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.

Hey all, just a couple of rules question...

1.) (1k Sons) Can you attempt a psychic spell to heal a model if the model is at full health. -- My thought is yes.

2.) (UM Scouts) - Their rule lets them deploy 9" away from enemy territory. If you gave a building 10" tall, right by the border of the enemy territory, can you deploy them on the top story or does vertical measurement not count? Measuring from their base on the top story down to the territory line, is over 9".

I hope someone can help! Thanks!

1) Sure, but it won't do anything.

2) I would say yes.

 flandarz wrote:
1) Sure, but it won't do anything.

2) I would say yes.

Thanks!
1.) There's a 1k Sons tact objective that you gain pointts off of successful casting attempts, that's the reason I ask.

No problem. Small caveat to #1: if it specifies that it can only be used on a "wounded" model (or something like that), then you cannot heal them at full wounds. Otherwise, you can.

You have to deploy 9" from enemy territory if you are on top of a building this does not impact how far you are from their territory as its measures horzontally

Think of it this way if you had a building in your deployment zone would you not be allowd to deploy on it because by being above the battlefield it would not be in your deployment zone.

Deployment zone isn't measured from the floor up. imagine the edge of the deployment zone being a big wall at the deployment line. you need to be 9 inches away from the big imaginary wall.

Ah. Nevermind then.

 flandarz wrote:
Ah. Nevermind then.

You were technically correct, but skipped over/didn't think of the part about the enemy deployment zone being infinitely tall. The ones who say you only measure horizontally were incorrect, and stumbled into the correct answer through luck.

Edit to add: For example, a 10" terrain piece inside the deployment area is still entirely in the deployment area, you can't put a Infiltrating unit on the top floor of a 10" tall building inside the deployment zone.

1. You can use smite. If there is no closest visible enemy unit within 18" nothing happens, but the power has been successfully attempted.

Smite
Smite has a warp charge value of
5. If manifested, the closest visible
enemy unit within 18" of the
psyker suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If the result of the Psychic test was
more than 10, the target suffers D6
mortal wounds instead.

 Type40 wrote:
Deployment zone isn't measured from the floor up. imagine the edge of the deployment zone being a big wall at the deployment line. you need to be 9 inches away from the big imaginary wall.

Citation please.

Breton wrote:

You were technically correct, but skipped over/didn't think of the part about the enemy deployment zone being infinitely tall.

Citation please.

The citation would be the deployment maps. Everything within those zones at any elevation must be within that zone, that's how maps work.

 Stux wrote:
The citation would be the deployment maps. Everything within those zones at any elevation must be within that zone, that's how maps work.

No matter what level of which height ruins they're on. You stick a 12 inch tall Aircraft on top of a 15" tri level ruin and a player's "models must be set up wholly within their own deployment zone" meaning even at ground level the model is not completely in it's own deployment zone if the deployment zone is flat.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The citation would be the deployment maps. Everything within those zones at any elevation must be within that zone, that's how maps work.

No matter what level of which height ruins they're on. You stick a 12 inch tall Aircraft on top of a 15" tri level ruin and a player's "models must be set up wholly within their own deployment zone" meaning even at ground level the model is not completely in it's own deployment zone if the deployment zone is flat.

Exactly that. Any other interpretation makes no sense whatsoever.

Breton wrote:

No matter what level of which height ruins they're on. You stick a 12 inch tall Aircraft on top of a 15" tri level ruin and a player's "models must be set up wholly within their own deployment zone" meaning even at ground level the model is not completely in it's own deployment zone if the deployment zone is flat.

That is not what has been asked. Scouts can be deployed anywhere, but they must be more than 9" away from the enemys deployment zone and enemy models. There is a 10" tall ruin right at the edge of the enemys deployment zone. Can the scouts be deployed on top of that 10" tall ruin ? I see nothing in the rules that says that the deployment zone has an infinite height.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

Exactly that. Any other interpretation makes no sense whatsoever.

We are talking about 40k here. There is a lot about the rules that doesnt make sense.

 p5freak wrote:
I see nothing in the rules that says that the deployment zone has an infinite height

So you can't deploy on the first floor of ruins in your own deployment zone unless you have an infiltrate rule. Nice!

What is it with this forum and absolutely barmy “interpretations” lately?

P5freak, it’s not in any doubt that the whole height of the building is inside the deployment zone. It’s what the map shows, it’s what the community accepts. Let’s not have another silly diversion where we discuss and aberrant interpretation until thread lock...

Yes, there's lots of absurd stuff in the rules. That's why it all has to be viewed through a lens of common sense and interpretation in context - not pure RAW. RAW is not the end point, it is a tool to aid interpretation.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
What is it with this forum and absolutely barmy “interpretations” lately?

P5freak, it’s not in any doubt that the whole height of the building is inside the deployment zone. It’s what the map shows, it’s what the community accepts. Let’s not have another silly diversion where we discuss and aberrant interpretation until thread lock...

Hear hear.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I see nothing in the rules that says that the deployment zone has an infinite height

So you can't deploy on the first floor of ruins in your own deployment zone unless you have an infiltrate rule. Nice!

RAW, you cant.

JohnnyHell wrote:What is it with this forum and absolutely barmy “interpretations” lately?

P5freak, it’s not in any doubt that the whole height of the building is inside the deployment zone. It’s what the map shows, it’s what the community accepts. Let’s not have another silly diversion where we discuss and aberrant interpretation until thread lock...

The building is NOT inside the enemys deployment zone. Its outside of it. I dont get why this is so hard to understand.

Utter nonsense. You claim RAW when you have no backing, and question my comprehension whilst making absurd claims. Utter waste of this forum. Hopefully the mods lock this before it spirals into further nonsense.

 p5freak wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I see nothing in the rules that says that the deployment zone has an infinite height

So you can't deploy on the first floor of ruins in your own deployment zone unless you have an infiltrate rule. Nice!

RAW, you cant.

Assuming you're correct. Of course, assuming you're correct nobody can deploy anything. If you're going to say the delpoyment zone is zero height, then no model can be deployed completely within a given deployment zone. Even a swarm base is higher than zero height. Additionally the Deployment zone depicted on the map covers infinite height. No matter the height of the model, it would still be inside the shaded area.

JohnnyHell wrote:What is it with this forum and absolutely barmy “interpretations” lately?

P5freak, it’s not in any doubt that the whole height of the building is inside the deployment zone. It’s what the map shows, it’s what the community accepts. Let’s not have another silly diversion where we discuss and aberrant interpretation until thread lock...

The building is NOT inside the enemys deployment zone. Its outside of it. I dont get why this is so hard to understand.

There has also been a hypothetical building inside the deployment zone. Are you having difficulty understanding that?

Breton wrote:
Assuming you're correct. Of course, assuming you're correct nobody can deploy anything. If you're going to say the delpoyment zone is zero height, then no model can be deployed completely within a given deployment zone. Even a swarm base is higher than zero height. Additionally the Deployment zone depicted on the map covers infinite height. No matter the height of the model, it would still be inside the shaded area.

The base is part of the model.

Breton wrote:

There has also been a hypothetical building inside the deployment zone. Are you having difficulty understanding that?

No, you dont understand. The hypothetical building is not inside the deployment zone. Its outside, right at the edge of it.

No, someone ALSO gave an example of a tall building inside the deployment zone. If the deployment zone was only at ground level, the opponent would be able to place infiltrators on top of 9" or taller buildings in the deployment zone. If we accept you can't do that, then we must accept the deployment zone has height, and therefore would impact a building just outside of deployment zone too.

I am done with this forum.

This is supposed to act as a place where people can quickly come and check on rules they are confused about.

I thought this was a place for reasonable rules discussion... its clearly a ridiculous and confusing place of pedantic and it is a poor excuse for a rules resource.

Arguing for the sake of arguing.

asking me for a citation on "how the deployment lines work."
I can just as easily ask for a citation of where it says the maps are measured "flat." but whats the point. We both know those citation don't exist. Stop asking people to prove null theories. You can not prove something that doesn't exists does't exist.
That's called a null hypothesis and is a logical fallacy.

This is just ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
These types of pedantic discussions are not helpful as a resource.

 Type40 wrote:

These types of pedantic discussions are not helpful as a resource.

It certainly gets that way at times.

RAW is not the be all and end all, rules only mean something when people use them that way. I don't post that kind of thing for the hardcore RAW people, it's for the other people who read the thread to make sure they know there's another way to look at things.

I am just saying. Do you know how many more rules problems there would be if you decided the deployment zone was a flat surface to be measured away from... Can a model even fit in a 2 dimensional plane? Why even try and make that argument... Then further to ask me for a citation that says it isn't a flat plane... It's just ridiculous at this point.

You can't deploy a 3d base, model or hull on a 2d plane, therefor it's obvious what the deployment maps represent. And therefor it works the way I described(giant imaginary wall of deployment cut off) if you argue against that, you are saying models can not be deployed as they can not be in a 2d surface. If this is true 9inches away from a deployment zone needs to be a vertical measurement. The game can not function in any other way. If you want a citation there isn't one for either argument because this should be obvious/pretty simple logic based on everything else that happens in a deployment zone... That's all I am going to say on this, if people want to argue RAW on this one, they won't find any written rule that says this, GW expects us to have brains enough to figure this one out on our own... They don't have to write down that a 6 sided die should be even on all 6 sides do they?

Yikes! Didn't mean to stirr the pot! lol

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Yikes! Didn't mean to stirr the pot! lol

It's not your fault! There's been long brewing tensions between RAW purists and pragmatists here, who have a fundamental difference in opinion about how rules should be interpreted.

I don't think even BCB would argue that the deployment zone is flat.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think even BCB would argue that the deployment zone is flat.

I wouldn't want to put words in another user's mouth, but it's certainly an odd one.

Raw purists and pragmatists isn't how I would describe it

More
BCB (so pure everyone knows their argument borders on silly sometimes but at least it is grounded in the rules) looking at sideways tanks


RAW accept when RAW doesn't work and fall back on intention (Most players) essentially the answers most people want. What does the rule say if it is unclear how best can we manage it. These players generally support the RAW but in special cases like assault weapons will acknowledge the RAW doesn't work


Finally the players who don't understand the point of a rules forum. Players who Interpret when no interpretation is required or don't base their answer on the rules at all, or in the worst case who change wording to suite their argument.

Far from being pragmatists they are problematic and cloud issues. However the forum rules should be clear that rules answers should be supported by the rules as this point seems to confuse these people as they seem to think RAI and HIWPI have an equal weight in a rules argument.

It is a seperate argument but a number of threads have degenerated into 6 people saying can you provide a citation to support that and 3 people clinging to their interpretation but being unable to support their argument or making up wording that suits them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Yikes! Didn't mean to stirr the pot! lol

It's not your fault! There's been long brewing tensions between RAW purists and pragmatists here, who have a fundamental difference in opinion about how rules should be interpreted.

Also It definitely isn't your fault but I do find it amusing that the loudest objector to pedantry spent three pages of another recent thread arguing about grammar and syntax while not being able to support there position - Pot and Kettle. It is never unreasonable to ask for a citation. Although sometimes as in this case their isn't one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think even BCB would argue that the deployment zone is flat.

I wouldn't want to put words in another user's mouth, but it's certainly an odd one.

From an ultra strict RAW it is undefined therefore its up to players to agree.

from an non ultra RAW its undefined therefore the RAW doesn't work

So we fall back on RAI

And convention is deployment zones are infinitely tall as it has been for years.

There is one exception (Battlezone spirescape- Vigilous defiant) which restricts your non flying units to deploying above table level imposing a minimum height).

U02dah4 wrote:



Also It definitely isn't your fault but I do find it amusing that the loudest objector to pedantry spent three pages of another recent thread arguing about grammar and syntax while not being able to support there position - Pot and Kettle. It is never unreasonable to ask for a citation. Although sometimes as in this case their isn't one.

Lol, that thread has nothing but citations in it. Go back and read the thread, others and myself were Citing both the BRB and MLA, Harvard and Oxford grammar style guides. Over and over and over again. It was you who who constantly straw-manned and circled the arguments back. It was you who refused to read the answers and counterpoints people were giving you. It was you who was unable to understand why your arguments were invalid. It is you who held a ridiculous position for the entire thread. It was you who was rearranging words and sentences to make that rule say what you wanted it to. It was you who did not cite ANY actual references to grammar rules. It was you who claimed that because you were a "native" English speaker you wouldn't be able to explain why grammar works that way to me (I grew up in Canada by the way and I currently work in an industry that requires high levels of academic writing). It was you taking an elitist and arrogant attitude because you saw the little Swedish flag in my profile and thought you could because I wasn't a "native" speaker. It was you who couldn't actually reference a grammar style guide in order to show how it was acceptable to rearrange an entire paragraph for it to mean something different. It was you who refused to explain or cite why your bad grasp of grammar could have possibly been correct. It is people like you who bring up other threads into new ones out of spite. Its people like you who are so concerned with being right that you feel it is necessary to hold a grudge and throw an insult at someone in this thread because you were embarrassed by YOUR OWN stubbornness in another one. It is you who is the problem.

Kindly, never mention or reference me or anyone else in a thread again unless you are directly responding to something they said in that specific thread. Even if you do, please use citations that have full, non-rearranged sentences from the rules. Don't you dare project your own dumb actions on to other people in this forum.