Deep strike rules say you treat a deep striking vehicle as if it were moving at cruising speed. It also says you can't move any further after deep striking, and that if you land on friendly or enemy units you roll on the deep strike table.

However, the rules for skimmers says(pg 83): "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."

Can this skimmer rule be used to avoid having to roll on the deep strike mishap table?

This is how I'm reading it, and if generally accepted this way, it makes skimmers far more reliable as deep strike units.

No. The deep strike scatter is not, in itself, movement. If it was, 90% of models couldn't actually mishap because the basic rules prohibit ending your move on other models or impassable terrain.

Those rules don't apply to skimmers though. Skimmers specifically say they CAN end their movement even in impassable terrain, and that if anything would cause them to end their movement over friendly or enemy models, move them the minimum distance required so that they are not over any models.

Even the deep strike rule says that the vehicle is counted as having moved at cruising speed.

I believe the basic rules simply say that you can't move over/on to other units. That wouldn't protect them from the deep strike rule since deep strike is an advanced rule, and advanced>basic.

What we're discussing here are the interactions between two advanced rules from the same book. Deep Strike Vs Skimmer.

There is only 1 thing that forces you to roll for a mishap: Not being able to deploy. Skimmers can deploy anywhere that they're able to be placed, and have a special rule to be moved if over friendly or enemy units.

Skimmers can only end their move on impassable terrain because of their movement rules. If you're ignoring the basic infantry movement rules in favour of the Deep Strike rules you have to ignore the skimmer ones as well. You don't get to pick and choose.

If the Deep Strike Scatter is movement, then no one can mishap because the movement rules prohibit you from moving into impassable terrain or give you permission to move into it with other consequences. If the scatter is not movement, then the movement rules don't apply and skimmers don't have permission to deploy on impassable terrain.

Reread deepstrike, and note that you are told that the model is where you want the unit to arrive. The unit does not arrive until AFTER you have completed the scatter, which is AFTER any mishap result.

Then, ONCE you have arrived, you are treated as having moved cruising speed.

You are making a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Ok, so even if we concede that they can't use the rule to move the skimmer so that it doesn't land on another model, the rules for deep strike read that the only reason you would roll on the mishap table is by not being able to deploy your unit, then it gives several examples of why you may not be able to deploy. Normal units may not deploy or even enter into impassable terrain, and so it cites that as an example as I read it.

If the unit, such as skimmers, have a rule that says they MAY end their turn in impassable terrain so long as it's possible to actually place the model there, wouldn't that mean that they wouldn't roll mishap in that situation?

You said it yourself, deepstriking you deploy the model, movment phase you move your model. It will mishap and trying to bend the rules to suit wont work in this case.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
If the unit, such as skimmers, have a rule that says they MAY end their turn in impassable terrain so long as it's possible to actually place the model there, wouldn't that mean that they wouldn't roll mishap in that situation?

END their movement, that's the important part. The skimmer scatters and mishaps before the end of their movement.
So the mishap happens before that rule comes into play.

MarkyMark wrote:
You said it yourself, deepstriking you deploy the model, movment phase you move your model. It will mishap and trying to bend the rules to suit wont work in this case.

BRB pg121, under deployment: Units cannot deploy in impassable terrain unless they are normally allowed to move over impassable terrain and can fit on it.

So in this case, arguing that it says deploy actually just reinforces my case instead of disproving it. Thanks for pointing that out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
If the unit, such as skimmers, have a rule that says they MAY end their turn in impassable terrain so long as it's possible to actually place the model there, wouldn't that mean that they wouldn't roll mishap in that situation?

END their movement, that's the important part. The skimmer scatters and mishaps before the end of their movement.
So the mishap happens before that rule comes into play.

They are also allowed to deploy there, per the deployment rule I just quoted. The only thing that causes a mishap is not being able to deploy your unit to the appointed position.

If you have already made up your mind about it, why did you ask in the 1st place? As you see EVERYBODY is telling you that you are mistaken.

When you deep strike you check if one or more of the conditions that causes a mishap applies. If that is the case then you roll on the mishap table. If not THEN you deploy your unit.

The passage you quoted is there for some rare cases ie ramming, that your skimmer may end up above an enemy unit. So you use that rule to move the skimmer accordingly. It's not meant to be used for deep striking.

I have an opinion based on the information in the books, yes. I'm not opposed to hearing evidence directly from a book to say otherwise. If you read what I pointed out, there aren't multiple conditions that cause a deep strike mishap. There is only 1. That condition is that you are unable to deploy the model.

Both the movement rules, and the deployment rules support that skimmers may, in fact, deploy onto impassable terrain so long as you can physically place the model there.

You are trying to mix n match different rules in order to make an impossible argument. The deep strike mishap entry specifies the exact reasons when a unit that arrives via deep strike rules cannot be deployed and what happens to them. When you deep strike you use the rules for deep stike ONLY. In order to modify DS rules you will need specific permissions to do so ie Drop Pod

Betray - except that only appies when the model has arrived, i/e/ has deployed. The mishap occurs before this.

Deployment is not movement. Please cite the page number it says you may deploy skimmers on impassible terrain, I don't see it right off. Even if that's the case though, that says nothing about deploying on top of friendly/enemy units.

Abandon wrote:Deployment is not movement. Please cite the page number it says you may deploy skimmers on impassible terrain, I don't see it right off.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:BRB pg121, under deployment: Units cannot deploy in impassable terrain unless they are normally allowed to move over impassable terrain and can fit on it.

Abandon wrote:Even if that's the case though, that says nothing about deploying on top of friendly/enemy units.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:Ok, so even if we concede that they can't use the rule to move the skimmer so that it doesn't land on another model, the rules for deep strike read that the only reason you would roll on the mishap table is by not being able to deploy your unit, then it gives several examples of why you may not be able to deploy. Normal units may not deploy or even enter into impassable terrain, and so it cites that as an example as I read it.

If the unit, such as skimmers, have a rule that says they MAY end their turn in impassable terrain so long as it's possible to actually place the model there, wouldn't that mean that they wouldn't roll mishap in that situation?

I don't agree with his interpretations, but please at least read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:Deployment is not movement. Please cite the page number it says you may deploy skimmers on impassible terrain, I don't see it right off.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:BRB pg121, under deployment: Units cannot deploy in impassable terrain unless they are normally allowed to move over impassable terrain and can fit on it.

Abandon wrote:Even if that's the case though, that says nothing about deploying on top of friendly/enemy units.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:Ok, so even if we concede that they can't use the rule to move the skimmer so that it doesn't land on another model, the rules for deep strike read that the only reason you would roll on the mishap table is by not being able to deploy your unit, then it gives several examples of why you may not be able to deploy. Normal units may not deploy or even enter into impassable terrain, and so it cites that as an example as I read it.

If the unit, such as skimmers, have a rule that says they MAY end their turn in impassable terrain so long as it's possible to actually place the model there, wouldn't that mean that they wouldn't roll mishap in that situation?

I don't agree with his interpretations, but please at least read the thread.

Quite right, I apologize OP, I missed a bunch of stuff you already said. Thanks for calling me on that rigeld2. Next time I'll have my first cup of coffee before I start posting

No problem. I still have yet to see anything to change my mind here. If anyone comes up with anything new or definitive, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Betray I don't agree with your position, but since you're willing to risk two dangerous terrain tests by dropping on impassible terrain I'd probably say 4+ it at the table

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
No problem. I still have yet to see anything to change my mind here. If anyone comes up with anything new or definitive, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

How about the fact that the skimmer rule only applies when the model has arrived, i/e/ has deployed. The mishap occurs before this.

The rule on pg 121 states that if it can be moved over and land on impassable terrain, as the skimmer rules indicate, it can be deployed on impassable terrain.

Yes, but the more specific Deep Striking rules come into play and make you mishap before your permission to land there comes into effect.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but the more specific Deep Striking rules come into play and make you mishap before your permission to land there comes into effect.

The specific drop rules refer to the deployment rules. The only thing that causes a mishap is not being able to deploy to the spot you scatter to. In order to see if you can deploy, you must see the deployment rules.

Hmmm... so far I'm thinking Betray has a decent point (but I'm admittedly biased on this one because the fate of my beloved Monoliths is at stake).

I honestly do not think skimmers are immune to these mishaps, but I'm struggling to disprove Betray's logic here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Ah crap. I found a way to disprove Betray's logic.


Here's the relevant lines about Deep Strike Mishaps and Skimmers:
"If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassible terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong." (BRB p. 36)

"A Skimmer can even end its move over impassible terrtain if it is possible to actually place the model on top of it, but if it does so it must take a dangerous terrain test." (BRB p. 83)

"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." (BRB p. 83)

What this means:
Skimmers are immune to deep strike mishaps from impassible terrain so long as the skimmer can be placed on top of the terrain. In order to mishap, two requirements must be fulfilled:
1. Landing in impassible terrain and
2. Being unable to deploy.

Because the Skimmer can end its move in impassible terrain, it can deploy there, as Deep Striking counts as movement at cruising speed (BRB p. 36). Therefore, if the Skimmer can physically be placed on top of the impassible terrain, then it can end its movement there and thus fails to meet requirement #2 for the Deep Strike Mishap event.



However, Skimmers are NOT immune from Deep Strike Mishaps if they scatter onto an enemy unit. There are actually two distinct reasons for this, each equally as valid.
(Translation: Feth you, azazel the cat, for hoping, -just for an instant- that you could deep strike your beloved Monoliths into your opponent's troops like before.)

Here's why:

Reason #1 (affects friendly and enemy models)
When ending their move over other models, skimmers are moved the minimum distance. This means that if a Deep Striking Skimmer scatters onto another model, the Skimmer's rules will force the Skimmer to move so that it does not overlap with the other model. However, a Deep Strike Mishap doesn't actually care about whether or not the Skimmer DOES end its move on top of another model; the Deep Strike Mishap only cares about whether or not the Skimmer WOULD HAVE landed on top of the other model, as underlined in the appropriate quote at the top of this post.

Reason #2 (only affects enemy models, but this one is even more ironclad than #1)
Skimmers, when forced to end its move over other models, are moved the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it (BRB p. 83). However, a Deep Strike Mishap occurs if the Skimmer lands within 1" of an enemy model. A Skimmer's rule moves it the minimum distance so that it is not on top of enemy models, but it is still within 1" of them (technically, it should be in base contact) and thus a Deep Strike Mishap takes place as per BRB p. 36



TL;DR
-Skimmers are not affected by Deep Strike Mishaps as a result of impassible terrain so long as the Skimmer can be physically placed on top of that terrain.
-Skimmers are affected by Deep Strike Mishaps when they scatter onto or within 1" of enemy models.
-Skimmers are affected by Deep Strike Mishaps when they scatter onto friendly models.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Reason #2 (only affects enemy models, but this one is even more ironclad than #1)
Skimmers, when forced to end its move over other models, are moved the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it. However, a Deep Strike Mishap occurs if the Skimmer lands within 1" of an enemy model. A Skimmer's rule moves it the minimum distance so that it is not on top of enemy models, but it is still within 1" of them (technically, it should be in base contact) and thus a Deep Strike Mishap takes place as per BRB p. 83

Which now must be applied to Drop Pods, as they only reduce the scatter enough to "avoid the obstacle", not to "avoid the Mishap".

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Reason #2 (only affects enemy models, but this one is even more ironclad than #1)
Skimmers, when forced to end its move over other models, are moved the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it. However, a Deep Strike Mishap occurs if the Skimmer lands within 1" of an enemy model. A Skimmer's rule moves it the minimum distance so that it is not on top of enemy models, but it is still within 1" of them (technically, it should be in base contact) and thus a Deep Strike Mishap takes place as per BRB p. 83

Which now must be applied to Drop Pods, as they only reduce the scatter enough to "avoid the obstacle", not to "avoid the Mishap".

Well getting within one inch of an enemy model is an obstacle, as you can not land there legally.

Avoiding the obstacle means avoiding the mishap as well.

Drop pod guidance thing does not mention landing within 1" just on the model, making the model the obstacle not the mishap. If you say that the mishap is the obstacle then the guidance kicks in even if it lands off the table as the mishap is the obstacle and you avoid that. How about landing within 1"? How does guidance function then as it is not landing on the model how can guidance even be activated? What does the FAQ say about landing off the table, if the mishap is the obstacle how can you ever have to roll on the mishap table?

The only argument for drop pods moving 1" away from enemy models using guidance is in the DS rules itself. It has to do with their wording not even their intent. You cannot be deployed because you are "on top of or within 1" of an enemy model". People play the drop pod as a free drop but that is not the intent as it is clear that they mean it to mishap on occasion.

Edit: The only things mentioned in the Inertial Guidance are landing in impassable terrain or on top of a model. Those are the only obstacles mentioned and they are the only things avoided.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Drop pod guidance thing does not mention landing within 1" just on the model, making the model the obstacle not the mishap. If you say that the mishap is the obstacle then the guidance kicks in even if it lands off the table as the mishap is the obstacle and you avoid that. How about landing within 1"? How does guidance function then as it is not landing on the model how can guidance even be activated? What does the FAQ say about landing off the table, if the mishap is the obstacle how can you ever have to roll on the mishap table?

The only argument for drop pods moving 1" away from enemy models using guidance is in the DS rules itself. It has to do with their wording not even their intent. You cannot be deployed because you are "on top of or within 1" of an enemy model". People play the drop pod as a free drop but that is not the intent as it is clear that they mean it to mishap on occasion.

Edit: The only things mentioned in the Inertial Guidance are landing in impassable terrain or on top of a model. Those are the only obstacles mentioned and they are the only things avoided.

Basically it boils down to one of two choices:

1) the Inertial Guidance system on Drop pods lets you avoid a mishap from landing on top of an enemy unit by moving it the minimum distance required to avoid the mishap.

Or

2) the Inertial Guidance system on Drop pods only makes you avoid the model and you land within one inch anyway and mishap.

One makes the Inertial Guidance system on Drop pods useless (#2) and one makes the Inertial Guidance system on Drop pods function normally (#1)

as #2 makes the rule useless it can not be the correct interpretation.

It still allows you to avoid a mishap from friendly models and impassable terrain in option 2 and you think it's useless?

Edit: Normal is not a word that should be used in reference to this game. As set by precedent possibly but if there's anything they have shown it's that this edition is setting new directions for the game. Since GW hasn't put out a FAQ dealing with this for this edition, possibly ever, then we have to use what is written and moving the model an 1" away violates the RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
Drop pod guidance thing does not mention landing within 1" just on the model, making the model the obstacle not the mishap. If you say that the mishap is the obstacle then the guidance kicks in even if it lands off the table as the mishap is the obstacle and you avoid that. How about landing within 1"? How does guidance function then as it is not landing on the model how can guidance even be activated? What does the FAQ say about landing off the table, if the mishap is the obstacle how can you ever have to roll on the mishap table?

The only argument for drop pods moving 1" away from enemy models using guidance is in the DS rules itself. It has to do with their wording not even their intent. You cannot be deployed because you are "on top of or within 1" of an enemy model". People play the drop pod as a free drop but that is not the intent as it is clear that they mean it to mishap on occasion.

Edit: The only things mentioned in the Inertial Guidance are landing in impassable terrain or on top of a model. Those are the only obstacles mentioned and they are the only things avoided.

Basically it boils down to one of two choices:

1) the Inertial Guidance system on Drop pods lets you avoid a mishap from landing on top of an enemy unit by moving it the minimum distance required to avoid the mishap.

Or

2) the Inertial Guidance system on Drop pods only makes you avoid the model and you land within one inch anyway and mishap.

One makes the Inertial Guidance system on Drop pods useless (#2) and one makes the Inertial Guidance system on Drop pods function normally (#1)

as #2 makes the rule useless it can not be the correct interpretation.

So then you are agreeing that the skimmer is moved away from the enemy models. Because you know the rule is useless if you don't allow it this move.

"If a Skimmer is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

As there is no situation aside from deepstrike that will "force" the skimmer to end it's move over enemy models this must be the way it works.

Edit: Before you say "Tank Shock" the Tank Shock rule specifically has the models it would end over being moved out from under the vehicle.

Actually as a skimmer I can choose not to tank shock a unit to ram the tank behind them or tank shock the unit behind them. It's those instances that the skimmer movement rule was designed to come into play.

Edit: Not that I wouldn't love for it to work as a Necron player. As has been pointed out though the first model you place is a marker and your unit is not deployed till after the mishap would happen. Since the skimmer rule says the model is moved and does not specify that it affects DS then it mishaps over models. Your pointing out of the rules for deployment though make it a more viable choice as you can choose to put out a piece of impassable terrain just for this purpose.

I am fairly certain that you had to choose at the start of your move if you were going to ram/tank shock. No skipping. Now I have to go back and look.

It's the skimmer rules that allow it You start your ram/tank shock then move over units per the skimmer rules you want to avoid.

Tank shock is instead of moving normally. The skimmers rule is more specific than normal movement, but the tank shock is more specific than skimmer. You declare tank shock prior to movement and then use the tank shock rules for movement from that point on.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
So then you are agreeing that the skimmer is moved away from the enemy models. Because you know the rule is useless if you don't allow it this move.

Do not misrepresent my position.

"If a Skimmer is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

As there is no situation aside from deepstrike that will "force" the skimmer to end it's move over enemy models this must be the way it works.

There is, a skimmer Tank shocking a unit that is behind a vehicle, a skimmer being dragged over a vehicle by a magna grapple, etc.

Edit: Before you say "Tank Shock" the Tank Shock rule specifically has the models it would end over being moved out from under the vehicle.

Vehicles do not move out of the way if the skimmer tank shocks a unit directly behind the vehicle so in applies then.

The skimmer mishaps before the rule comes into effect, therefore you can not move a skimmer if you scatter onto another model.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
So then you are agreeing that the skimmer is moved away from the enemy models. Because you know the rule is useless if you don't allow it this move.

Do not misrepresent my position.

"If a Skimmer is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

As there is no situation aside from deepstrike that will "force" the skimmer to end it's move over enemy models this must be the way it works.

There is, a skimmer Tank shocking a unit that is behind a vehicle, a skimmer being dragged over a vehicle by a magna grapple, etc.

Edit: Before you say "Tank Shock" the Tank Shock rule specifically has the models it would end over being moved out from under the vehicle.

Vehicles do not move out of the way if the skimmer tank shocks a unit directly behind the vehicle so in applies then.

The skimmer mishaps before the rule comes into effect, therefore you can not move a skimmer if you scatter onto another model.

The skimmer is not allowed to pass the vehicle if it is tanks shocking. Tank shock is it's own rule, and is more specific than the skimmer move. It would stop 1" away from an intervening vehicle. So now with a "Magna Grapple" there are exactly 2 ways for a skimmer to end it's move over an enemy model. One that doesn't work any more than the drop pods scatter rule, and one that I have never seen used, so can't comment on(the magna grapple).

I was more pointing out that your comment was not useful in the fact that there are all kinds of useless rules in GW books.

Skimmers move over all intervening units.

It is allowed to tank shock.

point out a useless rule, all rules have some sort of effect.

Right. So this is nice about drop pods, but can anyone find fault in my reasoning with regards to Skimmers that Deep Strike into play? Because while it offers little help insofar as scattering onto enemy troops, it does seem to give the Monolith a little bit of protection from your own units and terrain.

Yes, as posted the mishap occurs before the skimmer rule can take effect.

The deepstrike rules tell us that we place the model where you want the unit to arrive. The unit does not arrive until AFTER you have completed the scatter, which is AFTER any mishap result.

DeathReaper wrote:Yes, as posted the mishap occurs before the skimmer rule can take effect.

The deepstrike rules tell us that we place the model where you want the unit to arrive. The unit does not arrive until AFTER you have completed the scatter, which is AFTER any mishap result.

There is no evidence of the order of operations you are suggesting on p. 36 with regard to single-model units or vehicles. Here is the reasoning, backed by citations:

Skimmers are immune to deep strike mishaps from impassible terrain so long as the skimmer can be placed on top of the terrain. In order to mishap, two requirements must be fulfilled:
1. Landing in impassible terrain and
2. Being unable to deploy.

Because the Skimmer can end its move in impassible terrain, it can deploy there, as Deep Striking counts as movement at cruising speed (BRB p. 36). Therefore, if the Skimmer can physically be placed on top of the impassible terrain, then it can end its movement there and thus fails to meet requirement #2 for the Deep Strike Mishap event.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Skimmers move over all intervening units.

It is allowed to tank shock.

point out a useless rule, all rules have some sort of effect.

Skimmers that are force to end their move over a model are moved the minimum distance to avoid ending it's move on said model. As pointed out it does nothing. As with tank shock being "instead of moving normally" and declaring that you are going to "Tank Shock" before you move, there is no latitude for skipping over another unit and models that would end up under it are moved out of the way. It is very specific in how it is written.

Order of operation:
Move "Can't go over models"
Skimmer Move "Can go over models"
Tank Skimmer that is Tank Shocking "Can't go over models" Note how this one requires the vehicle to be a tank, and to declare that you are going to tank shock, it is not a "just because I moved it ability".

The more specific rule takes precedence over the more general rule.

So Drop Pod Mishaps As Written unless it is due to impassible terrain. So has an effect. Just like the Skimmer rule only effects the Magna Grapple, as no other way allows it to end over another model.

Would a skimmer take a terrain test while tank shocking?

Would any tank moving into dangerous terrain take a Test?

If you answer yes to either question you are using normal movement rules. Secondly a skimmer's rules do not say when moving normally, they state when a skimmer moves. There is nothing in Tank Shocking/Ramming that removes that rule or forbids it's use. In 5th they even had it FAQ'd to clarify this. We will see if they change it but as of right now there is nothing to stop it's use.

Good question. I don't have an answer as the Tank Shock rules do not include immobilizations. My gut instinct is to say yes, as it is actually going into terrain to get low enough to shock a unit.

What if the unit you wanted to tank shock were actually in terrain if you used the skipping tank shock method? You obviously can't be low enough to scare the unit and high over the obstacles at the same time. Gives them way to many places to hide/avoid you. You are, after all, using the hull of your vehicle as a weapon.


I forgot to include GW physics. Of course it is fine no matter how you read it.


5th Edition rules allowed for a fast vehicle to use the faster movement, 6th removes the higher rate of speed(probably do to the raider ram that nuked Land Raiders just from speed).

I'm sure there are other differences as well, though I no longer have my book to confirm.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Deep strike rules say you treat a deep striking vehicle as if it were moving at cruising speed. It also says you can't move any further after deep striking, and that if you land on friendly or enemy units you roll on the deep strike table.

However, the rules for skimmers says(pg 83): "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."

Can this skimmer rule be used to avoid having to roll on the deep strike mishap table?

This is how I'm reading it, and if generally accepted this way, it makes skimmers far more reliable as deep strike units.

Read the Start of the Deep Strike Paragraph you reference:

In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run)
as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the
previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except for Walkers,
count as having moved at Cruising Speed (even immobile
vehicles).

It doesn't say you moved in the Movement Phase, it only says you COUNT as having moved in the previous Movement phase. As in it only affects your actions in the Shooting Phase.

In the same way that a successful FNP roll COUNTS as having made a Save, but FNP is not, in fact, a Save.

olcottr wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Deep strike rules say you treat a deep striking vehicle as if it were moving at cruising speed. It also says you can't move any further after deep striking, and that if you land on friendly or enemy units you roll on the deep strike table.

However, the rules for skimmers says(pg 83): "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."

Can this skimmer rule be used to avoid having to roll on the deep strike mishap table?

This is how I'm reading it, and if generally accepted this way, it makes skimmers far more reliable as deep strike units.

Read the Start of the Deep Strike Paragraph you reference:

In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run)
as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the
previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except for Walkers,
count as having moved at Cruising Speed (even immobile
vehicles).

It doesn't say you moved in the Movement Phase, it only says you COUNT as having moved in the previous Movement phase. As in it only affects your actions in the Shooting Phase.

In the same way that a successful FNP roll COUNTS as having made a Save, but FNP is not, in fact, a Save.

Read the thread. Lots of informative stuff in it, and you will note that I've already conceded the mishap when landing on enemy troops, and we've determined drop pods also mishap when landing on enemy troops, even though they're moved the minimum distance not to hit them, they still meet the 1" requirement, and therefore mishap.

So both drop pods and skimmers, when deep striking, benefit from their special rules only for the purposes of avoiding friendly models and impassable terrain.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
and we've determined drop pods also mishap when landing on enemy troops, even though they're moved the minimum distance not to hit them, they still meet the 1" requirement, and therefore mishap.

This is not true at all.

The drop pod had rules that let it avoid an obstacle.

Drop Pods don't mishap (ever).

Skimmers will mishap if they land in impassible terrain or on top of models. You're not allowed to end your move on models or impassible terrain.

Not quite correct, Drop Pods can still Mishap. They just never will because of scattering over enemy models or impassible terrain. They can still fall off the board or land in a Warp Quake zone.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not quite correct, Drop Pods can still Mishap. They just never will because of scattering over enemy models or impassible terrain. They can still fall off the board or land in a Warp Quake zone.

Warp Quake, maybe, but I was pretty sure they couldn't fall off the board either (I don't have the SM book infront of me)

 loreweaver wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not quite correct, Drop Pods can still Mishap. They just never will because of scattering over enemy models or impassible terrain. They can still fall off the board or land in a Warp Quake zone.

Warp Quake, maybe, but I was pretty sure they couldn't fall off the board either (I don't have the SM book infront of me)

They can fall off the board, as the board edge is not impassible terrain.

There is a rule saying you can not move off the board, but nothing saying you can not scatter off the board.

Thats why its very dangerous to Deep Strike near a board edge.

 DeathReaper wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
and we've determined drop pods also mishap when landing on enemy troops, even though they're moved the minimum distance not to hit them, they still meet the 1" requirement, and therefore mishap.

This is not true at all.

The drop pod had rules that let it avoid an obstacle.

Landing within 1 inch of an enemy model is an obstacle.

Skimmers use the exact same wording. If something would force you to stop over enemy units, move the skimmer the shortest distance necessary so that it is not over any units.

When you follow that wording precisely, that means that they still mishap because the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle still puts them within 1" of the enemy model. Nothing says that drop pods don't mishap, or that they can't mishap from landing too close to troops.

We aren't going to agree on this because the word "obstacle" could be interpereted in one of two ways. Either the "obstacle" is whatever prevents you from placing your model there, in which my interpretation of the rule is correct, and drop pods roll for mishap. OR, "obstacle" is ANYthing that prevents them from successfully deep striking, in which case that is a very broad definition, and you'd be correct.

So,

"Obstacle" = Anything stopping you from physically being able to place your model.
or
"Obstacle" = Anything stopping you from deep striking without a mishap.

If you mishap and are not placed you have not avoided the obstacle as the vehicle is not on the board due to a mishap.

Skimmer rules say "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models..." P. 83

Deep Strike Scatter is not a move.

I believe you are the one that has stated in multiple threads that context matters. In this case the context says landing on as I pointed out earlier. If you move over you have avoided the obstacle of landing on a model. You have simply moved into a new obstacle which is landing within 1" of an enemy model. Which is clearly not covered by the Inertial guidance.

DeathReaper wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
and we've determined drop pods also mishap when landing on enemy troops, even though they're moved the minimum distance not to hit them, they still meet the 1" requirement, and therefore mishap.

This is not true at all.

The drop pod had rules that let it avoid an obstacle.

Landing within 1 inch of an enemy model is an obstacle.

I'm not so certain that I can agree with this according to RAW. Do you have a citation?

I understand that RAI, yeah, I've got no doubt that you're correct in your reading; otherwise the Inertial Guidance (is that it?) rule is completely broken and does absolutely nothing. However, with a strict RAW interpretation, the rule does appear to be broken. I'm let someone play it the RAI way 100% of the time, though.

loreweaver wrote:Drop Pods don't mishap (ever).

Skimmers will mishap if they land in impassible terrain or on top of models. You're not allowed to end your move on models or impassible terrain.

No, skimmers will NOT mishap if they land in impassible terrain and can be physically placed on top of it, nor will they mishap if they scatter onto friendly models (But they will mishap if they scatter onto enemy models). I've already covered this in a previous post, very succinctly and clearly with everything being properly cited. Please discontinue posting a contradictory opinion if you do not have rational and logical evidence to back it up in defiance of a previously posted explanation. Your current justification had already been very clearly nullified before you even posted it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:If you mishap and are not placed you have not avoided the obstacle as the vehicle is not on the board due to a mishap.

Skimmer rules say "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models..." P. 83

Deep Strike Scatter is not a move.

Deep Striking counts as a move. (BRB p. 36)

If it counts as X, then it triggers all rules which apply to the event, X.

Additionally, the Skimmer rule does not say "placed" in the past tense. It says "if a skimmer is forced to end its move over...", in the present tense, and calls for a substitute action to be taken in. The skimmer rule occurs in real-time, the Deep Strike Mishap occurs as a result of an action that was taken in the past (which can never happen due to the skimmer rule, regarding friendly models.)

Well since the BRB does not define obstacle we are left to use the common English interpretation of it.

This Definition of obstacle is:

": something that impedes progress or achievement"
From here

A mishap occurring by landing on an enemy model is definitely an obstacle as far as the English language is concerned.

And does it say the Drop pod avoids all obstacles?

We have to assume it is talking about the ones listed then. Landing on models or impassable terrain. Since the rule is only kicking in when you would land on those things then those are the only times it kicks in. It doesn't say when you land near an enemy model. Therefor that can't be consider to be an obstacle the rule is speaking about.

Edit: Aren't you also the one that said you should always use the least advantageous reading of a rule?

 Gravmyr wrote:

We have to assume it is talking about the ones listed then. Landing on models or impassable terrain. Since the rule is only kicking in when you would land on those things then those are the only times it kicks in. It doesn't say when you land near an enemy model. Therefor that can't be consider to be an obstacle the rule is speaking about.

This is a very good point.

 Gravmyr wrote:
And does it say the Drop pod avoids all obstacles?

From the BA codex page 32 "Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle."

Impassible terrain and enemy models are obstacles as are mishaps from said terrain/Models since we use the basic English definition of obstacle.

We have to assume it is talking about the ones listed then. Landing on models or impassable terrain. Since the rule is only kicking in when you would land on those things then those are the only times it kicks in. It doesn't say when you land near an enemy model. Therefor that can't be consider to be an obstacle the rule is speaking about.

The rule is in place to avoid obstacles, which is ": something that impedes progress or achievement" being within 1 inch of a model is an obstacle, and if you scatter on top of a model then you move the drop pod to avoid the obstacle, this includes the mishap so you have to reduce the scatter so you do not mishap in this situation.

If the drop pod scatters but doe not land on a model but is within 1 inch of the model then the mishap would happen as normal, as Inertial guidance only helps when you land on top of a model or Impassible terrain.

Edit: Aren't you also the one that said you should always use the least advantageous reading of a rule?

Actually the article says that, but it is something a sporting player will do, myself included.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

Remember RAW is one thing and sometimes HIWPI could be something else.

In which case are you not advocating applying a rule to give an additional bonus not spelled out by the IG rule?

The IG rule does not list mishaps as an obstacle. There are only two things listed avoided landing on impassable terrain and landing on models. In the end you have to admit you are including something that is not included in the rule as written. You are adding something that is inferred in order to get the current convention of moving it away 1".

By adding that the rule is there avoid obstacles then you get that the DP can never mishap as that is what you are claiming. The FAQ clearly indicates you can in fact mishap.

If we use the definition, which I believe is something we are not supposed to post, we can also assume the I can ignore all scatter as it moving out from where I indicate I want it to land impeded the progress or achievement of landing where they need to be to win the battle.

Exactly how far out are we going to expand this? Just as far as you would like or as far as we can?

In the end the RAW is they mishap due to not moving 1" away. That's not how people play it but that is another discussion.

 Gravmyr wrote:
In which case are you not advocating applying a rule to give an additional bonus not spelled out by the IG rule?

The IG rule does not list mishaps as an obstacle. There are only two things listed avoided landing on impassable terrain and landing on models. In the end you have to admit you are including something that is not included in the rule as written. You are adding something that is inferred in order to get the current convention of moving it away 1".

By adding that the rule is there avoid obstacles then you get that the DP can never mishap as that is what you are claiming. The FAQ clearly indicates you can in fact mishap.

If we use the definition, which I believe is something we are not supposed to post, we can also assume the I can ignore all scatter as it moving out from where I indicate I want it to land impeded the progress or achievement of landing where they need to be to win the battle.

Exactly how far out are we going to expand this? Just as far as you would like or as far as we can?

In the end the RAW is they mishap due to not moving 1" away. That's not how people play it but that is another discussion.

The drop pod can mishap, but not when it lands on impassible terrain or models (Friend or Foe!) as they reduce scatter to avoid the obstacle.

landing on an enemy unit is an obstacle so we need to reduce the scatter so that the Drop Pod is not near "something that impedes progress or achievement" which would include reducing the Drop pod's scatter distance, if you land on an enemy model, to be further than 1 inch away from the enemy models.

If we use the definition, which I believe is something we are not supposed to post.

This is not true. Dictionary definitions can be used "Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out." So Dictionary definitions can be used. This situation fits as it seemed like BetrayTheWorld was using it incorrectly as he said

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
We aren't going to agree on this because the word "obstacle" could be interpereted in one of two ways. Either the "obstacle" is whatever prevents you from placing your model there, in which my interpretation of the rule is correct, and drop pods roll for mishap. OR, "obstacle" is ANYthing that prevents them from successfully deep striking, in which case that is a very broad definition, and you'd be correct. .

His definition does not quite fit the definition of Obstacle.

 azazel the cat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you mishap and are not placed you have not avoided the obstacle as the vehicle is not on the board due to a mishap.

Skimmer rules say "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models..." P. 83

Deep Strike Scatter is not a move.

Deep Striking counts as a move. (BRB p. 36)

If it counts as X, then it triggers all rules which apply to the event, X.

This is not always true with Deep Striking, because if it were then you could never scatter on top of friendly or enemy models as you are not allowed to move within 1 inch of enemy models...

The rule do not say they are moved to avoid a mishap, that may be the intent but per the page you posted.

Intent Arguments

While interesting, discussing the "Designers Intent" will never help you in a rules discussion. Why? First, intent of a single designer and what may actually end up in print are never guaranteed to be the same. GW has no policy against routinely changing the same rule back and forth repeatedly. Second, it's impossible to know intent. Unless you've got ESP, or the rules author is in the discussion, you're just guessing at intent. Intent can be very simply refuted with an, "I don't agree", and the conversation ends, as neither side can prove its case for intent.

You have to be discussing this. Either post something from the rule stating you move them an 1" away or admit you are arguing intent.

It is not an intent argument. It is informing people on what obstacle actually means.

The rules say "Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." P 32 BA Codex

Avoiding the obstacle means that the drop pod reduces its scatter in order to get clear of anything that "impedes progress or achievement" (Dictionary definition).

And in order to have avoided it you must have avoided the Mishap.

Please post proof from the rule that they wanted you to avoid a mishap. Don't include inference. Don't include a quote definition. Proof.

Saying that the rule tells you to avoid mishaps is not supported. You avoid landing on two things that is all.

No, the rules say you move to avoid the obstacle. That requires you be over an inch away to have avoided it.

Also from the site you want to keep using

Obstacle: an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path

Which definition are they using? The one speaking about actual things or the one speaking about metaphysical ides?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, the rules say you move to avoid the obstacle. That requires you be over an inch away to have avoided it.

Demonstrably untrue.

The rules tell us to reduce scatter to avoid the Obstacle if you land on models. In the case of enemy models you must reduce the scatter enough to land where you avoid the obstacle of the enemy unit. This includes the 1 inch distance as if you try to land closer to the unit you have to roll for the mishap and have not avoided the obstacle.

You have avoided the obstacle what you have not avoided was a mishap. Saying the same things over and over does not change the fact that you avoided the two things the rule is talking about. No where does it mention mishaps.

No, the unit is creating the mishap, therefore the mishap, in that case, is also an obstacle as you can not land there.

Still not supported by RAW. Show me where the rule mentions mishaps or tells you to move it 1" away.

The mishap is a separate thing.

The syntax of the rule also states that you avoid the obstacle not all obstacles in this case either impassable terrain or another model. As those are the only two things referenced those are the only obstacle(S) you can avoid.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Still not supported by RAW. Show me where the rule mentions mishaps or tells you to move it 1" away.

The mishap is a separate thing.

The syntax of the rule also states that you avoid the obstacle not all obstacles in this case either impassable terrain or another model. As those are the only two things referenced those are the only obstacle(S) you can avoid.

The Mishap is caused by failing to avoid the unit(be more than 1" away), so the Inertial Guidence will prevent the mishap.

Unless you are silly enough to actually play that Inertial Guidence does nothing at all.

IN case you missed it I pointed out that I was speaking RAW not how it is played. And, yet again, the rule would still work against your own models and impassable terrain so saying it does nothing at all tells me you haven't actually read anything in this thread.

 Gravmyr wrote:
IN case you missed it I pointed out that I was speaking RAW not how it is played. And, yet again, the rule would still work against your own models and impassable terrain so saying it does nothing at all tells me you haven't actually read anything in this thread.

That still does practically nothing at all.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
IN case you missed it I pointed out that I was speaking RAW not how it is played. And, yet again, the rule would still work against your own models and impassable terrain so saying it does nothing at all tells me you haven't actually read anything in this thread.

That still does practically nothing at all.

So many untruths, speculations, and slander in this thread. Claiming that it "practically does nothing" because it only applies to 2 out of the 3 situations you think it should is far from the truth. There are plenty of situations where those 2 of 3 could be beneficial. You're only looking at it from the perspective that you feel they should be able to target the middle of an enemy mob and be guaranteed to land safely, but that isn't how the rule reads.

@ Deathreaper: I would appreciate it if you wouldn't say such things as, "BetrayTheWorld was using the definition wrong" without doing more research.

If you want to enforce things to the letter of the English language, then here, try this on for size:

From the BA codex page 32 "Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle."

Per the rules of the English language, and proper grammar, the word obstacle in the aforementioned sentence specifically refers ONLY to landing ON TOP of impassable terrain or another model. The sentence itself dictates the definition of an obstacle in this context. You are trying to expand that with the dictionary definition of your choosing. With the definition from the dictionary that you're citing, we would have to consider falling off the table an "obstacle" as well. But you're not arguing that, because you understand how absurd that sounds given the context of the sentence. You can't use the context on one side of the argument, then not use it on the other because it's not convenient.

Because it doesn't consider being close to an enemy model an obstacle within the context of the sentence, you still have to roll on the mishap table after moving the minimum distance to avoid landing ON TOP of them, as written.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Still not supported by RAW.

It is if you understand what Obstacle means.

That is why I posted the definition.

I also posted that the definition you posted was just one of them. As BTW has pointed out your use of obstacle is less justified RAW then his and mine. You still didn't post which definition you thought was being used . Nor why you would think that the use of a singular instance of obstacle should reference multiple things including something which is not mentioned, ie mishaps.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
And does it say the Drop pod avoids all obstacles?

From the BA codex page 32 "Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle."

Impassible terrain and enemy models are obstacles as are mishaps from said terrain/Models since we use the basic English definition of obstacle.

An Deep Strike Mishap is not an obsctacle any more than is a Quad Gun w/ Interceptor an obstacle.

Intertial Guidance will protect you from Impassible Terrain, but it will not, RAW, protect you from scattering onto enemy units, as the minimum distance to avoid the obstace is not 1" extra. It is the minimum distance required to allow the model to be placed, and will then cause a Deep Strike Mishap.

An Deep Strike Mishap is not an obsctacle any more than is a Quad Gun w/ Interceptor an obstacle.

Context tells us that the obstacle is the unit that causes a mishap if landed on/near.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Intertial Guidance will protect you from Impassible Terrain, but it will not, RAW, protect you from scattering onto enemy units, as the minimum distance to avoid the obstace is not 1" extra. It is the minimum distance required to allow the model to be placed, and will then cause a Deep Strike Mishap.

This is incorrect.

Inertial Guidance will protect you from scattering onto enemy units, that is exactly the point of the rule.

The minimum distance to avoid the obstacle is a placement where the pod will not mishap, because if you mishap you have not avoided the obstacle, as the unit is causing the mishap if you land within 1 inch of said unit.

Obstacle means just that, anything that "impedes progress or achievement" as defined by the English Language.

Again, yet again, you have not given a single reason why you think they mean to avoid mishaps and not the obstacle, meaning model or terrain. Would it not have been simpler to say

"Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the mishap."

By using obstacle they actually had to be referencing the actual object previously mentioned, model or terrain. That being said can you offer any proof in the wording of IG that tells you that they are talking about mishaps and not either the model or terrain? I have pointed out as well that there are multiple definitions of obstacle to include both actual things, models and terrain, as well as ideas, mishaps. Saying that they have to be referencing a concept as opposed to the actual items previously mentioned is assigning intent to the rule.

Saying that a drop pod has not missed the enemy model because it mishapped is like saying you were shot because you could feel the air flow of the bullet as it passed. You cannot prove that the mishap is what they were talking about. By moving the DP you have missed the model, just because you still mishapped does not change this.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
IN case you missed it I pointed out that I was speaking RAW not how it is played. And, yet again, the rule would still work against your own models and impassable terrain so saying it does nothing at all tells me you haven't actually read anything in this thread.

That still does practically nothing at all.

As does the skimmer rule that moves it the minimum distance off of other models. There is only 1 (2 if Skipping tank Shock is allowed) situation(s) that it can conceivably be forced to end over another model.

 Gravmyr wrote:
By moving the DP you have missed the model, just because you still mishapped does not change this.

It does if you know what avoid and obstacle mean.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
By moving the DP you have missed the model, just because you still mishapped does not change this.

It does if you know what avoid and obstacle mean.

You can't use obstacle in its abstract form- the definition is "a thing that blocks one's way". "hinders progress" is so broad that it would allow you to violating the reserve deployment rules.


Just admit it; I ruined drop pods. (and play Space Wolves )

A "foe" gives an "obstacle" (transitive)

How is it an Obstacle? It causes a mishap (we know this because Scatter is not Movement, so the rules referencing impassable terrain and Movement are irrelevant) so "mishap" is the Obstacle caused by the Foe

If you do not avoid the mishap, you have not avoided the Obstacle, and have not complied with IG

Azazel -how have you avoided that "Scatter" is not a move, in showing that a DS Skimmer can avoid the mishap? The rule for skimmers ONLY references movement, and we know that Scatter is NOT movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:A "foe" gives an "obstacle" (transitive)

How is it an Obstacle? It causes a mishap (we know this because Scatter is not Movement, so the rules referencing impassable terrain and Movement are irrelevant) so "mishap" is the Obstacle caused by the Foe

If you do not avoid the mishap, you have not avoided the Obstacle, and have not complied with IG

Azazel -how have you avoided that "Scatter" is not a move, in showing that a DS Skimmer can avoid the mishap? The rule for skimmers ONLY references movement, and we know that Scatter is NOT movement.

Scatter may or may not be movement; it's moot, because Deep Striking counts as movement (BRB p. 36), whether there is scatter or not.

If something counts as, then it triggers rules that would apply as if it did.

In answer to my question then you have nothing to actually add to this beyond no one understands obstacle but you? I have pointed out three good reasons why obstacle applies to the model or terrain and all you can come up with is a definition which includes both physical and metaphysical definitions. Using Occam's Razor the assumption they are speaking solely about the model or terrain must be the correct answer. Using the least beneficial reading as per the dictates of YMDC the same is also true. They make no mention of mishaps and therefor by RAW our reading is correct. You have to assign intent to the rule in order to get to your reading as well which is also against the tenets of YMDC. If you can't actually add anything else from the rule books I have to assume you reading of IG is incorrect.

Azazel - except the scatter itself is not movement, otherwise it could never cause a mishap

You have proven your own argument is incorrect. If Scattering (2D6 + scatter dice) is movement, then a mishap can NEVER occur from impassable terrain or enemy / friendly models.

If it is NOT movement, then skimmers can indeed mishap, as their rule only deals with Movement.

The whole action of DS is movement; the action of Scattering is NOT movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Reread deepstrike, and note that you are told that the model is where you want the unit to arrive. The unit does not arrive until AFTER you have completed the scatter, which is AFTER any mishap result.

Then, ONCE you have arrived, you are treated as having moved cruising speed.

You are making a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Once again, wrong as all hell.

Are you exempt from rule #1 BR? Or the tenets of this forum?

Please make an actual argument, that would help

Seems that this whole thing boils down to what the obstacle is.

Most units cannot end movement on top of another unit nor impassable terrain. Skimmers have a special rule allowing them to be placed on top of impassable if they can physically fit. However, I'm going to ignore that special case for a moment.

The Movement rules (pg 10, Models in the Way) say that "A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model...they must go around." Impassable Terrain rules (pg 90, Impassable Terrain) state that "Models cannot enter...-they must go around."

Very similar verbiage used that applies when you are faced with an obstacle: you go around.

Considering that with the IGS rules it seems clear that the "obstacle" in question is the physical placement problem of being on a friendly unit, within 1" of an enemy unit or on top of impassable terrain. However, there is more.

A DP deep strikes after it comes in from reserves. Deep striking is a special reserve action (pg 36, 1st paragraph) "..the unit must start the game in reserve." So we start with the reserve rules (pg 124) which refer to the act of arriving from reserves as 'movement' multiple times; the reserves models just have to go first. pg 124, right column, paragraphs 5-7. Specifically:
"When Reserves arrive, the player picks any one of the uits arriving and deploys it, moving it onto the table as described below."
"When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move fully onto the table from the controller player's own table edge."
"Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield".

Now, when arriving by deep strike it tells us which rules to ignore and how to bring them in. "First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table...and roll for scatter..." It even goes on to say "In the movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further.." This confirms that Deep Striking is part of movement and therefore we have to use those rules as well.

So if a DP scatters it has to follow the movement rules to avoid the "obstacle" that has been defined by the enemy troops and the 1" bubble around them. Which means a DP that scatters onto units will never mishap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If Scattering (2D6 + scatter dice) is movement, then a mishap can NEVER occur from impassable terrain or enemy / friendly models.

Correct for DPs. Partially correct for skimmers. Skimmers can't mishap in impassable (as they can be placed there) nor for friendly. They can however mishap for enemy as their special rule simply says to move them to where the friendly or enemy models are NOT underneath it and therefore will still be within 1" of the enemy causing the mishap.

However, other units such as Terminators don't have those special rules.

If we don't consider reserves (and by extension DS) to be movement, then there is no ability for a unit to move onto the table from reserves.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Please post proof from the rule that they wanted you to avoid a mishap. Don't include inference. Don't include a quote definition. Proof.

The proof is simply that in order to mishap, the unit "cannot be deployed" (pg 36). I've shown how DPs can be deployed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A "foe" gives an "obstacle" (transitive)
How is it an Obstacle? It causes a mishap (we know this because Scatter is not Movement, so the rules referencing impassable terrain and Movement are irrelevant) so "mishap" is the Obstacle caused by the Foe

This entire argument hinges on that singular definition of obstacle, but that is not the only one, nor is it the most intuitive.

Based on the wording in the actual rule, "obstacle" could very simply mean models that are preventing you from physically placing your model on the board. Using this definition, you would move your model the minimum distance to be able to place it on the board, which would cause it to still be within 1" of enemy models, thereby causing a mishap.

Edit: mispost. (Wrong Thread)

You have yet to actually show anything in the IGS rule that says anything about the obstacle being the mishap. On the contrary the beginning of rule itself tells us that there are things in our path a model or a piece of terrain. You are over reaching by assuming they must have been speaking of it. There is no indication in the rule that they are even taking mishaps into consideration. It is entirely implied.

The IGS does not mention being within 1" of an enemy model. Removing that from your argument and you are left with just being on top of a model or piece of impassable terrain.

Now assuming you want to use the rules for movement to justify drop pods moving 1" from enemy model you have just allowed skimmers to use the same rules and the same protection. Do you concur?

If a drop pod scatters within 1" of an enemy model but not over an enemy model it mishaps as IGS only kicks in if you are over an enemy model. That's something new!

The bit about enemy models in the IGS rule is wasted ink if reducing the scatter doesn't prevent a mishap. So it's likely intended that it does prevent a mishap, otherwise enemy models would not be included. And no it's not a new edition conflict since the wording is the same in the DA codex.

If we're pandering to the church of RAW however I agree that it doesnt say reduce scatter to avoid the mishap and that being over an enemy model not being within 1" is the obstacle referred to.

As for skimmers, well it would definitely give land speeders a boost in popularity, pushing most tanks out of the meta. You can bubblewrap against meltaguns, but multimeltas on fast vehicles not so much.

The obstacle refers to the unit agreed?

The rules tell us to avoid the obstacle.

If a drop pod lands within 1 inch of the unit we have not avoided the unit, as the presence of the unit makes the pod mishap.

Ergo the only way to avoid the unit is to land outside of the mishap zone.

 DeathReaper wrote:
1. The obstacle refers to the unit agreed?

2. The rules tell us to avoid the obstacle.

3. If a drop pod lands within 1 inch of the unit we have not avoided the unit, as the presence of the unit makes the pod mishap.

4. Ergo the only way to avoid the unit is to land outside of the mishap zone.

Numbered for your convenience.

1. Mostly correct. The obstacle refers to the models or terrain that physically prevent you from placing your model.
2. Correct.
3. Incorrect. They have avoided that which physically prevented them from being placed, but there is nothing saying they get to auto-avoid the mishap within 1".
4. Incorrect. You have avoided the unit, just not the mishap. The mishap and the physical obstacle are not one and the same. Mishaps in the fluff are defined as being caused by multiple things, such as too much fire from nearby enemy units. But that's fluff, so we'll leave those arguments out.

I know a lot of people are getting defensive about this because they drop-pod right into enemy blobs with impunity right now, and while that MAY be the RAI, it is currently not necessarily RAW. It's also not necessarily RAI. The drop pod rules are still beneficial in that they allow you to avoid mishaps from landing on impassable terrain or friendly troops. It just makes the presence of enemies matter, and requires you to think more carefully about your drop pod deployments.

Either way, I'd like to see this cleared up in a FAQ.

 Gravmyr wrote:
You have yet to actually show anything in the IGS rule that says anything about the obstacle being the mishap.
On the contrary the beginning of rule itself tells us that there are things in our path a model or a piece of terrain. You are over reaching by assuming they must have been speaking of it. There is no indication in the rule that they are even taking mishaps into consideration. It is entirely implied.

The IGS does not mention being within 1" of an enemy model. Removing that from your argument and you are left with just being on top of a model or piece of impassable terrain.

It doesn't have to directly mention it. The obstacle (ie: the location on the table you are forbidden from moving into) is the 1" bubble around the enemy as defined by the regular movement rules.

 Gravmyr wrote:

Now assuming you want to use the rules for movement to justify drop pods moving 1" from enemy model you have just allowed skimmers to use the same rules and the same protection. Do you concur?

No. The wording of the rules for skimmers is not identical to the wording for IGS. Skimmers state to move the model until no enemy models are underneath it. IGS says to move it away from the obstacle. The skimmer will still mishap because the models will still be within 1" of the hull; this overrides the normal movement restrictions regarding the skimmer.

Quite frankly there aren't many ways a skimmer is forced to end it's movement over enemy models. DS is the only one I see. The fact that this rule is under the movement rules for skimmers lends even more credence to the idea that DS is a movement beyond what I provided on pg 3 of this thread.

clively wrote:
Quite frankly there aren't many ways a skimmer is forced to end it's movement over enemy models. DS is the only one I see. The fact that this rule is under the movement rules for skimmers lends even more credence to the idea that DS is a movement beyond what I provided on pg 3 of this thread.

Except if DS is movement then no DSing unit would ever mishap as they would be forbidden from moving within 1 inch of an enemy model because it is not an assault.

clively - tank shocking or ramming are two other common reasons for the rule to be relevant.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except if DS is movement then no DSing unit would ever mishap as they would be forbidden from moving within 1 inch of an enemy model because it is not an assault.

That's not true because the movement rules are basic and the deep strike rules are advanced. So if deep strike says scatter, and scatter makes you violate the basic rule, deep strike wins.

Before you try to use that to turn the tables on the argument using the basic<advanced thing, that is only true when there is a direct conflict between the basic and advanced rule. In any situation where they may both apply, they DO both apply.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except if DS is movement then no DSing unit would ever mishap as they would be forbidden from moving within 1 inch of an enemy model because it is not an assault.

That's not true because the movement rules are basic and the deep strike rules are advanced. So if deep strike says scatter, and scatter makes you violate the basic rule, deep strike wins.

Before you try to use that to turn the tables on the argument using the basic<advanced thing, that is only true when there is a direct conflict between the basic and advanced rule. In any situation where they may both apply, they DO both apply.

They do both apply, you scatter and, if scatter is movement, then you are not allowed to move within 1 inch of an enemy unit.

The Deepstrike rules do not over-ride the 1 inch restriction.

DS can not be movement. it has to be Deep Strike Scatter.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except if DS is movement then no DSing unit would ever mishap as they would be forbidden from moving within 1 inch of an enemy model because it is not an assault.

That's not true because the movement rules are basic and the deep strike rules are advanced. So if deep strike says scatter, and scatter makes you violate the basic rule, deep strike wins.

Before you try to use that to turn the tables on the argument using the basic<advanced thing, that is only true when there is a direct conflict between the basic and advanced rule. In any situation where they may both apply, they DO both apply.

They do both apply, you scatter and, if scatter is movement, then you are not allowed to move within 1 inch of an enemy unit.

Correct. That is the very definition of a mishap. The DS move is forcing you to do something that is in direct conflict with the normal movement rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

The Deepstrike rules do not over-ride the 1 inch restriction.

Correct. However, that's the obstacle as defined by looking at the movement and DP rules and therefore why the DP is specifically moved outside of it

 DeathReaper wrote:
DS can not be movement. it has to be Deep Strike Scatter.

I've shown how DS is movement using RAW. The move is from the "edge of the battlefield" to the final attempted scatter placement. Which kicks of the DP and skimmer special rules. Models that don't have similar rules mishap immediately. Skimmer once it is placed in it's final location mishaps against troops. DP doesn't because it's moved outside the 1" bubble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
clively - tank shocking or ramming are two other common reasons for the rule to be relevant.

Not seeing how a tank shock can move an enemy vehicle (aka skimmer). pg 85: "If the Tank would move into contact with a friendly model, enemy vehicle, .... it immediately stops moving 1" away." The only way any unit is moved due to tank shock is if the tank stops on top of it; which cannot happen due to the rule I pointed out. Similar with ramming, pg 86: "If the rammed vehicle is removed .. the rammer continues its move..." The inversion here is that if the rammed vehicle is not removed then the rammer has no permission to continue forward.

Is the 1" bubble part of the model? No. You avoid the model nothing else is mentioned. You keep adding in the 1" bubble in because it causes a mishap. That is intent and only intent. We have no actual proof just our inference that is what they want. You have to add additional rules to reach this consensus. I agree with you that they wanted DP's to avoid mishaps. They just failed at writing a rule to do so. I have shown you why and every time all you can come up with is it is their intent or we have to follow the rules for movement which would allow skimmers to do the same. Either the 1" bubble is part of the model or it isn't and as you are counting it as part of the obstacle which is an enemy model then you have to move it out from under the skimmer as well.

If you are within the 1" bubble you have not avoided the model.

Then you are still above the model in the case of the skimmer.

Gravmyr: I'm not entire who the "you" is here. Regardless, I haven't covered intent in any of my posts. Nor have I added any rules.

pg 36 states that a DS unit starts in reserves. So we bring reserve rules into play.

pg 124, right column, para 5-7. Repeatedly uses variations of the word "move". The last paragraphs even states that any rules preventing movement are ignored when it arrives (ie: immobile units). The only way "rules preventing movement" could even function is if we are in fact using the movement rules. Which leads us to:

pg 36 outright says "In the movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move further." Reinforcing that DS is occuring during the movement phase. If we are not moving, then this would only apply to those units with a special rule like Gate of Infinity; and that reading would certainly change the game.

All of that to say that we must use the movement rules, with the specific DS and reserve overrides.

pg 10 says that you cannot move within 1" of an enemy model.

pg 83 says in the skimmer movement section, that if a skimmer is forced to end its move over a friendly model it moves so that no models are underneath it. The only way to do this is via DS. So this is placed right next to the models, but still mishaps as it will be within 1" which is not a normally possible move and one of the mishap reasons.

pg 69 of SM codex says to reduce scatter to avoid the obstacle.

Now what obstacle could there possibly be? The movement rules tell us that you can't move within 1", which is the obstacle.

Again you have avoided the model, what you have not avoided is the bubble that the movement rules put into place. They are not the same thing which is pointed out by the DS rules including both of in it's own rules. If they were the same they would not be listed as two separate occurrences in the rules. If they wanted to include the bubble in IGS They could have done as I listed earlier or written IGS to say landing within 1". They failed to do either.

If I were to argue intent, I think that they intended for skimmers and DP to both avoid mishaps when landing on impassable and units.

The reason being that there are only 3 mishap choices: destroyed, opponent redeploys it and delayed. All of which require the model to be picked right back up.

Given that, there is no reason for the "forced" wording in the skimmer rules and no reason to even mention "another model" in IGS.

HIWPI: no mishap for either unit types for either condition.
-----------
I understand your position and can see how you believe it is supported by RAW. I believe mine is as well. Either way, it's a bit muddied and I am going to shoot an email to GW requesting a FAQ update. They may even listen.

I've already sent my email in about it and have to agree either it works for all or none. Looking at forced via skimmers I always saw the failing to destroy with a ram or the scatter in DS as forcing the skimmer to end it's move.

 Gravmyr wrote:
I've already sent my email in about it and have to agree either it works for all or none. Looking at forced via skimmers I always saw the failing to destroy with a ram or the scatter in DS as forcing the skimmer to end it's move.

I'd be interested to hear what GW says about it if they email you back. If you could post any response received, it would be appreciated.

@BetrayTheWorld:
I have yet to receive a response other than the following for *any* rules query I've sent them.

games workshop wrote:
We have received your email and will ensure that this is read and considered for the next FAQ/Errata update. Many thanks for your valuable feedback!

I'm not sure they actually respond to the complicated ones.

Yeah, I've heard of them responding directly. If they do, I'd like to see what they say. If not, hopefully this is addressed in a FAQ.

I think it makes sense for both skimmers and drop pods not to mishap from enemy units. However, the way that it's written is highly debatable, as we've seen here.

From a HIWPI standpoint, I think I'm going to put this on my list of things to sort out with my opponent before game. I'll be fine ruling it either way, but I will likely ask that the same ruling be used for both skimmers and drop pods, and have that ruling applied to any subsequent games with the same opponent, barring further clarification via FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - except the scatter itself is not movement, otherwise it could never cause a mishap

You have proven your own argument is incorrect. If Scattering (2D6 + scatter dice) is movement, then a mishap can NEVER occur from impassable terrain or enemy / friendly models.

If it is NOT movement, then skimmers can indeed mishap, as their rule only deals with Movement.

The whole action of DS is movement; the action of Scattering is NOT movement.

I never said scattering was movement. I said Deep Striking was movement. As in, a Deep Strike that hits dead on target counts as having moved, as per BRB p. 36

I even quoted the exact rule and cited the page number.

Then, I clarified this specifically for you, Nos.

I don't know what more I can do to explain this. Deep Striking counts as movement, because the rules on p. 36 say it is. Scattering has nothing to do with it. If you scatter on a Deep Strike, you are considered to have moved. If you do not scatter, you are considered to have moved. Because the Deep Strike itself is considered movement.

DeathReaper wrote:Except if DS is movement then no DSing unit would ever mishap as they would be forbidden from moving within 1 inch of an enemy model because it is not an assault.

That's right. You can't Deep Strike within 1" of an enemy model. However, the scatter can force you to end up there. That is not your choice, however.

clively wrote:
I've shown how DS is movement using RAW.

No you have not, and it is not.

If it were you would not be able to scatter across Impassible terrain, but we know this is not true.

If it were you would not be able to scatter past the board edge, but we know this is not true.

Azazel - you can prove that the scatter (the 2D6"+scatter dice) displacement is movement, that would be a start. Not the DS as a whole, jus the scatter.

DS as a whole is movement
The scattering, i.e. actually discplacing where you want the model to arrfive, is not movement

Prove otherwise, with rules this time. Your cite does not cover your claim.

Again: if scattering (displacing) the model is movement, then you can NEVER mishap through impassable, friendly or enemy models, or even moving off the table. We know this because the rules for movement do not allow you to move your model on to a friendly model, inside impassable, or off the board. DS scatter does not, in any way, specifically override these restrictions, so it does not override them.

So, if the act of displacing the intended position of the unit (hereafter: DS scatter) is movement, you can NEVER mishap from displacing the model (rolling a hit would still do it, if you placed it in a mishap position)

You would also take dangerous / difficult terrain tests while performing this scatter "move", would be halted by impassable terrain / models in your way, etc.

Is this your position? If you agree that DS Scatter in and of itself is "movement" , then this IS your position.

I'm not sure how much more explicitly I can show you the logical error in your position, or that IGS does indeed work.

Edit: prove the scatter can FORCE you there. Another ruleless assertion on your part. IF the DS Scatter is movement, it cannot do so as it only talks about "IF" situaitons, it never gives you permission to actually reach that position

Rules citation that the act of displacing the position of where you want a unit to turn up being movement. It hasnt been for 4 editions now, so this should be a good one from you. I'll wait.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DS as a whole is movement
The scattering, i.e. actually discplacing where you want the model to arrfive, is not movement

This *is* my position. Always has been.



Deep Strike + scatter = movement.
Deep Strike without scatter = movement.

Movement triggers Skimmer rules.

Skimmer rules state you can deploy onto impassible terrin if you can physically place the model on top.

Therefore, if you Deep Strike, and scatter onto impassible terrain, then the Skimmer does not mishap if the model may be physically placed on the impassible terrain.

Again, you have failed to prove that the actual scattering of the model is movement, as that is the only way to reach your conclusion using the actual, written rules for DS and mishap OoO

If it is NOT movement then the mishap , which occurs *before* the unit arrives, still takes place for skimmers because their rule only applies to Movement. At the point they Mishap there has been no Movement.

If the scatter IS movement, then you have the issues described.

So, which is it? Rules please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If it is NOT movement then the mishap , which occurs *before* the unit arrives, still takes place for skimmers because their rule only applies to Movement.

Sorry nos, you're not correct here. Their rule applies to movement OR deployment, as described in the deployment rules. Deep strike is a type of deployment that counts as movement. Under the rules for deployment, it specifically states that units that could move over or onto impassable terrain in their movement phase may also do so during deployment.

This means that they have that rule for both movement, AND deployment.

The rule for deep strike specifically says(BRB pg 36): If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly rnodel, or on top of or within I " of an enemy model, roll for mishap.

Again, BRB, pg 36: In the Movernent phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further. These units count as having moved in this movement phase.

This clearly demonstrates that deep strike is a type of deployment, AND counts as movement.

BRB, pg 121 under deployment: Units cannot deploy in impassable terrain unless they are normally allowed to move over impassable terrain and can physically fit on it.

Further, scatter is a mechanic of the deep strike rule. It isn't a separate entity all it's own. It simply forces the deep strike to target a location determined by the dice. To keep demanding that people demonstrate that scatter is movement is highly redundant. It's analogous to demanding that one prove that rolling dice to hit is an attack. It's not. It's simply the mechanic to determine the result of an attack. The same applies to ALL random dice roll mechanics in the game.

No, it is not redundant, because trying to claim Scatter is and of itself is movement leads to the absurd situation that you could never mishap

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, you have failed to prove that the actual scattering of the model is movement, as that is the only way to reach your conclusion using the actual, written rules for DS and mishap OoO

If it is NOT movement then the mishap , which occurs *before* the unit arrives, still takes place for skimmers because their rule only applies to Movement. At the point they Mishap there has been no Movement.

If the scatter IS movement, then you have the issues described.

So, which is it? Rules please.

Why is it you cannot grasp that the scatter is irrelevant? You keep coming back to it like a broken record. The scatter is not the movement, the Deep Strike is. As in, the part where you pick the model up and teleport it somewhere. That is movement (or, more specifically, counts as movement).

The scatter facet is meaningless. It's like someone is telling you to get out because your house is on fire, and you keep trying to correct them that the title of deed is actually not in your name.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Are you exempt from rule #1 BR? Or the tenets of this forum?

Please make an actual argument, that would help

I think I am for the most part.

I would ask if you are exempt from secret rule #1: Taking a joke as we haven't bumped heads in ages.

Azazel - yet for your claim to be true it MUST be movement. The point I am showing you, a number of times now, is that the scattering displacement is not movement, meaning rules triggering off movement do not occur. Only once you have finished DS have you moved, as the rules for DS tell you - which is after you owuld mishap.

BR - difficult to tell your jokes from your insults.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Azazel - yet for your claim to be true it MUST be movement. The point I am showing you, a number of times now, is that the scattering displacement is not movement, meaning rules triggering off movement do not occur. Only once you have finished DS have you moved, as the rules for DS tell you - which is after you owuld mishap.

BR - difficult to tell your jokes from your insults.

Yea, I figured that would be the case.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Azazel - yet for your claim to be true it MUST be movement. The point I am showing you, a number of times now, is that the scattering displacement is not movement, meaning rules triggering off movement do not occur.

But the rules for deployment DO occur, and the rules for deployment refer you to the movement rules, so they do apply.