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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.

No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.

Core rules

"TERRAIN FEATURES
The scenery on a battlefield can be represented by models from the Warhammer 40,000 range. These models are called terrain features to differentiate them from the models that make up an army"


Terrain features are models not all models are terrain features

I like the strong implication in that definition that non-GW terrain is not valid for the game.
Oh GW, how far you've fallen.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.

No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.

The example of a cup of tea illustrates the point perfectly.

No it does not, as the cup of tea analogy has nothing to do with the 40K rules.

A coaster is not a table. But a cup on a coaster is also on the table.

This has nothing to do with the 40k rules. they do not mentions coasters at all.

U02dah4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.

No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.

Core rules

"TERRAIN FEATURES
The scenery on a battlefield can be represented by models from the Warhammer 40,000 range. These models are called terrain features to differentiate them from the models that make up an army"

Terrain features are models not all models are terrain features

I was talking about models, not terrain "models".

Obviously it's not a literal translation of 40k rules.
However, it is demonstrating that you can be on something without being in direct contact.
I'm also sitting *on* my chair, despite there being at least two layers of cloth between my body and the chair.
Just like a Malignifier will be on the battlefield even if there's a Rhino between it and physically touching the table.

The FAQ proves that deepstriking onto a ruin is legal according to GW.
Deepstriking uses pretty much the same wording - set the unit up *on the battlefield*.
Clearly if it works for ruins (which per the above are also models) it works for other models as well.

Terrain = battlefield.

On top of a landraider is not battlefield.

I know this is a struggle for you deathreaper

you cannot put things on models without explicit permission

So you cannot put things on a land raider as you don't have permission

Their are explicit exceptions to this rule such as the area terrain and or scalable rules that allow you to put your models on the other models such as ruins and thats ok as because they specifically state otherwise (an exception)

It all works and its all coherent



The problem is if you take the anywhere means anywhere argument that it bypasses the 3" rule because it gives permission to deploy anywhere. Then by the same argument should it not also grant permission to deploy on other models because that is anywhere. Which is an enormous hole in your argument

Eh, don't bother with him, he never backs down from an argument, even in the face of overwhelming proof.

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It has clearly been proven that on top of other models is on the battlefield.

No it has not, because it isn't. Models are not terrain.

A Sacristan Forgeshrine is a model according to its own datasheet and the terrain feature rules. It has the scalable keyword. A space marine captain on top of scalable terrain has been proven to be on the battlefield.
Therefore models can be placed on models (unless specified otherwise) and models which are placed on other models are considered to be on the battlefield.

Or, in other words, you are wrong.

"After this model is set up, it becomes an area terrain feature...". Area terrain has a permissive rule that allow you to move on it (scalable). Does a land raider have a permissive rule that lets you move on it?

I like how you have, on this last stand argument against, incorporated the wording (unless otherwise stated) that doesn't exist in rules governing placement but does exist in the fortification rule. Really brings us full circle to how simple the argument for is and how escher like the argument against has gotten.


edit: replied to post is gone

Sorry PoorGravitasHandling, I really think you are trying to have an honest discussion here, but from the complete disconnect of your answers to what you are responding to I can only assume you simply don't understand the arguments that are presented to you and/or are unable to respond to them.

Therefore, I really don't think there is any point in continuing this with you.

Summary of the thread so far:
- The Seeded Growth rule has the same wording as various stratagems which allow you to deep strike certain fortifications (Denizens of the Deep, Tellyporta). Everything true for deep striking is also true for the deployment of the Miasmic Malignifier and vice versa.
- The rule has no specific instructions to ignore the 3" minimum distance to other terrain.
- We know that RAI is that the 3" rule is supposed to affect deep striking terrain, as it was explicitly made in response to people using deep striking terrain in an unforeseen way.
- "anywhere" does not give permission to ignore every and all restrictions on deployment, as that assumption would not only cause unintuitive behavior, but also causes multiple game-breaking issues.
- Anything within the battlefield edges is on the battlefield.

Regurgitating three pages of arguments that have been broken down as wrong and claiming I'm "disconnected" is more than mildly childish.

U02dah4 wrote:
I know this is a struggle for you deathreaper

It really is not, I get that you do not understand it, and I am fine with that.

 Jidmah wrote:
Eh, don't bother with him, he never backs down from an argument, even in the face of overwhelming proof.

That is 100% false. If there is actual proof, I would change my mind. But there just isn't any.

I understand well and have explained it in such many others understand it clearly. I also understand your argument i just recognise it doesn't conform to the evidence in the thread as summarised by JIDMAH 3 posts ago

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is 100% false. If there is actual proof, I would change my mind. But there just isn't any.

Citation needed.

U02dah4 wrote:
I understand well and have explained it in such many others understand it clearly. I also understand your argument i just recognise it doesn't conform to the evidence in the thread as summarised by JIDMAH 3 posts ago

Although "anything within the battlefield is on the battlefield" does open a can of worms, when considering passengers embarked in a vehicle, cut that's a different issue we don't need to follow down a side track.

Nope the vehicle rules are clear and have been faq passengers are not on the battlefield which is the justification for their auras not working

You cannot ask for proof of a negative. That is logically impossible.

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is 100% false. If there is actual proof, I would change my mind. But there just isn't any.

Citation needed.

I have given it, you ignore the wording of "Anywhere" which by definition can be within 3 inches of terrain, I get that you do not understand it, and I am fine with that.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You cannot ask for proof of a negative. That is logically impossible.

"A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[9] Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Euclid's theorem, which proves that that there is no largest prime number, and Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Thr problem with that interpretation of "anywhere" is that it's an argument of special pleading.
You argue that anywhere means anywhere when it comes to placing it near terrain.
But it no longer means anywhere when it comes to placing it on other models.

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
I understand well and have explained it in such many others understand it clearly. I also understand your argument i just recognise it doesn't conform to the evidence in the thread as summarised by JIDMAH 3 posts ago

Although "anything within the battlefield is on the battlefield" does open a can of worms, when considering passengers embarked in a vehicle, cut that's a different issue we don't need to follow down a side track.

I really do wonder why you bother posting stuff like this when you clearly haven't even checked the rules whether you have any support for your claims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is 100% false. If there is actual proof, I would change my mind. But there just isn't any.

Citation needed.

I have given it, you ignore the wording of "Anywhere" which by definition can be within 3 inches of terrain, I get that you do not understand it, and I am fine with that.

I actually was asking for proof of you ever backing down from an argument.

You still clinging to the anywhere nonsense despite the argument having been refuted in three different ways is exactly what I expect from you.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Thr problem with that interpretation of "anywhere" is that it's an argument of special pleading.
You argue that anywhere means anywhere when it comes to placing it near terrain.
But it no longer means anywhere when it comes to placing it on other models.

Only because the game breaks if you place a model on top of a Land Raider. If the game didn't break, you could place it on top of the Land Raider without issue because of the words "Anywhere" because it is otherwise stated that you can place them anywhere.

 Jidmah wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
I understand well and have explained it in such many others understand it clearly. I also understand your argument i just recognise it doesn't conform to the evidence in the thread as summarised by JIDMAH 3 posts ago

Although "anything within the battlefield is on the battlefield" does open a can of worms, when considering passengers embarked in a vehicle, cut that's a different issue we don't need to follow down a side track.

I really do wonder why you bother posting stuff like this when you clearly haven't even checked the rules whether you have any support for your claims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is 100% false. If there is actual proof, I would change my mind. But there just isn't any.

Citation needed.

I have given it, you ignore the wording of "Anywhere" which by definition can be within 3 inches of terrain, I get that you do not understand it, and I am fine with that.

I actually was asking for proof of you ever backing down from an argument.

You still clinging to the anywhere nonsense despite the argument having been refuted in three different ways is exactly what I expect from you.

At this point anyone with a brain cell knows deathreaper is wrong - his allies came out as a troll and someone who didn't have access to the rules- His argument has been refuted in three different ways.

He has nothing more to add because in 7 pages he has provided no evidence and made no attempt to refute any of the three proofs that he is wrong

Its time to just acknowledge that miasmic malignifier can't be placed within 3" of terrain and just ignore any further comments from deathreaper its not worth the characters and he is not going to change his mind even if GW printed a statement deathreaper is wrong in capitals in the next FAQ

He won't address any of this he will just post something idiotic like stop claiming things that arn't true with no evidence to support his point - just dont waste your time it only encourages him and you have nothing to answer unless he presents proof and he can't

U02dah4 wrote:
At this point anyone with a brain cell knows deathreaper is wrong - his allies came out as a troll and someone who didn't have access to the rules- His argument has been refuted in three different ways.

Stop claiming things that are not true.

oh boy, this thread has not gone anywhere productive. Let's just allow it to end here.