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.

Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.



The Deep Strike rules says (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. If you roll a hit the model stays where it is, 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.

Once this is done, the unit's remaining models are arranged around the first one...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the deep strike Mishap table and apply the results."


The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception (like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it."




QUESTION: Do you play that the initial model in a Deep Striking unit is allowed to be placed over impassable terrain or friendly/enemy models and do you play that if this initial model scatters that this scatter move can take the model into impassable terrain or over friendly/enemy models?



OPTION A. I play that the initial model counts as more like marker until its scatter is resolved and therefore the model's initial placement can be anywhere in the playing area, including over impassable terrain or friendly/enemy models. I also play that if the model scatters, this scatter can also take it into impassable terrain, over friendly/enemy models, or even off the table (which in all cases triggers a Deep Strike mishap unless the unit has a rule that specifies otherwise, such as with the Tyranid Mawloc in some cases).


OPTION B. I play that the initial model counts as an actual model being placed on the table and therefore it cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model or into impassable terrain (including over friendly models who count as impassable terrain). However, when it comes to scatter, I do not treat this as movement and therefore the model is allowed to scatter into impassable terrain, over enemy/friendly models or even off the table (which in all cases triggers a Deep Strike mishap unless the unit has a rule that specifies otherwise, such as with the Tyranid Mawloc in some cases).


OPTION C. I play that the initial model counts as an actual model being placed on the table and therefore it cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model or into impassable terrain (including over friendly models who count as impassable terrain). Because this model counts as fully being on the table, I play that the scatter movement therefore stops when it would move the model into any place it is normally not allowed to move, so the scatter stops before the model moves into impassable terrain, over a friendly model, within 1" of an enemy model or at the edge of the table. Therefore, this initial model cannot trigger a Deep Strike mishap himself, only the placement of the other models in the Deep Striking unit can.


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

Hey wait a minute... thats not how the polls are supposed to work.

It should be, do you:

A: Do this really cool thing that everyone likes and obviously follows all the rules, or

B: Do you CHEAT and play like a whiny nancy-boy and to it this other way, or

C: Are you a total loon that makes up some random method that no one has ever heard of...space cadet time.


Or, at least that is how I have seen them lately....




OTOH, I would like to remind folks that until this latest codex, Spore Mines have been deep striking onto enemy models just fine for years. And has even been stated as such in the Nid FAQs.

D.

Place a marker; roll for scatter... see where it lands, place the model over the marker; or roll for mishap.

last tourney we did it this way for drop pods and most markers were placed in the midst of my ork horde; final location wound up 12" away so as to have legal placement.

B - no deliberately aiming for a point you can't be.

BTW Kel, the drop pod rules don't allow you to increase the scatter to avoid stuff - only decrease it. In the situation you describe the pods would mishap unless they rolled a massive scatter.

Is there a rule generally preventing you from placing a model within 1" of an enemy model? Placing isn't defined as movement or anything else that involves such a restriction...

The book says to place the model. It doesn't say to place it as a placeholder or marker or that it is otherwise somehow not actually placed or actually there. It does not say that it can break any of the general rules regarding placement, including being unable to place models in impassable terrain.
The scatter result is defined as moving.

C, without the 1" restriction, so... D

A. The model is clearly a marker until the final location is determined.

Well option A does is the most RaW. And even if we arent supposed to vote on RaW, shouldnt most players aspire to play Raw? Though, i dont know why i would intentionally try to deepstrike into impassable, unless i had special rules.

Option B could be viable, and is really just a RaI version of option A. Option B also seems legit since things such as the Mawloc have special rules allowing them to DS into enemy units.

Option C is just silly and completely ruins the whole purpose of the deepstrike rues.

Might i inquire as to what the purpose of this poll is? Research? Just want to know? Fun to ask? Not that it really makes a difference, just wondering myself.

I believe Option A is correct, and that is how I read the rules. The store I play at decided to rule in favor of Option B though. They got tired of me deep striking Monoliths onto objectives and scooting their drop pods out of the way.

shouldnt most players aspire to play Raw?

No why would they want to play such a broken wierd game? Players should aspire to playing RAI as in the rules designed by GW...

Back to the poll only options A and C make any sense. Option B means that the model is counted as being there and then not for no aparent reason and then counted again at the end. It just makes no logical sense at all.

A or C are both arguable under RAW for me but A is clear RAI hence models like the Mawloc aren't completely pointless. Also C means that DS mishap woudl never happen so again looks a very wrong conclusion.

I really don't see the justification for B and why you claim the mdoel counts as in play and then randomly doesn't for the scatter and then back AGAIN after that. Can someone please xplain this to me?

I vote B (not just antagonise FlingtNow). The model is immaterial but whoever is trying to deepstrike in is probably not aiming for a brick wall or pit but somewhere they could actually deploy. If it scatters this means they were slightly off and can result in mishaps etc as normal.

If you have something that's clearly designed to land on an enemy (e.g A sporemine) you can call it on someone's head, only actually placing the model if it scatters.

The model is immaterial but whoever is trying to deepstrike in is probably not aiming for a brick wall or pit but somewhere they could actually deploy. If it scatters this means they were slightly off and can result in mishaps etc as normal.

If you have something that's clearly designed to land on an enemy (e.g A sporemine) you can call it on someone's head, only actually placing the model if it scatters.

So you're essentially saying Option A as in the case that a model isn't designed to hit the enemy with it's DS (Mawloc, Sporemine etc) you'd be a foll to place it somewhere it couldn't deploy.

Hence why A is the more sensible option as you are remaining consistent models that benefit from DSing on top if something can others can but would never want to...

FlingitNow wrote:

shouldnt most players aspire to play Raw?

No why would they want to play such a broken wierd game? Players should aspire to playing RAI as in the rules designed by GW...

Back to the poll only options A and C make any sense. Option B means that the model is counted as being there and then not for no aparent reason and then counted again at the end. It just makes no logical sense at all.

A or C are both arguable under RAW for me but A is clear RAI hence models like the Mawloc aren't completely pointless. Also C means that DS mishap woudl never happen so again looks a very wrong conclusion.

I really don't see the justification for B and why you claim the mdoel counts as in play and then randomly doesn't for the scatter and then back AGAIN after that. Can someone please xplain this to me?

Fling, I would say that there is a vast difference between intended placement and resultant placement. By placing on or within 1" of an enemy model, you are fulling intending to break the rule of moving a unit on or within 1" of an enemy unit. Whereas the process of the scatter and movement over or within 1" of an enemy model, there is not intent to break the rule of being on or within 1" of an enemy model.

For example, if you were to break up the scatter roll into 10 units of movement and that scatter movement carried you over or within 1" of enemy models, your only intended point of placement is the final 10th unit of movement. The other 9 units of movement are not your intended placement. So during those 9 units of movement, you are not checking to see if you are breaking the rule for placement of models, because not only do you have no intention of placing it within those 9 units, but you cannot because you are required by the dice roll to move 10 units, to your intended placement.

By placing the the Mawloc 1" away from a unit and then rolling for scatter that carries you onto the unit, your initial placement did not break the rules for placing models The resultant placement after scatter was not your intended placement, but hoped for placement since you want a mishap to trigger a Terror of the Deep.

Fling, I would say that there is a vast difference between intended placement and resultant placement. By placing on or within 1" of an enemy model, you are fulling intending to break the rule of moving a unit on or within 1" of an enemy unit. Whereas the process of the scatter and movement over or within 1" of an enemy model, there is not intent to break the rule of being on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Good point those darn GW thought police. Intending to break a rule is breaking it! We know what you're thinking! Sorry does this even make sense to you? It is illegal to place the model there because if you don;t scatter then you will intentionally land within 1". How about if you DS into the middle of serveral enemy units, more than 1" from any of them but totally surounded so whichever way you scatter you land on them. By your "logic" that would be illegal too because you intend to scatter onto something? Given that there is a 2/3 chance that you will scatter this seems a more "deliberate" attempt to land within 1" than simply placing the model on top of a unit hoping that you don;t scatter...

For example, if you were to break up the scatter roll into 10 units of movement and that scatter movement carried you over or within 1" of enemy models, your only intended point of placement is the final 10th unit of movement. The other 9 units of movement are not your intended placement. So during those 9 units of movement, you are not checking to see if you are breaking the rule for placement of models, because not only do you have no intention of placing it within those 9 units, but you cannot because you are required by the dice roll to move 10 units, to your intended placement.

Sorry what? How can you know where you are going to scatter? If you don;t know where you are going to scatter how can you claim the last place of the model is the "intended" movement? Unless you are using loaded dice and magnets... Where are the rules to back up this "intended movement" and "unintended movement" you are talking about as I have no clue as to what rules you are refering to.

By placing the the Mawloc 1" away from a unit and then rolling for scatter that carries you onto the unit, your initial placement did not break the rules for placing models The resultant placement after scatter was not your intended placement, but hoped for placement since you want a mishap to trigger a Terror of the Deep.

Nah if I place a Mawloc 1" away from a unit I intend to scatter onto it. Why on earth would I intend to land right in front of it totally defenceless so they can blow me away? I'd certainly never intend to do that.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Fling, I would say that there is a vast difference between intended placement and resultant placement. By placing on or within 1" of an enemy model, you are fulling intending to break the rule of moving a unit on or within 1" of an enemy unit. Whereas the process of the scatter and movement over or within 1" of an enemy model, there is not intent to break the rule of being on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Does it matter if you intend to break the rule of moving a unit within 1" of an enemy unit when there are rules for what to do when it happens? (Mishap table). Does it matter if it happens on accident due to a scatter result and enough inches of movement to make it occur or on purpose due to a hit result/scatter result with a small deviation roll? I'd say since the situation is accounted for the intent doesn't matter -- only the results after rolling the scatter dice, whether you roll a hit or scatter result.

Voted A because that makes the most sense to me. Just because there was no advantageous reason to intend to have your deep striking unit land on top of an enemy before doesn't necessarily mean it's prohibited.

I play it as A. I'm not going to get up on my high horse if my opponent decides to drop into my units.

Playing it as C is really silly, because it means single deepstriking models can never mishap.

Burger Rage wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Fling, I would say that there is a vast difference between intended placement and resultant placement. By placing on or within 1" of an enemy model, you are fulling intending to break the rule of moving a unit on or within 1" of an enemy unit. Whereas the process of the scatter and movement over or within 1" of an enemy model, there is not intent to break the rule of being on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Does it matter if you intend to break the rule of moving a unit within 1" of an enemy unit when there are rules for what to do when it happens? (Mishap table). Does it matter if it happens on accident due to a scatter result and enough inches of movement to make it occur or on purpose due to a hit result/scatter result with a small deviation roll? I'd say since the situation is accounted for the intent doesn't matter -- only the results after rolling the scatter dice, whether you roll a hit or scatter result.

Voted A because that makes the most sense to me. Just because there was no advantageous reason to intend to have your deep striking unit land on top of an enemy before doesn't necessarily mean it's prohibited.

However now there is a genuine reason to want to scatter onto an unit. Considering the existing game mechanic has a set odds to result in a negative result for units that don't want to mishap, why then skew that mechanic to increase your odds for a mishap. Why not the odds remain the same results for a bad result and a good result? As much as people want to label a Mawloc as a one trick pony who needs the increased odds of mishaps to trigger Terror of the Deep, his stat profile and his biomorphs do not support that label.

Like I have said in other threads, a segment of the player base saw Terror of the Deep in the new codex. From that special rule, they then created a interpretation to increase chances of Terror of the Deep results. There was already an in-game mechanic in place that could result in Terror of the Deep results, but that was not good enough for this segment of players which was solely based on what their opinion of his points cost versus effectiveness.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Fling, I would say that there is a vast difference between intended placement and resultant placement. By placing on or within 1" of an enemy model, you are fulling intending to break the rule of moving a unit on or within 1" of an enemy unit. Whereas the process of the scatter and movement over or within 1" of an enemy model, there is not intent to break the rule of being on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Does it matter if you intend to break the rule of moving a unit within 1" of an enemy unit when there are rules for what to do when it happens? (Mishap table). Does it matter if it happens on accident due to a scatter result and enough inches of movement to make it occur or on purpose due to a hit result/scatter result with a small deviation roll? I'd say since the situation is accounted for the intent doesn't matter -- only the results after rolling the scatter dice, whether you roll a hit or scatter result.

Voted A because that makes the most sense to me. Just because there was no advantageous reason to intend to have your deep striking unit land on top of an enemy before doesn't necessarily mean it's prohibited.

However now there is a genuine reason to want to scatter onto an unit. Considering the existing game mechanic has a set odds to result in a negative result for units that don't want to mishap, why then skew that mechanic to increase your odds for a mishap. Why not the odds remain the same results for a bad result and a good result? As much as people want to label a Mawloc as a one trick pony who needs the increased odds of mishaps to trigger Terror of the Deep, his stat profile and his biomorphs do not support that label.

Isn't a large portion of playing the game about skewing odds in your favor through tactical decisions, movement and placement of units? Why should you argue that this is illegal simply because it skews the odds in the player's favor? Odds shouldn't matter, either it is allowed by the rules or not allowed.

I voted D, as I've always read it as essentially option "B", but that there is nothing precluding placing the model within 1 inch of enemy models, other then the mishap it will entail.

I do think the model needs to be placed on the tabletop though.

Jack

Brother Ramses wrote:However now there is a genuine reason to want to scatter onto an unit. Considering the existing game mechanic has a set odds to result in a negative result for units that don't want to mishap, why then skew that mechanic to increase your odds for a mishap. Why not the odds remain the same results for a bad result and a good result? As much as people want to label a Mawloc as a one trick pony who needs the increased odds of mishaps to trigger Terror of the Deep, his stat profile and his biomorphs do not support that label.

Like I have said in other threads, a segment of the player base saw Terror of the Deep in the new codex. From that special rule, they then created a interpretation to increase chances of Terror of the Deep results. There was already an in-game mechanic in place that could result in Terror of the Deep results, but that was not good enough for this segment of players which was solely based on what their opinion of his points cost versus effectiveness.

There have been units which it was beneficial to deep strike over enemies before - spore mines and monoliths come to mind. This isn't a new thing.

As I have said in other threads, I've always read the deep strike rules from the BRB as allowing you to place the initial model over an enemy squad. This was never prohibited, it was simply a bad choice most of the time. From what other people have said, I hardly seem to be the only one.

It's like this:
1) You can aim a deep striking unit at an enemy squad.
2) But that would be disadvantageous, so we don't do it.
3) The mawloc/monolith/spore mine is released with a rule that changes that disadvantage to an advantage.
4) Now we want to aim a deepstriking unit at the enemy, and have always been allowed to do so, so we do.

Just like:
1) You can shoot a plasma weapon at a unit clearly out of range, with the only effect being the chance of "gets hot".
2) But that would be disadvantageous, so we don't do it.
3) The Lone wolf is released with a rule that changes that disadvantage to an advantage (worth a kill point if it lives, rather than dies).
4) Now we want to shoot our lone wolf's plasma at something, even if nothing is in range, and have always been allowed to do so, so we do.

Do you argue that a lone wolf with a plasma gun couldn't try to shoot something which is clearly out of range, if that kill point would decide the game?

It's borderline offensive for you to claim as thought it's a given fact that we're working backwards from the "Terror in the Deep" rule and trying to modify the deep strike rules to suit ourselves - we're applying TFTD to our understanding of the deep strike rules (which may differ from yours). Please don't pretend you know other people's thought processes better than they do, and tell them they've arrived at a conclusion in the way you've decided they must have, rather than the way they did. Presenting your viewpoint is fine, trying to tell me how I think is not.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I'd play Option A, but I'd discuss with my opponent beforehand, to avoid arguments disrupting the game.

(edited again because I'm stupid and got the lone wolf round the wrong way - thanks Gwar)

CodGod has it wrapped up perfectly.

I voted for A because that is what the rules say

B- Unless it specifically states it, the model that is DS cant just choose to be placed over an enemy model. It can scatter there no problem and if it has a rule like the Mawlock, or Drop Pods that interact with the impassable terrain then it triggers instead of the deep strike mishap.

I voted for B, because that is what the rules say. They're quite clear, in black and white, on page 95. Place a model from the unit on the table. Until you can convince me that my models are the table, there is no other way to read this. You have to place the model on the table. That is what the rules say.

Redbeard wrote:I voted for B, because that is what the rules say. They're quite clear, in black and white, on page 95. Place a model from the unit on the table. Until you can convince me that my models are the table, there is no other way to read this. You have to place the model on the table. That is what the rules say.

While my interpretation of the rules differs, I can see where you're coming from here. If you don't mind I'd like to ask how you feel about placing the model not on an enemy model, but still within 1" of it?

Kommissar Kel wrote:D.

Place a marker; roll for scatter... see where it lands, place the model over the marker; or roll for mishap.

last tourney we did it this way for drop pods and most markers were placed in the midst of my ork horde; final location wound up 12" away so as to have legal placement.

I'm curious. Since there was no scatter, in what direction, or how would you decide, where the drop pod goes? On a hit, there is no scatter to reduce, so you are stuck coming in on top of the unit in question and suffering a roll on the mishap table.

I voted B for the same reasons as Redbeard... Seems to be the most RAW.

G

I voted for B, because that is what the rules say. They're quite clear, in black and white, on page 95. Place a model from the unit on the table. Until you can convince me that my models are the table, there is no other way to read this. You have to place the model on the table. That is what the rules say.

Option A doesn;t mean you can not place the model on the table, you simply place in on the enemy models then use the existing wobbly models rule to cover until the scatter is resolved.

Are you considering the model "in play" at this point? If so then you should follow option C, if not then option A is correct through RAW. Option B is a mish-mash of nothingness with rules thrown in left right and centre that do apply and then don't apply and then do apply again at random...

If it is not "in play" then the movement rules do not apply, if it is then they apply for the entire process.

Option A is much like trying to place a blast template such that it does not target an enemy unit then hope it scatters on top of one. It's not RAW or RAI.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Option A is much like trying to place a blast template such that it does not target an enemy unit then hope it scatters on top of one. It's not RAW or RAI.

Option A is nothing like that at all.

Option A means you place the first model as an intentional mishap if there is no scatter. You can't place a model on top of other units or impassable terrain.

G

Option A means you place the first model as an intentional mishap if there is no scatter.

And what is wrong with that? Nothing in the rules to prevent it.