So before I delve headlong into the 'how many angels...' nature of my argument here are the questions; Does the game make a distinction between placement effects functioning with models that are in play (pseudo-movement) and placement affects putting models into play (pseudo-deployment)? Assuming such a distinction exists is pseudo-deployment to be given the benefit of the doubt when a conflict arises?
First of all its worth noting that the entry in both of the big books says nothing that suggests such a difference exists in the actual entry under placement. Thing is though, when you start looking at specific models, anomalies crop up. Gallows Groves and Tiberion both have innate rules preventing placement affects while in play but there's an infernal ruling allowing the tree's, and one presumes the titan, to be put into play as reinforcements. Celestial fulcrum likewise has a no placement clause but paradoxically must be placed in accordance with predeployment, and its going to be getting some company in that regard with the incoming colossals/gargantuans.
Then there's Garryth's Vortex Lock. The phrase 'moved by place effects' is problematic from a rar perspective considering both of the big books point out that placement is not movement, movement is not placement, and ner the twain shall meet. For it to function as intended there needs to be a mechanism in the rules that draws a line between pseudo-movement and pseudo-deployment that to my knowledge isn't in the book.


Reply With Quote
