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 guys one of my favourite things to do in 8th was drop a Tfex flamer in the backlines.

here is the issue

DISEMBARK

When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield so that it is wholly within 3" of the TRANSPORT model and not within Engagement Range of any enemy models.


Invasion Organism: During deployment, you can set up a Tyrannocyte in its hive ship instead of placing it on the battlefield. If you do so, the hive ship can launch the Tyrannocyte at the end of any of your Movement phases – set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.

Any models that are inside the Tyrannocyte (see right) must immediately disembark in the same manner as a unit disembarking from a transport, except that they must be set up more than 9" away from any enemy models. Any models that cannot be set up in this way are destroyed.

The issue here is that the Tyrannoctye forces a disembark. and the Tryannofex base cannot fit WHOLLY within 3 inches of the Transport. even though the model can be transported by the Tyrannocyte is dies instantly because it cannot disembark.

It is possible the same is true for other monsters the tyrannocyte can transport.

my play group is pretty chill and will allow the silliness to continue i was just wondering if there are any other rules issues like this around and if they have any solutions yet.

This is a case where TMIR actually kicks in because they forgot to write rules for what happens if you're forced to disembark from a non-destroyed transport and can't fit the unit wholly within 3".

"Any models that cannot be set up in this way are destroyed."

Surely this applies to the full previous sentence? So if you cant place it per the disembarking rules then it is destroyed.

 Stux wrote:
"Any models that cannot be set up in this way are destroyed."

Surely this applies to the full previous sentence? So if you cant place it per the disembarking rules then it is destroyed.

Good point. I was only reading the BRB and brainderped on the actual tyranid rule. Seems the model is destroyed as it can't be set up "this way".

Yup. Tyrannocytes suck both because of what fits in them and their disembark rules further limiting what fits inside.

A single unit is bull gak.

The wholly within 3" rule means only monsters on hivetyrant or carnifex bases fit.

Is this a case where as 40k atm does not specify base sizes you would rebase him on a smaller base and model him on one foot like a ballerina?

As it looks like you cannot disembark a tyrannofex from a tyrannocyte legally atm.

*looks at 3" around tyrannocyte*

What is this? A disembark zone fore ants?

How can we be expected to deploy tyrannofex inside the tyrannocyte, if they can't even fit within the disembark zone?

Vrigor wrote:
Is this a case where as 40k atm does not specify base sizes you would rebase him on a smaller base and model him on one foot like a ballerina?

That would fall into the 'Modeling for Advantage' category.

And hilarious looking. But why have rules that it can be inside something it can never leave unless the transport is destroyed? Was there an edition that it could leave that transport?

Vrigor wrote:
And hilarious looking. But why have rules that it can be inside something it can never leave unless the transport is destroyed? Was there an edition that it could leave that transport?

Yes, in 8th edition you only had to be "within" 3", not "wholly within", so only a tiny sliver of the base had to be within 3".

 Ghaz wrote:

Vrigor wrote:
Is this a case where as 40k atm does not specify base sizes you would rebase him on a smaller base and model him on one foot like a ballerina?

That would fall into the 'Modeling for Advantage' category.

Ah yes, modelling for the advantage of being able to legally deploy from my transport without being destroyed. Henious.

 Ghaz wrote:

Vrigor wrote:
Is this a case where as 40k atm does not specify base sizes you would rebase him on a smaller base and model him on one foot like a ballerina?

That would fall into the 'Modeling for Advantage' category.

You know what, this is the one time that I think I'd call this 'Modelling for Adequacy'. Somebody please do it, I wanna see...!

Agreed that per strict RAW, the Tyrannofex would unfortunately be destroyed. Not seeing anything in FAQs for it, either.
I'd be very surprised if anyone actually insisted on playing it that way, though. If you're concerned about any particular opponents, maybe check with them before bringing it, or before deployment so you can set up the Tyrannofex normally instead?

Logically since the model has a fixed base size and is permitted to be transported in the model then 99.9% of players would happily accept base to base contact between the two since you can't logically fit a greater than 3 inch base within 3 inches.

That said it is the kind of thing GW should clarify in the FAQ/Errata so everyone email GW rules team politely to point out this error.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Vrigor wrote:
Is this a case where as 40k atm does not specify base sizes you would rebase him on a smaller base and model him on one foot like a ballerina?

That would fall into the 'Modeling for Advantage' category.

Ah yes, modelling for the advantage of being able to legally deploy from my transport without being destroyed. Henious.

If you're doing this just so you don't have to discuss this situation with your opponent and/or tournament organizer and find out how they want to play it, then yes it most definitely is 'Modeling for Advantage'.

 Ghaz wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Vrigor wrote:
Is this a case where as 40k atm does not specify base sizes you would rebase him on a smaller base and model him on one foot like a ballerina?

That would fall into the 'Modeling for Advantage' category.

Ah yes, modelling for the advantage of being able to legally deploy from my transport without being destroyed. Henious.

If you're doing this just so you don't have to discuss this situation with your opponent and/or tournament organizer and find out how they want to play it, then yes it most definitely is 'Modeling for Advantage'.

What "Advantage" is gained by resizing the base so that the largest dimention is less than 3 inches?

In this case, the ability to deploy from a TYRANNOCYTE

Let's not confuse this specific situation with a generic term that's been used for all sorts of unrelated abuses, because they don't equate.
Remodelling this in order to be able to use a rule for what is fairly blatantly its original intent, can hardly be called "advantage". Otherwise you could say the same to anyone suddenly putting bolt pistol holsters on all their Marines they previously didn't bother with, back in the WYSIWYG years.

Of course it's an advantage.

If you think the rule is stupid (and it is), just agree with your opponent beforehand that you can deploy your thing base-to-base with the tyrannocyte. That causes far less problems than rebasing a monster to a smaller base size it isn't intended to be on.

 Super Ready wrote:
Let's not confuse this specific situation with a generic term that's been used for all sorts of unrelated abuses, because they don't equate.
Remodelling this in order to be able to use a rule for what is fairly blatantly its original intent, can hardly be called "advantage". Otherwise you could say the same to anyone suddenly putting bolt pistol holsters on all their Marines they previously didn't bother with, back in the WYSIWYG years.

Except we're no longer looking for it's 'original intent' as we're not playing 8th edition any more, are we? This is 9th edition and GW's 'intent' in this situation is unclear so we really shouldn't just make assumptions and rebase the model on a smaller base (which is the least likely solution GW would present in a FAQ anyway) just so we don't have to talk to our opponent or tournament organizer about it.

 alextroy wrote:
In this case, the ability to deploy from a TYRANNOCYTE

Yea, that is not at all what MFA means.

If a single model can be embarked on a transport, it can also disembark. This is how the rules are written.

MFA would be something like being able to fit 20 more models in melee because you switched base sizes.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
In this case, the ability to deploy from a TYRANNOCYTE

Yea, that is not at all what MFA means.

If a single model can be embarked on a transport, it can also disembark. This is how the rules are written.

MFA would be something like being able to fit 20 more models in melee because you switched base sizes.

It is like you haven’t read this thread. A unit disembarking from a Tyrannocyte must deploy all models fully within 3” of the Tyrannocyte and more than 9” from and enemy models. And models that cannot are destroyed. The base of the Tyrannofex makes it impossible to deploy entirely within 3”.

 alextroy wrote:
It is like you haven’t read this thread. A unit disembarking from a Tyrannocyte must deploy all models fully within 3” of the Tyrannocyte and more than 9” from and enemy models. And models that cannot are destroyed. The base of the Tyrannofex makes it impossible to deploy entirely within 3”.

I have read the thread.

I really just wanted Ghaz to say that a single model that was the lone occupant that was deploying from a transport was MFA...

I know a Tyrannocyte must deploy all models fully within 3”

I know that the base of the Tyrannofex is too big. Puting a different base on the Tyrannofex is allowed. So rebasing the Tyrannofex is not against the rules.

Rebasing the Tyrannofex does not resolve the problem because now you are basing for advantage by changing the base size from the one supplied with the model. Whilst this might allow you to legally deploy from a Tyrannocyte it also affects the models performance on the table for abilities measured from the Tyrannofex (or its other variation build) and also in its performance in close combat and in blocking movement etc....



In the end you have a model functionally allowed to embark into a transport, which is then functionally not allowed to disembark from that transport without being killed.

Either it being able to embark is in the wrong or the model requires an exception or a rewording of the rule for disembarking to allow it to function.


In most games before GW FAQ corrects this most opponents will assume a model allowed to embark will be able to disembark a transport even if it breaches the "fully within 3 inches" aspect of the rule. Since its physically impossible to achieve fully within 3 inches with a base greater than 3 inches in size.

Just realized pretty much every game ive played when someone exits a vehicle they just measure from the vehicle and add 3" to their movement but if they have to fully deploy within 3" and then move they may end up with a different movement outcome. May not be much but with unit coherency maybe it matters.

The rule changed from 8th to 9th, it used to be within 3", now it's wholly within 3", but a lot of people either don't realize the change happened or forget about it when it comes to actually playing.

 Vrigor wrote:
Just realized pretty much every game ive played when someone exits a vehicle they just measure from the vehicle and add 3" to their movement but if they have to fully deploy within 3" and then move they may end up with a different movement outcome. May not be much but with unit coherency maybe it matters.

It will matter, as for the most part some of the unit will have to be wrapping around the transport, usually. They can't all move from the front bumper! some of them have to get out of the back and then slog it from there.