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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.



The Space Marine Drop Pod rules say (SM codex, pg 15): "Drop Pod Assault: Drop Pods always enter play using the deep strike rules from the Mission Special Rules section of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

and:

"Internal Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle."


The Deep Strike rules say (rulebook, pg 95): "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice. . .but if an arrow is shown this determines the direction the model is scattered in. If a scatter occurs, roll 2D6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position."



QUESTION: If a Space Marine Drop Pod rolls enough scatter distance to be legally placed on the other side of an intervening unit, is the Drop Pod placed at that full scatter distance? Or is the Drop Pod's scatter immediately reduced as soon as it 'moves' into an intervening unit/impassable terrain along the 'path' of its scatter?



OPTION A. If the Drop Pod rolls enough scatter distance to be placed in a 'legal' location then that is where the model is placed, even if the scatter passes over intervening units or impassable terrain.


OPTION B. The Drop Pod's scatter is immediately reduced the minimum amount needed to legally place the model as soon as it 'moves' (scatters) into a unit or impassable terrain, so a Drop Pod will never land on the opposite side of another unit from where it was intended to land.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

I don't see how option B could be a valid option. Please enlighten me.
I mean if you don't land on models/impassable terrain the Internal Guidance System rule never kicks in.

Webbe wrote:I don't see how option B could be a valid option. Please enlighten me.
I mean if you don't land on models/impassable terrain the Internal Guidance System rule never kicks in.

The argument (as I've heard it) is that the 'scatter' is essentially a "move", so the Drop Pod model is placed on the board and then 'moved' the distance it scatters. If it then encounters an obstacle during this movement its move is reduced the minimum distance needed to avoid it.

A), IMO

My reading of the rule has always been that the single model placed before the scatter roll, and then moved after the scatter roll, is purely a marker. It in no way a "real" model on the table. The unit that is deepstriking is only "really" on the table after the deepstrike process, including the scatter, has been fully resolved. Therefore, no real movement has occured, therefore the unit has never tried to move through an enemy unit (or impassable terrain), therefore the deepstriking model is just placed in its legal position on the far side of the enemy unit or obstacle.

The argument for B seems to me to be an example of the bad kind of rules lawyering: stretching the meaning of one concept to the breaking point to get a larger rule or concept to work in your favor.

I agree that B seems to be a very strained interpretation of the rules.

Brice

Balzac seems to have stated this well. I agree with "A", the pod lands where the scatter says it lands. "Intervening" models do not affect it, as it is dropping in from the skies, and does NOT drop in place, and then scatter ...

How do people rule this for Impassable terrain?
IMHO it is effectively the same thing - a place that the drop pod cannot land.
If you place one side of a river, but scatter says it lands the other side, is the pod able to "cross" the impassable river?
IMHO, of course it can! It is not landing and then fording the river, it is dropping from on high, slightly away from it's intended target.

yakface wrote:

Webbe wrote:I don't see how option B could be a valid option. Please enlighten me.
I mean if you don't land on models/impassable terrain the Internal Guidance System rule never kicks in.

The argument (as I've heard it) is that the 'scatter' is essentially a "move", so the Drop Pod model is placed on the board and then 'moved' the distance it scatters. If it then encounters an obstacle during this movement its move is reduced the minimum distance needed to avoid it.

that's ridiculous... it doesn't land and then slide into its scatter position, the scatter is to see where it lands coming out of the freaking sky... WTF?

that's ridiculous... it doesn't land and then slide into its scatter position, the scatter is to see where it lands coming out of the freaking sky... WTF?

QFT.

I think it is pretty clearly A.

its not like a drop pod hits the ground and then slides over.. deepstrike is there to reflect the innacuracy of coordinantes from orbit.

now if you couldn't scatter to a legal position on the other side, you would have to "reduce the scatter" so you would end up back on the origional side 1" away

NaZ

The argument is largely out of the 4th ed SM codex interpretation.

I agree, it's quite clear. "If the pod lands on" is NOT the same as "If the pod scatters over".

A.

yakface wrote:The argument (as I've heard it) is that the 'scatter' is essentially a "move",

This is one of the stupidest YMDCs I've seen.

The rule asks if the Pod ends up in an impossible situation. It's a very easy test. If the end postition is legal, the trigger for reducing scatter isn't met, so that's where it stays.

It's like saying: "you're firing Plasma, but I don't care if you don't roll any 1's, you still need to make saves"...

This is really, really weak.

NaZ wrote:its not like a drop pod hits the ground and then slides over..

It shouldn't be, no. But it's not an uncommon interpretation. I believe it's a carry-over from the way scatter worked in 2nd edition.


Edit: After a look back at the 5th ed Deep Strike rules, I can actually see how people could come to this interpretation quite easily even from the current rules... since it does actually state that the scatter distance is the distance that the Deep Striker moves from the original location.

I guess they could try to argue that it hits the ground and digs a gash into the terrain in the direction of the dice

but for that to actually happen, there'd have to be an area of difficult terrain created and potential damage for the units under where the drop pod scattered to

but it doesnt work that way.. so I'd look at someone like they were being silly if they tried to argue it that way

NaZ

I had someone pull a B interpretation on me last edition at a tournament in Atlanta... I wasn't in the mood to fight about it then, but it was BS then and it's BS now. A all the way.

If it worked the way the cheaters suggest, would intervening models get to DoG the Pod as it moves?

And if so, would the SM player be willing to risk an Annihiliation result (Vehicle Explodes, passengers automatically killed)?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If it worked the way the cheaters suggest,

You do realise that somebody reading the rules differently to you doesn't actually make them automatically a cheat, right?

In another YMDC, I suppose I might agree with you.

But when the count is 100% RAW (A) with 40+ votes tallied, then there's no disagreement over what the rules say or how they should be interpreted.

So it's fair to say, that in this particular case, anybody who isn't playing it as (A) is a cheater.

I mean, if someone insisted that a BS3 model hit on a 3+, or that Infantry moved 9" per turn, you'd have similar unanimity of thought, and conclusion that variance would be out-and-out cheating.

So why beat around the bush?

JohnHwangDD wrote:But when the count is 100% RAW (A) with 40+ votes tallied, then there's no disagreement over what the rules say or how they should be interpreted.

So it's fair to say, that in this particular case, anybody who isn't playing it as (A) is a cheater.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

40 people (No, really, a whole 40 people... wow...) think it works a given way, and that's proof that anyone who claims otherwise is deliberately cheating?

Seriously?

I mean, if someone insisted that a BS3 model hit on a 3+, or that Infantry moved 9" per turn, you'd have similar unanimity of thought, and conclusion that variance would be out-and-out cheating.

What you would actually have is completely different situations.

The BS To Hit chart is clear. The movement speed for infantry is clear. The Deep Strike rules are not, in fact, quite so clear since they actually specify, despite how 40 people on Dakka generally play it, that the scatter represents the model being moved from its intended position, rather than its intended position being altered.

So no, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that 40 people on a forum do not represent the sum total of wargaming experience, and that someone might actually read the bit that refers to the Deep Striker moving as meaning that the Deep Striker is moving... and that doing so does not automatically make one a cheat.

You're seriously arguing that they're NOT trying cheat? Really? :S :S :S

It is extremely rare for YMDC to show any level of agreement at this level. 44 people in 100% agreement? That is unprecedented.

So, yeah. Any dissenter *IS* a cheater. It means they willfully disregard any rational understanding of the situation.

The rules for Deep Strike here are crystal clear. Just as clear as BS for shooting and Infantry movement. If you're going to call cheating for those, you need to call cheating for this.

But again, if you want to argue that, then why don't you allow me to DoG the Pod along the way?

If I Destroy the Pod, it never lands so the Passengers don't get to Disembark. Ergo, they're all DEAD.

Remember, it doesn't say I can't... :S :S :S

Wow, looks like the voting poll is unanimous. Looks like I don't really need to mention how I voted do I?

JohnHwangDD wrote:You're seriously arguing that they're NOT trying cheat? Really? :S :S :S

Given that I've come across a few players over the years who played that way, who were otherwise honest and good sports, what I'm saying is exactly what I've been saying: Reading the rules differently, whether you disagree with 1 person or a thousand people, does not necessarily make you a cheat.

It simply means you read something and interpreted it differently to someone else.

In the situations where it's come up in my games, people have generally been perfectly fine with being corrected on it. Not my definition of cheating, sorry.

I mean, if someone insisted that a BS3 model hit on a 3+, or that Infantry moved 9" per turn, you'd have similar unanimity of thought, and conclusion that variance would be out-and-out cheating.

I (semi) do that all the time.
I KNOW my BS3 hits on a 4 but, sometimes, I say it hits on 3. Not cheating, just a slip up.
Now, I understand that you're saying "insists" and not "says." My friends harrass me endlessly about it when I do it, and call me a cheater. Doesn't mean I am... and they're just playing, anyway.
The point is that it really depends on the situation.

I've argued points before because I was making a mistake or remembering wrong.
It happens.

I'm not saying it's LIKELY... but it's possible.
Always give the benefit of the doubt until you have proof otherwise, IMO.


Eric