Space Marines arriving via Drop Pod and Interceptor

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**

azazel the cat wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:They are simply "referring to the model or terrain", and the IG rule tells you to reduce the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle.

The obstacle, when dealing with an enemy unit, includes the 1 inch mishap distance.

No. This is the fundamental we disagree on. I do not consider 1" to be part of the obstacle.

Because you do not use the dictionary definition of Obstacle.

If you know what Obstacle means, then you would agree.

Obstacle from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress:"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/obstacle

**Gravmyr**

Can obstacle be referring to the model or terrain solely?

**DeathReaper**

Not in the context of the IG rules.

It is there to prevent a mishap from scattering on top of an obstacle as the context proves obstacle has something to do with preventing mishaps.

**Gravmyr**

You are assigning intent to draw that conclusion. RAW without intent you do not move beyond missing the model.

**DeathReaper**

The context proves obstacle has something to do with preventing mishaps.

**Gravmyr**

It's a single line there is no context beyond referring to a model or terrain.

**DeathReaper**

Gravmyr wrote:
It's a single line there is no context beyond referring to a model or terrain.

Then you are missing the context, as the rule is there to prevent a mishap.

**Gravmyr**

That is intent if you took that rule to anyone not familiar with mishaps then they would not name it as the purpose of the rule they would name not hitting the model or terrain. Your reading requires you to add intent to the rule.

**Abandon**

No IG book here but I'm with DR on this one from what I've heard. Context and obvious intent are often used to determine RAW and are generally important when communicating using the English language so that accurate meaning can be derived.

**Gravmyr**

The problem is that without knowing what they are using the rule for you cannot get that interpretation. DR has argued in many threads that you have to use the least advantageous reading when it is not clear. This is not clear. they only give you a single line from which he is adding in the possibility that it includes the bubble. Occum's Razor tells us use the least amount of assumptions. We have to assume that they wanted us to include the bubble. There are not assumptions when you just avoid the model or terrain.

**azazel the cat**

DeathReaper wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:They are simply "referring to the model or terrain", and the IG rule tells you to reduce the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle.

The obstacle, when dealing with an enemy unit, includes the 1 inch mishap distance.

No. This is the fundamental we disagree on. I do not consider 1" to be part of the obstacle.

Because you do not use the dictionary definition of Obstacle.

If you know what Obstacle means, then you would agree.

Obstacle from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress:"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/obstacle

And according to your very broad definition, you also must move the DP far enough such that the interceptor does not shoot & destroy it (which would prevent or hinder its progress).

Since that is ridiculous, we shall instead consider "obstacle" to refer only to the physical object of the enemy unit, and thus the DP does not move the extra inch, and will mishap.

DeathReaper wrote:
Gravmyr wrote:
It's a single line there is no context beyond referring to a model or terrain.

Then you are missing the context, as the rule is there to prevent a mishap.

But since you can't prove that, your argument fails.

**BetrayTheWorld**

azazel the cat wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - given the context proves obstacle has something to do with preventing mishaps, and an interceptor shot isnt a mishap, I assume you are simply making a very poorly constructed joke that has no relvance to the rules.

Actually it was to lambast the foolish notion that a Drop Pod gets to move an additional 1" so as to adoid a Mishap from landing on an enemy unit. The term "obstacle" was being read as to include an event like a Mishap, on the grounds that the definition of an obstacle is "anything which impedes progress". However, if that is the interpretation of what "obstacle" refers to (as in, not only objects, but anything that impedes progress), then I insist that this stupidly-broad definition be used consistently; thus allowing the Drop Pod to move out of range of the Interceptor gun, which would also be considered an "impediment to the progress" of the Drop Pod. And that would also mean that if the entire table is within range of the Interceptor guns, then the Drop Pod cannot actually be deployed on the tabletop.

Or, a less stupid reading is that the Drop Pod moves far enough to avoid landing ON models, but then mishaps because it is within 1" of enemy units.

If that is the case, then why would it be worded as it is? Simple: because it means if the Drop Pod scatters onto friendly units, it can move so that it doesn't mishap by landing ON them. Same with impassible terrain. However, the Inertial Guidance rule only gives the Drop Pod permission to move the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle (which must be interpreted as a physical object, or else you get that assinine Interceptor-avoiding concept as outlined above). So if the obstacle is an enemy unit, then the Drop Pod doesn't land on them, but rather immediately beside them, and thus mishaps due to being less than 1" away.

It's that simple: either you don't mishap and thus get to move far enough away to avoid the Interceptor guns (and if the entire field is covered by Interceptor guns, then Drop Pods cannot deploy on the table), or else you only move far enough to not land on top of the physical object that is the enemy unit.

Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is all accurate, imo. Also, as an aside, I think it's funny how my posts seem to spread like an infection to other threads. But we really should redirect this conversation to the link provided by Azazel.

**nosferatu1001**

Yet, by definition, it IS an obstacle - it impedes your progress by causing amishap, the least deadly result is that you return to reserves.

The context tells you to avoid the obstacle, whcih is the enemy model, to avoid the mishap which is the obstacle whcih is the enemy.

You havent avoided the mishap until you have avoided the 1" zone. Transitive statements make this true.

And incredibly OT.

**azazel the cat**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet, by definition, it IS an obstacle - it impedes your progress by causing amishap, the least deadly result is that you return to reserves.

The context tells you to avoid the obstacle, whcih is the enemy model, to avoid the mishap which is the obstacle whcih is the enemy.

You havent avoided the mishap until you have avoided the 1" zone. Transitive statements make this true.

And incredibly OT.

Thus, by definition, you also have to avoid the Interceptor gun as well -it impedes your progress by killing you.

The context tells you to avoid the obstacle, which is the range of the interceptor fun, so avoid being killed which is the obstacle which is the range of the Interceptor gun.

You haven't avoided being shot until you have avoided the 48"+ zone. Transitive statements make this true.

And actually somewhat OT.

**grendel083**

azazel the cat wrote:
Thus, by definition, you also have to avoid the Interceptor gun as well -it impedes your progress by killing you.

If Interceptor was resolved during the Deep-Strike process you might have a point, but it's a the end of the movement phase long after the pod has deployed. It does not impede the drop pods arrival as it's already arrived before Interceptor shots.
That's like saying the entire enemy shooting phase would count as an obsticle. Both are after the fact...

**nosferatu1001**

azazel the cat wrote:
Thus, by definition, you also have to avoid the Interceptor gun as well -it impedes your progress by killing you.

But, as you insist on ignoring the rules, by ignornig the context, this does not hold. The context is mishap from DS.

Try again

azazel the cat wrote:The context tells you to avoid the obstacle,

Which is the enemy model, friendly model, or impassable terrain. Why do you insist on making up rules?

azazel the cat wrote:which is the range of the interceptor fun, so avoid being killed which is the obstacle which is the range of the Interceptor gun.

Which isnt resolved during DS, is neither an enemy model, impassable terrain, or a friendly model causing a mishap. So still has no relation to the rules. Can you stop making up rules?

azazel the cat wrote:You haven't avoided being shot until you have avoided the 48"+ zone. Transitive statements make this true.

And actually somewhat OT.

You cannot increase scatter, onlyu reduce it. The written rules make this true

So I assum eyou are making an incredibly poor joke, as so far you have done nothing but make up rules. If you are being serious, please try again

**azazel the cat**

grendel083 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Thus, by definition, you also have to avoid the Interceptor gun as well -it impedes your progress by killing you.

If Interceptor was resolved during the Deep-Strike process you might have a point, but it's a the end of the movement phase long after the pod has deployed. It does not impede the drop pods arrival as it's already arrived before Interceptor shots.
That's like saying the entire enemy shooting phase would count as an obsticle. Both are after the fact...

Now this is an interesting point that I hadn't considered. I will ruminate on it.

**BetrayTheWorld**

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You cannot increase scatter, onlyu reduce it. The written rules make this true

Actually, if this was true, it would cause you to break another rule.

The BRB states that you move the model the minimum distance necessary so that you are no longer on top of the model.

I'm going to use cardinal directions to make this easy. Following the above rule, if you plan to deep strike south of a unit that is 3 ranks deep, and you scatter on top of the northern rank, you'd move the model slightly further north to get clear of the models in the 3rd, northern rank. This ostensibly increases your scatter distance.

**gingermist**

getting shot at isn't an obstacle.... On something previously mentioned in the thread.. if you where to shoot down a drop pod dropping in.. it might not blow up just wreak it.. everyone inside take a strength 4 hit and a pinning test. This rule came about from planet strike any one whose really confused by it should read the old definition to get a jist of what its meant to recreate as such. becoz in the special rules of the brb its just a black and white rule ... no fluff as such if you know what I mean

**nosferatu1001**

Betray - erm, nope. Have you read the IGS rule? Because what you posted doesnt actually follow the rules for IGS

It only gives you permission to *reduce* your scatter in order to avoid an obstacle. You have no permission, EVER, to increase your scatter.

**BetrayTheWorld**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - erm, nope. Have you read the IGS rule? Because what you posted doesnt actually follow the rules for IGS

It only gives you permission to *reduce* your scatter in order to avoid an obstacle. You have no permission, EVER, to increase your scatter.

Ok, when referring solely to the IGS rule, this is true. But with other, similar rules, it is not.

BRB, pg 83 wrote:
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.

**Nilok**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - erm, nope. Have you read the IGS rule? Because what you posted doesnt actually follow the rules for IGS

It only gives you permission to *reduce* your scatter in order to avoid an obstacle. You have no permission, EVER, to increase your scatter.

Ok, when referring solely to the IGS rule, this is true. But with other, similar rules, it is not.

BRB, pg 83 wrote:
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.

The Drop Pod is not a skimmer.
In the Reference section of the BRB, it lists Drop Pod as Open-Topped, and a Transport.

With the Skimmer rule you were talking about, it is talking about movement. However, I don't believe that Deep Striking is a movement, instead a special rule for entering from reserve that counts a moving for shooting purposes.

While a rule may look similar to another, more specific rule, that similarity dose not make it relevant.

**BetrayTheWorld**

Nilok wrote:

With the Skimmer rule you were talking about, it is talking about movement. However, I don't believe that Deep Striking is a movement, instead a special rule for entering from reserve that counts a moving for shooting purposes.

While a rule may look similar to another, more specific rule, that similarity dose not make it relevant.

Without drudging up every rule debate from the other thread regarding this, suffice to say that several people posting in this thread argued in another thread about the difference between skimmer rules and the IGS rules for drop pods, because skimmers may also avoid certain mishaps when they enter from deep strike, due to the deep strike being deployment, and the deployment rules referring to a unit's movement rules.

Anyhow, I know what you're saying, but I'm not particularly interested in rekindling that previous argument right now.

**nosferatu1001**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - erm, nope. Have you read the IGS rule? Because what you posted doesnt actually follow the rules for IGS

It only gives you permission to *reduce* your scatter in order to avoid an obstacle. You have no permission, EVER, to increase your scatter.

Ok, when referring solely to the IGS rule, this is true. But with other, similar rules, it is not.

BRB, pg 83 wrote:
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.

The scatter portion of DS is not movement. If it were then no model could mishap through scattering, only by being placed on another model

**BetrayTheWorld**

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The scatter portion of DS is not movement. If it were then no model could mishap through scattering, only by being placed on another model

I never said it was. But it is a mechanic that directs your deep strike deployment, and the rules for deployment say to follow the rules for the movement. So the rules still apply.

**nosferatu1001**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

The scatter portion of DS is not movement. If it were then no model could mishap through scattering, only by being placed on another model

I never said it was. But it is a mechanic that directs your deep strike deployment, and the rules for deployment say to follow the rules for the movement. So the rules still apply.

Incorrect, as it isnt being "forced to end its move" - it hasnt yet moved

Only by claiming xscatter == movement can you claim that, and you have just said it ISNT movement. Meaning it still mishaps, because at the time you have not yet moved and so have not been forced to end your move and thus have no allowance to move off for being forced to end your move

**rigeld2**

gingermist wrote:
getting shot at isn't an obstacle.... On something previously mentioned in the thread.. if you where to shoot down a drop pod dropping in.. it might not blow up just wreak it.. everyone inside take a strength 4 hit and a pinning test. This rule came about from planet strike any one whose really confused by it should read the old definition to get a jist of what its meant to recreate as such. becoz in the special rules of the brb its just a black and white rule ... no fluff as such if you know what I mean

This.

IGS has no permission to avoid Intercepter. And you'd normally be foolish to shoot the pod (exception being if it was the only thing in LoS) anyway.

**BetrayTheWorld**

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Only by claiming xscatter == movement can you claim that, and you have just said it ISNT movement. Meaning it still mishaps, because at the time you have not yet moved and so have not been forced to end your move and thus have no allowance to move off for being forced to end your move

Or, you could claim that deep striking counts as movement/deployment, and that scatter is simply a mechanic of deep strike, which is the case.

**azazel the cat**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

Only by claiming xscatter == movement can you claim that, and you have just said it ISNT movement. Meaning it still mishaps, because at the time you have not yet moved and so have not been forced to end your move and thus have no allowance to move off for being forced to end your move

Or, you could claim that deep striking counts as movement/deployment, and that scatter is simply a mechanic of deep strike, which is the case.

Exactly this.

**DeathReaper**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

Only by claiming xscatter == movement can you claim that, and you have just said it ISNT movement. Meaning it still mishaps, because at the time you have not yet moved and so have not been forced to end your move and thus have no allowance to move off for being forced to end your move

Or, you could claim that deep striking counts as movement/deployment, and that scatter is simply a mechanic of deep strike, which is the case.

Except the scatter is not movement.

If it were you could never mishap as you can not move through models and you can not move within 1 inch of an enemy model.

This also means a scattering Deep Striking unit would have to take Difficult or Dangerous terrain tests, which of course is not true.