Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 03:32:41
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel
Douglasville, GA
|
Also, please don't bring stuff from a locked thread into another thread. It's a good way to 1) restart an argument and 2) get the moderators upset with you for doing so.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 03:35:30
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Edit:
I posted a link to that referenced thread ,
I was tilted, I have removed it.
Someone projecting their own behavior on to myself and others and specifically calling people out for it, is pretty annoying. Sorry.
If anyone is interested, the thread is not hard to find.
But as a final answer to the question.
No you can not deploy in a building right next to the deployment zone 9' up. A deployment zone is a 3d space. To think it was a 2d plane would mean you couldn't actually deploy anything there.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2019/09/09 03:54:47
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 04:21:35
Subject: Re:A couple of rules questions
|
 |
[MOD]
Villanous Scum
|
Being polite is not optional, RAI/RAW/HWIP all say to be polite when posting.
As someone enquired earlier, there is a sticky in YMDC about how to post in this forum, I quote here the OP for your edification and for reference;
Lorek wrote:
These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure relatively smooth rules discussions. If you find someone going against these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.
1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.
2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/ FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/ FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.
3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.
5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and " TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule ( TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
A Few Definitions
For those who haven't seen these terms before.
Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.
How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.
|
On parle toujours mal quand on n'a rien à dire. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 07:17:31
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Horrific Hive Tyrant
|
U02dah4 wrote:
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.
...
And convention is deployment zones are infinitely tall as it has been for years.
HIWPI doesn't have equal weight agreed. Though as the mod posted rules above show it does have a place in YMDC.
What is important to me is convention, which you also reference here. Convention is not HIWPI. HIWPI is personal opinion, convention is wider opinion and those are extremely different things. Rules conventions should have at least the same standing as RAW when explaining to someone how to play the game. Higher in some cases. That position is what I was referring to as far as being a rules pragmatist.
RAW that isn't actually followed in game by the majority of people is meaningless, and consensus in how to play the game in these situations is what we should be explaining to people in these situations. Then of course it is up to each individual how they will take that and what they do with it when they play.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 12:16:02
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel
Douglasville, GA
|
Whichever Mod deleted all that: thanks.
For everyone else: rule 5 is two posts above me. Please follow it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 12:21:40
Subject: Re:A couple of rules questions
|
 |
[MOD]
Villanous Scum
|
Sorry got distracted with PMs. Please can we all remember the rules here and be polite and stick to discussing the topic at hand (which as has been pointed out is not other posters).
Thanks,
ingtaer.
|
On parle toujours mal quand on n'a rien à dire. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 17:57:10
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
p5freak wrote:
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.
By that argument you couldn't ever deploy on a hill since it's also a terrain piece laid on the table. It also seems strange that you could deploy in ruins that don't come with a base, but you couldn't deploy in ruing that do come with a base, since by your definition the base would interfere with the deployment zone.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 17:57:27
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 18:24:59
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Ignoring all the arguements above and trying to help the OP.
Snoopdeville3 wrote:
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".
In my opinion, your scouts would need to be 9" horizontally from your oponents deployment zone. If you can imagine your opponents deployment zone like a 3d object, that has the flat edges on the board, but also goes vertically up (well up to your ceiling I guess) then you would have to place your models 9" away from that.
Just my opinion.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 18:34:02
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers
|
I have always seen it in H2P videos, that Scouts can deploy in ruins on any floor. Even in Batreps a lot of people have Vindi's deploying on the top of a building. That isn't by itself proof, as they might be wrong. But I would say RAI you can deploy in structures. In your OWN D Zone however. Never seen this "in your opponents" dDzone.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/09 18:35:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 18:40:30
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
The deployment maps are two-d. But that's fine because when viewed from sufficiently high up so are the actual tables you play on. Thus if this projection means you cannot fit into the zone you're allowed in, then you're not allowed in it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 18:55:24
Subject: Re:A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
FWIW, I would argue it has to be 2 dimensional for the sake of sanity.
After all, it's called "Deployment Zone" and not "Deployment Plane". By the virtue of being able to deploy within another player's deployment zone, 9" away in the Z-axis, would cause all sorts of wonky interactions.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/09 19:42:25
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
doctortom wrote: p5freak wrote:
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.
By that argument you couldn't ever deploy on a hill since it's also a terrain piece laid on the table. It also seems strange that you could deploy in ruins that don't come with a base, but you couldn't deploy in ruing that do come with a base, since by your definition the base would interfere with the deployment zone.
Agree with everything you are saying. Just one point of order. Hills are not considered a terrain feature in 8th edition... small note, but is sometimes relevant.
See page 251 BRB .
The only time this has ever been relevant for me is when I deploy a webway gate. They got to be 3" away from terrain features... So I usually try to put them on/near hills
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 19:48:50
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 12:34:47
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard
|
doctortom wrote: p5freak wrote:
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.
By that argument you couldn't ever deploy on a hill since it's also a terrain piece laid on the table. It also seems strange that you could deploy in ruins that don't come with a base, but you couldn't deploy in ruing that do come with a base, since by your definition the base would interfere with the deployment zone.
Actually by that argument you can't ever deploy at all. If the Deployment zone is null height, and all models have height, no model can be deployed "fully" in the deployment zone. Even a ripper swarm is too tall, forget about a Stormraven on a gigantic flying stand.
Of course you're arguing with someone who responded to a post pointing out there have been TWO hypothetical buildings by continuing to refer to it as THE hypothetical building.
|
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 12:47:10
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Stalwart Dark Angels Space Marine
Manchester, UK
|
My Group and I have always played it as if the Deployment Zone is a 'sheet' drapped over part of the battlefield. You cannot deploy within 9" of the it, and it covers/goes over any and all terrain/ruins.
This allows deployment 1" across but 9" up, and doesn't cause any issues with deploying on roofs of ruins and such.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 13:39:54
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Dadavester wrote:My Group and I have always played it as if the Deployment Zone is a 'sheet' drapped over part of the battlefield. You cannot deploy within 9" of the it, and it covers/goes over any and all terrain/ruins.
This allows deployment 1" across but 9" up, and doesn't cause any issues with deploying on roofs of ruins and such.
What happens when you have models that you measure to the hull is near this 9" terrain/ruin?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 17:05:10
Subject: Re:A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
I sure hope a new player doesn't come here looking for help with understanding the rules of the game.
If I was one, I'd straight up find a better game and a better community.
|
Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 17:10:07
Subject: Re:A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
AdmiralHalsey wrote:I sure hope a new player doesn't come here looking for help with understanding the rules of the game.
If I was one, I'd straight up find a better game and a better community.
I fully agree, they should find a better game. I recommend Kill Team or Apocalypse if you like the 40k lore/setting specifically.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 18:15:44
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers
|
I can't recall any major board game ever being this bad at rules. D&D is about 150x more complicated than this (Try and learn THAC0 and see if you can DM with it and not cry) and even that was clearly done and well thought out. By like 4 guys who all had full time jobs and were going to college.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 18:29:24
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Horrific Hive Tyrant
|
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I can't recall any major board game ever being this bad at rules. D&D is about 150x more complicated than this (Try and learn THAC0 and see if you can DM with it and not cry) and even that was clearly done and well thought out. By like 4 guys who all had full time jobs and were going to college.
Have you spent much time around D&D rules forum? They get just as messy as this.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 18:35:53
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Stux wrote: FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I can't recall any major board game ever being this bad at rules. D&D is about 150x more complicated than this (Try and learn THAC0 and see if you can DM with it and not cry) and even that was clearly done and well thought out. By like 4 guys who all had full time jobs and were going to college.
Have you spent much time around D&D rules forum? They get just as messy as this.
D&D's system of "defer to your DM" is exactly the same deal as 40k's TMIR...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 18:38:00
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
skchsan wrote: Stux wrote: FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I can't recall any major board game ever being this bad at rules. D&D is about 150x more complicated than this (Try and learn THAC0 and see if you can DM with it and not cry) and even that was clearly done and well thought out. By like 4 guys who all had full time jobs and were going to college.
Have you spent much time around D&D rules forum? They get just as messy as this.
D&D's system of "defer to your DM" is exactly the same deal as 40k's TMIR...
Not really.
Because in D&D, it's a cooperative game with one final arbiter.
In 40k, it's a competitive game with no arbiter, unless you have a TO/Judge.
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 18:41:13
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Glasgow
|
Also TMIR is only a temp fix when some decisions destroy how a list functions. Most players don't want to roll those hings off continually
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 18:51:08
Subject: A couple of rules questions
|
 |
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers
|
I will admit as a DM I have limitless discretion as to how the game world operates, and I can really DM God it up. But with the issues of balance, if we take out Rogues and Rangers, the game is still enjoyable at all levels. This game at start is a confusion contradictory mess full of rules that seemingly invalidate other rules, and need GW to literally explain what happens.
Unstoppable forces vs. Immovable object. Vindicaire shoots a Culexus. What is the Ballistic skill on that shot? Did no one at GW think this would be an issue? They had to release a FAQ right after explaining that the attacker takes precedence over defender. WHY NOT HAVE THAT IN THE RULES?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/09/10 18:52:16
Subject: Re:A couple of rules questions
|
 |
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Cozy cockpit of an Archer ARC-5S
|
Questions have been answered and we've swerved well off-topic here, so locking.
|
Fatum Iustum Stultorum
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
|
|
 |
 |
|