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:
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.

You will need to explain yourself very clearly.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
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?

As I explained, you are trying to make a Restrictive Law into a Permissive Rule. It is stating that there is a restriction to entering that area and the consequence is prosecution and has no relevance to the argument.

 Nilok wrote:
As I explained, you are trying to make a Restrictive Law into a Permissive Rule. It is stating that there is a restriction to entering that area and the consequence is prosecution and has no relevance to the argument.

It's not stating a restriction at all. It's saying 'If you do this, then that happens.

Your terrain issue is the same thing. The rule says 'If you enter this terrain, then that happens.

That's not permission to do anything. Not even implied permission. It's simply a statement of what happens if you do that thing.


The best that you can argue is that it is a suggestion that under some unspecified circumstances it is possible for you to do that thing, otherwise there would be no point in that rule existing. But you have nothing that tells you what those circumstances are.

I once again disagree, your interpretation of the rules completely breaks the ability to play the game since, by your own definition, you cannot deploy on the battlefield itself since it also has a Terrain Type and you believe you have no permission to deploy on Terrain Types.

Your assumption that there is a timing for when these rules take place is also incorrect. The rules simply states that they are, and gives no restrictions to when it takes place, so it is always.

Finally, you have ignored several times lines such as, "No additional rules are needed for open ground..." or the entire section detailing how to move with Difficult Terrain.

Your constant stance on that there exist no permission at all is one that isn't backed up by the rules.

 Nilok wrote:
I once again disagree, your interpretation of the rules completely breaks the ability to play the game since, by your own definition, you cannot deploy on the battlefield itself since it also has a Terrain Type and you believe you have no permission to deploy on Terrain Types.

Yes, that was the point.

Or, more specifically, the point was that your original claim (that the fact that we are only given permission to put models on terrain is proof that you can't put them on a tank) is based on a faulty premise, as we are not actually given permission to put them on terrain at all.

We simply assume that models can move freely into any terrain that they are not prohibited from moving into, because that's a logical assumption.

Your assumption that there is a timing for when these rules take place is also incorrect. The rules simply states that they are, and gives no restrictions to when it takes place, so it is always.

Well yes, the rules for difficult terrain will always apply.

But the rules for difficult terrain don't include a rule allowing models to move into difficult terrain.

Finally, you have ignored several times lines such as, "No additional rules are needed for open ground..." or the entire section detailing how to move with Difficult Terrain.

I haven't ignored that at all. The rules for terrain detail all that we need to know about moving in that terrain.

That doesn't change the fact that nowehere in the rules are we told when we can actually do that.

Your constant stance on that there exist no permission at all is one that isn't backed up by the rules.

In that case, please quote the rule that gives a model permission to move into difficult terrain.

 Nilok wrote:

 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?

Model is of the table edge.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Your assumption that there is a timing for when these rules take place is also incorrect. The rules simply states that they are, and gives no restrictions to when it takes place, so it is always.

Well yes, the rules for difficult terrain will always apply.

But the rules for difficult terrain don't include a rule allowing models to move into difficult terrain.

 Nilok wrote:
Your constant stance on that there exist no permission at all is one that isn't backed up by the rules.

In that case, please quote the rule that gives a model permission to move into difficult terrain.

Gladly.

First rule under Difficult Terrain

Moving into Difficult Terrain wrote:
If a unit starts its move outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he want his unit to try to enter difficult terrain as part of their move. If he chooses not to, the unit moves as normal but may not enter difficult terrain. If he chooses for a unit to do so, the unit must take a Difficult Terrain test.

To take a Difficult Terrain test, roll 2D6 and select the highest result - this is the maximum distance, in inches, that any of the models in the unit may move. Even if the distance rolled is too shot for any of the models to reach the difficult terrain, the unit is still slowed as described above. We assume that their approach is cautious as they attempt to ascertain whether any enemies are within. You should also note that, if you take the Difficult Terrain test, you are not compelled to move the models, as you might not have rolled high enough to make it worth moving at all.

This rule explains how moving into difficult terrain is different normal movement and from open ground, which we are told doesn't need any additional rules.
There is also other rules for moving in Difficult Terrain, which I recommend you review under Terrain Types.

That outlines the process for moving into the terrain. No matter how many times we go back to it, it still won't include permission to actually do so.



Either way, though, I think this has gone on way past its use by date. So just for clarity, I'm not suggesting that deploying onto tanks should be allowed. It wasn't in previous editions, and probably wasn't intended in this one. My point has simply been that there is no actual rules basis for disallowing it.

As with anything, though, you're certainly able to discuss it with your opponent and choose to disallow it on the basis that you think it's a bit silly.

In which case our debate is over.

I still disagree with your interpretation of implicit permissions, however, that is not something we are going to resolve.

It has been an interesting debate at the very least, have a good day.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Also you can only move one unit at a time, so moving the rhino would be breaking this rule as you would be moving two units at once, which is illegal.

Have you read the WMS rule? If you move the Rhino, what happens to the model on top?

I have read the WMS, bit that does not apply here.

You can not move the rhino as if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it, which you can not do since you must complete one units movement before moving on to another unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Also you can only move one unit at a time, so moving the rhino would be breaking this rule as you would be moving two units at once, which is illegal.

Have you read the WMS rule? If you move the Rhino, what happens to the model on top?

I have read the WMS, bit that does not apply here.

You can not move the rhino as if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it, which you can not do since you must complete one units movement before moving on to another unit.

I disagree: "If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

The underlined is an example. It could be:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as the wind blows"
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as the Rhino moves"

Therefore, as you lift the Rhino (if that is how you play) or push it forward for movement, you create this "instability".

IE: Before you even start moving your Rhino, you must remove the model on top of it, by WMS.
When the Rhino finishes it's move, you can "replace" your model in its previous location. Or "agreed and know its ‘actual’ location": 2" above the Table, "floating" in mid air and breaking so many rules.
The method to get there is still correct.

"if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it" Never actually happens, you follow WMS first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
in essence, friendly models are treated as impassable terrain all game, correct? You can't deploy in impassable terrain.

Incorrect. No such rule exists.

could you place a marine on top of a marine? or a marine on top of a centurian's base?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Also you can only move one unit at a time, so moving the rhino would be breaking this rule as you would be moving two units at once, which is illegal.

Have you read the WMS rule? If you move the Rhino, what happens to the model on top?

I have read the WMS, bit that does not apply here.

You can not move the rhino as if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it, which you can not do since you must complete one units movement before moving on to another unit.

I disagree: "If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

The underlined is an example. It could be:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as the wind blows"
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as the Rhino moves"

Therefore, as you lift the Rhino (if that is how you play) or push it forward for movement, you create this "instability".

IE: Before you even start moving your Rhino, you must remove the model on top of it, by WMS.
When the Rhino finishes it's move, you can "replace" your model in its previous location. Or "agreed and know its ‘actual’ location": 2" above the Table, "floating" in mid air and breaking so many rules.
The method to get there is still correct.

"if you start to move the rhino you move the unit deployed on top of it" Never actually happens, you follow WMS first.

Disagree all you want, but you have no basis. WMS does not happen first. as soon as the rhino moves 0.0000000000000001 inches so does the model on top and that is illegal.

The model on top of the rhino is not "delicately balanced it in place" if it were it would be off to the side anyway.

Even if it were "delicately balanced it in place" and you used WMS to remove the model, as soon as you start moving the rhino you violate a rule because the model that is on top is still there (Even though it is temporarilly removed due to wms).

Ergo illegal to move.

I'd think the cannot go through-must go around rule would prohibit this, simply because if it didn't I could put anything I wanted on spare base area on another model and move it wherever I wanted. Though if I could have an infantry unit camping on a Wraithknight's base to extend threat range I could see Banshees being more useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jump-Stacking. Yriel sitting on a Wasp's base sitting on a Wraithknight's base. Thirty inches in one Movement phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Disagree all you want, but you have no basis. WMS does not happen first. as soon as the rhino moves 0.0000000000000001 inches so does the model on top and that is illegal.

Your views, mine are that 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 inches would make the model unstable, so WMS is invoked before that happens.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The model on top of the rhino is not "delicately balanced it in place" if it were it would be off to the side anyway.

Even if it were "delicately balanced it in place" and you used WMS to remove the model, as soon as you start moving the rhino you violate a rule because the model that is on top is still there (Even though it is temporarilly removed due to wms).

And what rule would that be?
I thought it was clear that moving under =/= moving through. Or how would your rhino drive through a Ruin that is occupied in the levels above it?

Sure, the Captain is a whole "nothing" inches above the Rhino, but that does not restrict its movement...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Ergo illegal to move.

Possibly in some views. Legal deployment though...(back to OP)

So you are saying that the model "floats" in mid air above the board and any terrain while you move the Rhino. Remember, the unit still has to technically remain there even if you have to move it temperately.

In which case, how do you now resolve a unit "floating" in mid air?

 Nilok wrote:
So you are saying that the model "floats" in mid air above the board and any terrain while you move the Rhino. Remember, the unit still has to technically remain there even if you have to move it temperately.

In which case, how do you now resolve a unit "floating" in mid air?

You don't. The entire point of this is that all rules break down. Whether before movement, or as soon as you do...

Deploying the Unit was legal.
Moving the Rhino is legal if you agree WMS is invoked.

What you are left with though......

I would say if you got to that point you SegFaulted the game.

If you want my HIWPI:

Deployment can only happen on the board, and on terrain placed there before-hand.
With an exception that you can put "army" models (not Fortifications) onto your own Fortifications.

If an opponent puts Fortifications on Skyshield pads (the main OP of these topics usually), I start putting Units on top of my Rhinos, move 12" and claim they haven't moved :p
Of course, the "correct" RaW is described in the thread above...

I think most of us agree with that HIWPI, the rest is just us teasing out how the rules interact with each other currently.

The idea of deploying a model on top of a vehicle is, bluntly, ridiculous. If you could put a Marine on top of a Rhino, does that mean you could deploy on top of a Waveserpent? Just because it's not a flat surface, you'd be forced to say yes, if you say you can deploy on top of a Rhino, in order to be consistent. And why not an infantry model on top of a larger infantry model? How about a Waveserpent on top of a unit of very tightly packed infantry, but hey, it would stop the tank getting charged!

I swear, 40K has a really weird ability of attracting players with the strangest mindsets.

It often happens on this YMDC forum, because sometimes questions like:

Can i put a Bastion on a Skyshield?

Pop up, and we ruffle through our books, looking for exactly where a rule exists that could make this ridiculous-sounding idea impossible "by the rules". Unfortunately, GW doesn't think of everything, so the end answer will be: "Yes you can".
The best way of solving the issue is when GW creates an FAQ to resolve such "frequently" asked questions.. but we know they don't.

But hey, until then you can put eldar on Wave serpents and ask your opponent to prove you wrong....

I'm sure they'll just pack up and walk off...

God In Action wrote:
I swear, 40K has a really weird ability of attracting players with the strangest mindsets.

The players aren't the problem. It's the fact that Gw choose to write their rules in a conversational tone, don't pay a great deal of attention to using precise wording for the important bits, and don't bother to adequately proof-read or test before publishing.

So then you get the sort of conflict that you see here, between the players who just accept that the rules have holes in them and take it for granted that they should just fill in the blanks with whatever seems appropriate, and those who expect game rules to actually do what they are supposed to do.



Regardless, the discussion here seems to have gone about as far as it productively can. In summary: deploying on transports is seen by some as being technically legal within the current rules, but this is probably not intended and is likely to raise eyebrows if you actually try it without discussing it with your opponent first.