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.

Hi all, I recalled the discussion about tank shocking things off the table we had some time ago. Lokking at the thread, it rather seems dead to me. Since the thread essentially had to deal with two major questions, one of them being 'has a unit that moves out of the way to move towards (or across) the board edge', the other one being 'do things that touch the board edge miraculously vanish in circumstances other than already "falling back"'.

Since I feel that the first one can never be answered without solving the second issue, I'd like to stretch the thead into two and concentrate on the second one. Someone please deny me the following argument:

P1: Any point exactly next to the board edge within the deployment zone of your enemy would be a valid position (for him/her) to deploy a unit to, allowing your enemy's unit e.g. to immediatly after deployment 'touch the board edge' (Leaving the battle, p49 BGB) and disappear (advanced self destruction if you don't want to play at all!? *g*)

P2: Some scenarios have a 12' deployment zone (p. 81 ff BGB).

P3: A Landraider, as per the model the box contains, measures about 6.5 inches in length if assembled the right way.

P4:  The Callidus' special rule 'a word in your ear' allows to move a single enemy unit up to six inches to any point in the enemys deployment zone (Codex DH or WH).

C: In said scenarios a Callidus assassin would be very valuable, for you can move you enemys Landraider, complete with a 300 pts. HQ termy squad and the like next to the board edge during deployment, making 500 points to go 'poof' without anything your enemy could do about it, since a raider is (almost) just too big a vehicle to deploy in a secure distance to the rear edge. Leaving you with a lot of VP and a still untouched Callidus.

 

Additional premises:

P1a: The BGB does not state when to check for 'touching' a board edge. While it doesn't imply that the disappearance occurs immediatly, it also doesn't say it checks at the end of each game turn or such, so I think it's fair to asume the vehicle(unit,IC, whatever) in question would vanish before the first gameturn starts and the opposing player had a chance to move it's unit out of harms way.

P1b: I asume, as well, that 'leaving the battle' counts in any situation where a unit touches the table edge. Regardless of wether it is listed in the morale section or not. I think the section it is in doesn't matter at all if there is no other rule dealing with that action anywhere in the rulebook. I recall Insaniac tried using this argument in the first debate, but if you do as well please be aware that 'rending' is described in the 'special close combat attacks'-section. So your AC won't ever score any rending hits any more, according to this logic (unless wielded by a Dread in CC maybe ;-)). If you feel P1 really doesn't hold at all since 'leaving the battle' doesn't, feel free to prove so, but I'd still appreciate an answer to the question at hand asuming it would apply, anyway. thx!

P5: I (beware, personal oppinion!) seriously asume that p. 49, 'designer's note', also intends to allow such cheesy use of the Callidus, as it would ultimately (maybe atleast for some time) force some players to not hug the rear board edge with almost morale-resistant {marines/eldar with avatar/IG with iron discipline and the like}to give them some extra 10 inches between my generally more CC reliant Chaos Army and their frontline to outshoot me 5 out of 6 turns to speed up front in the sixt and win the game with me having hardly a chance to reach a single unit before the game ends. Generally speaking, it would be fairly easy to set up your units far enough from the table edge to be save, with the exception of Monoliths, Landraiders and other really huge vehicles I don't think of atm (which is the cause for this thread...). But again, maybe that's just silly me...

Regardless of any legality, this tactic would never survive real-world play.

Therefore, it isn't even woth discussing, IMO.

I think the section it is in doesn't matter at all if there is no other rule dealing with that action anywhere in the rulebook. I recall Insaniac tried using this argument in the first debate, but if you do as well please be aware that 'rending' is described in the 'special close combat attacks'-section.

The rules for ranged Rending weapons are on page 32, in the 'Weapons' section. The rules in the Special Close Combat Attacks section are only for close combat Rending weapons.


And my argument wasn't solely to do with the location of the rule, but the context of the rule entry.

Witch Hunter's Codex, page 31

A Word In Your Ear... The player with the Callidus Assassin can move one enemy unit up to 6 inchs after both sides have deployed, but before the first turn starts. The unit's new position must be within the normal deployment zone, and the owning player may choose the facing of the unit after it has been moved.

In short, no, you may not Word something off the table.

@ insaniak: uuuuh, jaaaaaaaaa... I see your point, sorry for the silly attempt to use the rending rule to support my cause, I sometimes tend to overlook such small sections when going through the big book... never came to me that there would be the same rule twice. Clearly my fault, but I might give another example (not as offending as the rending thing if it had worked, but valid on the other hand this time, at least I hope so...): What about bunkers? My local group has a certain nifty piece of terrain, an imperial bunker, which is used on a regular basis for many of our games. Most time we tend to play standard mission, nevertheless we use the rules for 'bunkers', p. 193 BGB in the 'Battle Missions' section. The point is, although the rules for 'bunkers' seem to apply to the battle missions only, following the context, I think it is not much of a problem, rather the only way to use those 'out of context'-rules in other situations! Since the standard missions do not specifically outline rules for bunkers, at least there is a rule given for the situation, if in another section of the BGB though. IMO it's more reasonable to use given rules (if there are any) for situations where you need a rule even if they are out of context than arguing not to have a global rule anyway and to roll a dice.
So from this point of view, I'd like to use the 'leaving the battle' rule generally for every 'unit touches a board edge'-situation, since I think the BGB lacks a general rule and there is no FAQ. How do you regularly resolve such questions? Do you really use bunkers as woods in standard missions? (or have I missed a more general bunker-rule again??)

@ DragonPup: Uh, you do not exactly get my argument, I'd guess. Have a look at the 'leaving the battle' rule. I do not, in any way, want to move a certain unit OFF the table, which wasn't exactly 'within the normal deployment zone', agreed! I want to move a unit to a position where it just touches the board edge, from within your deployment zone. I am pretty sure there are plenty of such positions in your deployment zone, also pretty sure that a table edge can be touched this way, not that sure that a unit would vanish from simply touching the big bad edge at all, though 'leaving the battlefield' says so. That is where I want to be argumentatively beaten, I need a better rule than that one to resolve the situation, or the place the BGB tells me I can't use it at all unless fleeing (like with Insaniak's argument).

@yakface: Don't mistake me for a cheater, cheesey player or some 'look what a smart guy I am, I found a loophole and can post it to dakka'-guy, please. I play Chaos for the sake of playing Chaos, nothing else, so I would actually never be in the position to use a Callidus at all! The original intend was to resolve the burning question of 'are units able to leave the battlefield while not fleeing at any cost, maybe through universal use of "leaving the battlefield"??'. honestly.
Sometimes you just need a polarizing example to get a debate started from what I know...

I'm at work, so I don't have a rulebook with me to back up with page numbers and quotes, but units that walk in from reserves, deploy from the board edge, don't they? You don't measure their movement an inch out from, or a millimeter out from, you measure from the board edge, meaning their starting position is in contact there with. So a unit can begin in contact with the board edge, without being removed from the game.

Moving a Land Raider where it 'falls off the world' is not allowed during deployment, therefore not allowed with A Word In Your Ear. End of story. :p

The bunker rules are written for specific types of missions. In all other missions, they would simply count as regular buildings.

If they had been intended for the bunker rules to be available in all mission types, they would have been included in the Terrain section, or the standard mission special rule section.



And Dragonpup got your argument just fine.

The unit's new position must be within its deployment zone. If you apply the 'Leaving the Battle' rules any time a model touches the board edge, when you move the LR to touch the board edge it is removed instantly. Its new position is therefore 'off the table' not within its deployment zone.

You therefore can not use 'A Word in your Ear' to move a unit to touch the board edge.

@ DragonPup: So where the heck does it read that such movement is not allowed during deployment, asuming it would be generally allowed? Please give me a quote or s.th. elso to chew on. If it is your own belief, then yes, I am with you, but nevertheless I do not see where the rules support that view.

@ insaniak: Again, is it okay to apply rules out of context to situations where you would need one and there is no general rule, only this single very specific rule 'meant' to apply in an other context, or not? This has nothing to do with how you or I play a bunker or how you or I would rule on the 'leaving the battle'. I'd just like to know in general! But maybe we'll better leave this at the side, I'll reread how to have an intelligent rules debate, maybe it is very obvious and I didn't see it...

For the 'position' argument: You did better in clarifiing the argument, imho :-). If that's the way DragonPup wanted to argue, I can now guess what his/your position is.
It comes down to two rules each checking a condition, right?:

Px1: 'leaving the battle' checks if the unit touches the board edge.

Px2: 'A word in your ear' checks if the same unit is, for the sake of simplicity say 'inside' the deployment zone.

Px3: I think we can agree that both are 'one-time-checks' (e.g. if the unit leaves the deployment zone say on turn 3,
it certainly wouldn't interfere with the 'a word in your ear' check for a proper position, since it is not an ongoing
effect...)

Px4: Both checks obviously occur after the 'a.w.i.y.e.' movement of said unit has been finished.

Px5: Neither one of the rules state at which specific point of time to check.

Cx: You then argue that 'leaving the battle' would trigger first, thus placing the unit off the board, then resolving
the rest of 'a.w.i.y.e.', returning with a big 'Hell no, that's not a proper position for that unit'.

Uh, how is that going to work? As far as I know 40k has no stack for triggered events like mtg or the like. If this holds true then we both had an equal claim of triggering the checks when we'd like to. What about moving the unit, checking if it is in a proper position (at least those actions are written in the same rule altogether, why not resolve them right after each other?), and afterwards triggering 'leaving the battle'. Maybe a minute later. Maybe at the start of the first turn. It doesn't actually matter.
This would require us to throw a d6 at least. If this was the only way to resolve the situation, I'd choose not to field the Callidus, for I do not like throwing d6s to determine who's right, but not because of your argument.
A rather logical approach to resolve events (okay, bad attempt, it's 40k) would be to have a stack. In this case, 'a word in your ear' would apply, triggering the 'leaving the battle' check which would resolve after 'a word in your ear' has been worked out completely, as 'l.t.b.' went to the stack last.
So, from what the rules as well as common logic tell me, it is either a draw in claims (d6 situation) or 'leaving the battle' going last (just the way you do not want it to work). I am curious how you'll make the rules work for your scenario??

P1: AWIYE states, "The unit's new position must be within the normal deployment zone, and the owning player may choose the facing of the unit after it has been moved.".

P2: You can not deploy off of the board.

C1: AWIYE can not be used to move any part of the model offboard as this is outside of the normal deployment zone.

C2: Anyone attempting to make a Land Raider fall off the edge of the board using AWIYE in this respect either doesnt understand the rules reguarding AWIYE, or is trying to abuse them.

P1: AWIYE must deploy a unit within it's normal deployment zone.
P2: The normal deployment zone includes the edge of the board.
P3: Units can begin in contact with the board edge without being removed.

C: AWIYE cannot make a unit fall off the table.

being as how the owning player determines final position, even if you had an unrelenting prick on your hands that INSISTED that he try, i'd just pivot it sideways so the length of the raider was parallell to the board edge and you'd gain the 3+", give him a dirty look, smack him twice then find a new opponent

I must concur with yakface, why the heck are we even discussing this?  It fits into the "the rules don't say I can't move your figs, so I'll do it" relm of rules intepretation.

@ insaniak: Again, is it okay to apply rules out of context to situations where you would need one and there is no general rule

It's never ok to apply rules out of context.

There are certain rules printed in one location in the book that apply in other situations. These are generally either referenced in those other locations, or general enough that they would always apply.

'Leaving the Battle' is not, in my opinion, written in such a manner, nor is it referenced anywhere else in the rules. It is a footnote in the 'Regrouping' subsection of the Morale rules that very clearly is refering to units that are Falling Back. It would therefore seem to only ever apply to units that are falling back.

Uh, how is that going to work? As far as I know 40k has no stack for triggered events like mtg or the like.

It doesn't need one in this situation. If you are applying the 'Leaving the Battle rule here, it happens instantly as the unit touches the board edge. It is a part of the unit's movement. The unit' movement is therefore not over until the unit has been removed from the board. You clearly can not check if the movement of the unit has placed it somewhere illegal until it has finished moving...

Nor is any such check actually required. You don't move the unit and then check if it is still in the deployment zone... you simply move it in such a way that it stays within the zone. Touching the board edge (if you apply LtB) results in the vehicle leaving the deployment zone... it is therfore not a legal movement.

Hmkay, Insaniak, counting 'leaving the battle' to the movement of the unit sound fairly senseful to me, I give you that. So I'll withdraw on the subject (having such a strong opposition against my idea makes it look like I'm with my back to the wall anyways :-)). Thx for the clarification and the input to all of you (excluding ironkodiak for trying to push me in the lamea** 'the rules don't say I can't' -corner! If you'd read my posts you should have come to the conclusion that from my pov the rules actualy forced me to move the unit off the table once they touched the edge, so it would have been your turn to deny me this!)
Anyway, I will be back... already have a silly idea of misusing vehicles in CC in mind *g*

I read your posts.

Since during deployment your vehicle can't touch the edge of the board and be taken off the edge, it can't be re-deployed there and therefore never touched the board edge. 

It can't be done. 

You can't do it.  

Your opponent can't do it. 

It's that simple.

I don't understand how I have to deny you a rule that isn't there.  Hence the "it doesn't say I can't " argument.

My guess is, if you ever come up 6 (everyone else) to 1 (you) on rules question, you're probably reading too much into a rule, or misreading it entirely. 

Not treying to be mean, I've been on the "1" side of a few rules quandries in my day (it still irks me that everyone told me in 2nd edition that I was smoking it by assuming Avatars were immune to Blind grenades since they were described as demonic, then 3rd edition agreed with me.)