidentally scatter Dorito's crumbs on an otherwise open and clear piece of terrain.

 insaniak wrote:
It doesn't. Nor do the rules cover what to do if the tape you are measuring range with blocks your LOS, or if you accidentally scatter Domino's crumbs on an otherwise open and clear piece of terrain.

Then you either ignore it is it was unintentional, or you are not allowed to do it since you are never given permission to do so.

Dropping some crumbs on the board is, usually, a mistake that can literally be brushed aside. When you intentionally try and perform an action that the rules do not permit or even have rules for such as putting models on something that doesn't have a Terrain Type, even implicitly, then you are violating the idea of a permission based rule set to gain an advantage.

 Nilok wrote:
Then you either ignore it is it was unintentional, or you are not allowed to do it since you are never given permission to do so.

Except as noted, you are given permission to do so because its your deployment zone. Where is this restriction that forbids you from deploying in your deployment zone because its on top of a vehicle?

 Nilok wrote:

Dropping some crumbs on the board is, usually, a mistake that can literally be brushed aside

Really?

Can you please quote the rule that says that obstacles can be ignored if they wound up on the board accidentally?

I mean, if we're going to use silly extremes to try to prove a given rules interpretation, you' re going to get some disagreement over just how silly to go...

When you intentionally try and perform an action that the rules do not permit or even have rules for...

But you are given rules for it. You're told you can place models in your deployment zone.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Dropping some crumbs on the board is, usually, a mistake that can literally be brushed aside

Really?

Can you please quote the rule that says that obstacles can be ignored if they wound up on the board accidentally?

I mean, if we're going to use silly extremes to try to prove a given rules interpretation, you' re going to get some disagreement over just how silly to go...

When you intentionally try and perform an action that the rules do not permit or even have rules for...

But you are given rules for it. You're told you can place models in your deployment zone.

We are only given permission to add terrain and obstacles (Citadel scenery models) in Preparing For Battle, so even normal scenery models can't be placed on the board after it is setup. The only exception I can imagine to that is if there is a special mission a group comes up with to represent the warp or something changing the battlefield, but that isn't in the rules.

You keep saying you have permission to setup in the deployment zone, which I agree, however, I have repeatedly asked for you to show me any permission, explicit or implicit, for models to be on something that lacks a Terrain Type. Even the board itself has a Terrain Type, but a non-wrecked vehicle doesn't.

 Nilok wrote:
We are only given permission to add terrain and obstacles (Citadel scenery models) in Preparing For Battle, so even normal scenery models can't be placed on the board after it is setup. ...

Well, that nicely resolves your dice scenario...

You keep saying you have permission to setup in the deployment zone, however, I have repeatedly asked for you to show me any permission, explicit or implicit, for models to be on something that lacks a Terrain Type.

And you're going to keep getting the same answer.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
We are only given permission to add terrain and obstacles (Citadel scenery models) in Preparing For Battle, so even normal scenery models can't be placed on the board after it is setup. ...

Well, that nicely resolves your dice scenario...

You keep saying you have permission to setup in the deployment zone, however, I have repeatedly asked for you to show me any permission, explicit or implicit, for models to be on something that lacks a Terrain Type.

And you're going to keep getting the same answer.

I presented the scenario since I knew it was already solved by the rules.

Why do you believe that you can place a model on top of something that has no permission to have anything placed on top of it?

I don't.

I believe that a rule that says that you can place models anywhere in your deployment zone means that you can place models anywhere in your deployment zone, unless a different rule specifically renders part/s of that deployment zone off-limits.

I read it slightly differently. When I read deployment, you are given permission to deploy models in that zone, however, you are not given any permissions on what you can deploy on. For what your models can be on, you need to refer to Terrain Types. The only extra restriction is that you can't deploy on Impassible Terrain since some models can move up there and down, while other cannot.

You have permissions to place models in your deployment zone, but only the board and terrain have permission to have models on them and to move across them.

However, a normal model lacks any of those rules. Normally for a a rules void such as that, you do everything to avoid it since you have no permission to interact with it in that way. When models are attempted to be deployed on top of a normal model, there are no rule to explain that interactions and fails.

It would be similar if you suspended a model in the air above the board in your deployment zone. It is in the vertical slice that is your deployment zone, but there are no permission for a model to be above the board not on any terrain.

 Nilok wrote:
For what your models can be on, you need to refer to Terrain Types.

Can you please quote the part of the Open Ground section that grants specific permission for models to be in Open Ground?


On a quick skim through the terrain section, I can't actually see any specific permission for models to be in any of the listed terrain types. There are rules for how they are affected if they are in the terrain, but no actual permission to be there in the first place.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
For what your models can be on, you need to refer to Terrain Types.

Can you please quote the part of the Open Ground section that grants specific permission for models to be in Open Ground?


On a quick skim through the terrain section, I can't actually see any specific permission for models to be in any of the listed terrain types. There are rules for how they are affected if they are in the terrain, but no actual permission to be there in the first place.

Terrain Types: "When one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in cover behind' a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenry, and therefore eligble for a cover save. On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in' a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not."

Open Ground: "Models in open ground..."

All Terrain Types have a "models in x" that implicitly states that models can be standing on terrain. I cannot find any Terrain Types except Impassible Terrain that lacks a 'models in x".

But that was my point. The rules deal with what happens when models are in terrain. But the terrain section never actually grants permission for them to be there, just tells us what to do if they are.

Using your argument, we need explicit permission to put models into that terrain, and since that doesn't exist no model can ever be placed anywhere on the board.

 insaniak wrote:
But that was my point. The rules deal with what happens when models are in terrain. But the terrain section never actually grants permission for them to be there, just tells us what to do if they are.

Using your argument, we need explicit permission to put models into that terrain, and since that doesn't exist no model can ever be placed anywhere on the board.

Due note I constantly asked for explicit or implicit permission, so that was never my argument.

And you have neither.

A rule that details what happens when you do something is not permission to do that thing.

So you argue that even though there is repeated statements of models being "in" terrain, which is defined as them being on the terrain, that there is no permission in any way, for them to be there.

You also argue, that even though we are told that there do not need any extra rules for Open Ground and that models can be on Open Ground that we do not have permission have models on Open Ground.

Finally, you are arguing that even though we have clear instructions on how to move into Difficult Terrain, through Difficult Terrain, and models can be on Difficult Terrain, that we have no permission at all for models in Difficult Terrain.

Is any of this correct?

 Nilok wrote:
So you argue that even though there is repeated statements of models being "in" terrain, which is defined as them being on the terrain, that there is no permission in any way, for them to be there.

You also argue, that even though we are told that there do not need any extra rules for Open Ground and that models can be on Open Ground that we do not have permission have models on Open Ground.

Finally, you are arguing that even though we have clear instructions on how to move into Difficult Terrain, through Difficult Terrain, and models can be on Difficult Terrain, that we have no permission at all for models in Difficult Terrain.

Is any of this correct?

Yes. Because, again, a statement of what happens when you do something is not permission to do that thing. It's a statement of what happens if you do that thing.

As an example, a sign that says 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' is a statement of what will occur if there are trespassers. It's not permission to trespass.


In the case of terrain, we simply assume that models are free to go (within any imposed movement limitations) into any terrain that doesn't specifically prohibit it. Which is a bit backwards, as game rules go, but that's the way it is.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
So you argue that even though there is repeated statements of models being "in" terrain, which is defined as them being on the terrain, that there is no permission in any way, for them to be there.

You also argue, that even though we are told that there do not need any extra rules for Open Ground and that models can be on Open Ground that we do not have permission have models on Open Ground.

Finally, you are arguing that even though we have clear instructions on how to move into Difficult Terrain, through Difficult Terrain, and models can be on Difficult Terrain, that we have no permission at all for models in Difficult Terrain.

Is any of this correct?

Yes. Because, again, a statement of what happens when you do something is not permission to do that thing. It's a statement of what happens if you do that thing.

As an example, a sign that says 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' is a statement of what will occur if there are trespassers. It's not permission to trespass.


In the case of terrain, we simply assume that models are free to go (within any imposed movement limitations) into any terrain that doesn't specifically prohibit it. Which is a bit backwards, as game rules go, but that's the way it is.

That argument is a logical fallacy, since you are trying to apply a restrictive based rule system (law), to a permissive based rule system (40k). Any direct comparisons not being used to show the contrast, only leads to misinterpretations.

In a restrictive system, you can freely go anywhere, however, if you try and enter that area without permission, to trespass (the restriction), you will be prosecuted. In a permissive system, you can't go anywhere, unless you are told you can.

For the terrain, we a told that models can be on them (the permission), and how they move, with Open Ground not changing anything, and Difficult Terrain having its own modifications, along with any other mechanics.

 Nilok wrote:
That argument is a logical fallacy, since you are trying to apply a restrictive based rule system (law), to a permissive based rule system (40k).

Yes, I pointed that out.

Although I'm not 'applying' anything. I'm pointing out that a rule we all assume to exist doesn't actually exist.

For the terrain, we a told that models can be on them (the permission), and how they move, with Open Ground not changing anything, and Difficult Terrain having its own modifications, along with any other mechanics.

Except, again, we're not told that models can be on them, or when this can occur. We're simply told what to do if they are on them.

The rest is just assumption.

Made an account just to disprove this lunacy.

Page 18 of the rulebook. Models cannot voluntarily move off the board. So no climbing on top of a rhino. There is specific exceptions regarding climbing terrain.

Deploying on a rhino.

Deployment zones as described in the Dawn of War, Hammer and Anvil, and Vanguard, are each sectioning off the BOARD. Not the space around the board. The Board itself. Therefore, to deploy in your deployment zone, you must deploy on the board itself, not above it on a rhino.

Though it gives you the exception to deploy within a transport, building, or fort.

Eh I see nothing wrong with deploying/climbing onto a vehicle but not riding on it currently. Though it's always bothered me that IG can't hitch a ride on a russ ala infantry in WWII it would make sense from a fluff perspective. Just rule that if the russ goes more than combat speed they can only fire snap shots. But I guess none of that is either here or there.

I'd allow standing on a tank but without specific rules addressing movement & how many can ride on I'd say no for sure to moving either & that a unit must climb down before the tank can move or fire its turret at anything out of the forward 45* arc. Just me though.

Datastream wrote:
Made an account just to disprove this lunacy.

Page 18 of the rulebook. Models cannot voluntarily move off the board. So no climbing on top of a rhino. There is specific exceptions regarding climbing terrain.

Deploying on a rhino.

Deployment zones as described in the Dawn of War, Hammer and Anvil, and Vanguard, are each sectioning off the BOARD. Not the space around the board. The Board itself. Therefore, to deploy in your deployment zone, you must deploy on the board itself, not above it on a rhino.

Yes, that interpretation has already been mentioned. You'll get some disagreement as to whether something sitting on something else is no longer on the board.

That interpretation would also stop models from being able to deploy onto terrain in their deployment zone.

 insaniak wrote:

Datastream wrote:
Made an account just to disprove this lunacy.

Page 18 of the rulebook. Models cannot voluntarily move off the board. So no climbing on top of a rhino. There is specific exceptions regarding climbing terrain.

Deploying on a rhino.

Deployment zones as described in the Dawn of War, Hammer and Anvil, and Vanguard, are each sectioning off the BOARD. Not the space around the board. The Board itself. Therefore, to deploy in your deployment zone, you must deploy on the board itself, not above it on a rhino.

Yes, that interpretation has already been mentioned. You'll get some disagreement as to whether something sitting on something else is no longer on the board.

That interpretation would also stop models from being able to deploy onto terrain in their deployment zone.

I'll have to reread the thread. I don't know how much more clear "cannot move off the board" can be.

As for terrain, the battlefield is terrain. "The battlefield is to be considered open ground" pg 130.

So you are given permission to deploy on terrain already, with the exception of impassible terrain.

Datastream wrote:
I'll have to reread the thread. I don't know how much more clear "cannot move off the board" can be.

Given that, in context, it's talking about moving off the edges of the board, not climbing onto stuff sitting on the board, it would need to be somewhat clearer if that's the intention.

As for terrain, the battlefield is terrain. "The battlefield is to be considered open ground" pg 130.

So you are given permission to deploy on terrain already, with the exception of impassible terrain.

That gives you permission to deploy onto the board, as you said. It doesn't give you permission to deploy into a forest sitting on the board, if you assume that standing on something that is on the board is not sufficient to qualify as being 'on the board'.

 insaniak wrote:

Except, again, we're not told that models can be on them, or when this can occur. We're simply told what to do if they are on them.

The rest is just assumption.

So you are asserting that the rule that defines having a model on top of it, moving into it, or moving through it, does not in fact grant even the implied permission to have a model on top of it, at any time.

I which case, I have to assume we are speaking two different languages, because that makes no logical sense.

 insaniak wrote:

Given that, in context, it's talking about moving off the edges of the board, not climbing onto stuff sitting on the board, it would need to be somewhat clearer if that's the intention.

It's a stand alone paragraph coming right after talking about infantry not being able to move more then 6"

It's the most straight forward 0's and 1's sentence of the entire argument.

If, to move, i have to lift the model off the board, not going into terrain, then it is an illegal move.

That gives you permission to deploy onto the board, as you said. It doesn't give you permission to deploy into a forest sitting on the board, if you assume that standing on something that is on the board is not sufficient to qualify as being 'on the board'.

This one, I can see where you can split hairs. They are specifically called scenery models. I'll concede its player interpretation on deploying for that one, albeit a well accepted one.

 Nilok wrote:
So you are asserting that the rule that defines having a model on top of it, moving into it, or moving through it, does not in fact grant even the implied permission to have a model on top of it.

Yes.

I which case, I have to assume we are speaking two different languages, because that makes no logical sense.

To return to my previous example, does that 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' sign give you permission to trespass?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Datastream wrote:
If, to move, i have to lift the model off the board, not going into terrain, then it is an illegal move.

That's going to make moving anything anywhere rather problematic.

Do you not lift models off the board in order to move them?