Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Were they in Reserves before the Turn started? If so they are an eligible target.

Yep, I believe it's in the reserve rules, they all count as arriving from reserve.

Yeah, definitely.

Yes

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

However, most people would consider that absolutely ridiculous, and would say that you've got the right of it already.

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

Intercept is done at the end of the opponent's movement phase, the reserves coming on the board isnt a part of the movement phase you can do it whenever you want long as they came in at all. And seeing as you cannot stay embarked in the drop pod, they disembark before the movement phase is completed.

They were in reserves prior to this, thus viable targets. Shooting the pod itself is kinda pointless (unless they FAQ it somewhere where if you kill the pod in the Intercept fire the embarked unit dies too...which would be HILARIOUS to see people rage over that)

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Intercept is done at the end of the opponent's movement phase, the reserves coming on the board isnt a part of the movement phase you can do it whenever you want long as they came in at all. And seeing as you cannot stay embarked in the drop pod, they disembark before the movement phase is completed.

They were in reserves prior to this, thus viable targets. Shooting the pod itself is kinda pointless (unless they FAQ it somewhere where if you kill the pod in the Intercept fire the embarked unit dies too...which would be HILARIOUS to see people rage over that)

If any survived would they have to take impact test as they fell to the ground?

Would they have to roll for scatter as they plummeted and then have to try to move back into coherence after taking a pinning test?

Oh the fun you could have

 Vineheart01 wrote:

Shooting the pod itself is kinda pointless

That can get you first blood though

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

I'd allow it, around my 96" Icarus. Try to drop anywhere close to my army? Nope. You can drop on the next table over.

 Purifier wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

I'd allow it, around my 96" Icarus. Try to drop anywhere close to my army? Nope. You can drop on the next table over.

But then you'd be open to his guard allies basilisking you from the next table over...

Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

It was a reference to a joke that DeathReaper posted. But I don't think DeathReaper considered it as such.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

It was a reference to a joke that DeathReaper posted. But I don't think DeathReaper considered it as such.

Mind pointing out the joke in that post you linked, because I am not seeing it. (Plus do not forget context).

Your choice to read "obstacle" to mean more than the physical object (that is, your extra 1" notion, which is so silly I assumed it was a joke). If you interpretation of an obstacle implies you get an extra 1" of movement so that the unit's progress is not hindered, then obviously the unit would get an extra 48" or 96" or whatever of movement so that the unit's progress is not hindered by the Interceptor's range.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Your choice to read "obstacle" to mean more than the physical object (that is, your extra 1" notion, which is so silly I assumed it was a joke). If you interpretation of an obstacle implies you get an extra 1" of movement so that the unit's progress is not hindered, then obviously the unit would get an extra 48" or 96" or whatever of movement so that the unit's progress is not hindered by the Interceptor's range.

The context dictates that the Obstacle is the impassible terrain or unit, not a Gun emplacement.

Therefore it is your read that is so silly I am going to assume it is a joke.

The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

But they came out of reserves as well so wouldn't they be eligible for interceptor as well?

A GumyBear wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

But they came out of reserves as well so wouldn't they be eligible for interceptor as well?

No more so than a unit inside a Rhino.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

Huh, what? Interceptor is used at the end of the movement phase. If the unit arrived from Reserve that turn, no matter how, then Interceptor allows you to shoot at it.

azazel the cat wrote:

A GumyBear wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

But they came out of reserves as well so wouldn't they be eligible for interceptor as well?

No more so than a unit inside a Rhino.

Yeah, and if the unit and the Rhino arrived from Reserve that turn, than a model with Interceptor can choose to shoot at either of them at the end of their movement phase (provided they disembarked as part of that move onto the board).

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

Which has no basis in the actual rules. Reread interceptor, and notice the timing of it and what units it is allowed to target

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.

Said marines are certainly targetable if are in range and satisfy LOS rules.

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.

No, a less stupid one would not be following that line, as you are told you can only reduce scatter, not increase it beyond 0.

You also ignore context, but that is par for the course.

Your slippery slope fallacy is just that.

 azazel the cat wrote:
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)

Do not overlook the context of the IG rule. not only objects, but anything that impedes progress that has to do with impassible terrain or the unit you scattered onto, as noted in the IG rule.

 azazel the cat wrote:
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

Only if you ignore the context of the Inertial Guidance rule.

Or as Azazel and I pointed out they could simply be referring to the model or terrain. The most logical reason for using obstacle being they could not use model nor terrain piece when referencing both options later in the rule so they used obstacle to cover both. They never even imply that mishaps are included as part of the "obstacle" even though the rule exists to avoid a mishap. The intent of the rule is to avoid the mishap, I agree, but nothing in the rule even implies they are to be included in the implementation of the rule. In the end this should be still in the other thread.

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.

Again I would agree if they had written it to say landing within 1" of an enemy model instead of "landing on a model (friend or foe)" You are adding intent of the writer in order to include the 1" as it is not mentioned in the rule. It doesn't even separate the two types of models but lumps them together. As there is no rule that covers moving an inch away from all models that is yet more proof that it does not reference an inch bubble. You are including more in the definition then is indicated in the rule in order to stretch obstacle to include the bubble.

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.

 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

Can obstacle be referring to the model or terrain solely?

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.

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

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

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

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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

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.

 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

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except the scatter is not movement.

Again, and again, and again, and again, I have not said scatter is movement. Please stop responding as if I am saying that.

Scatter is not movement. Deep strike counts as both deployment and movement. Scatter is a mechanic of deep strike, determining where deep strike tells you to move/deploy. This has been my stance through the entire argument, and it is now clearly becoming a straw man, as I have not claimed scatter to be movement, and you keep responding as if I have.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except the scatter is not movement.

Again, and again, and again, and again, I have not said scatter is movement. Please stop responding as if I am saying that.

Scatter is not movement. Deep strike counts as both deployment and movement. Scatter is a mechanic of deep strike, determining where deep strike tells you to move/deploy. This has been my stance through the entire argument, and it is now clearly becoming a straw man, as I have not claimed scatter to be movement, and you keep responding as if I have.

And yet you keep claiming that a rule that has to do with movement has anything to do with protection from mishaps...
Either it's movement and a movement rule applies, or its not and a movement rule doesn't apply.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except the scatter is not movement.

Again, and again, and again, and again, I have not said scatter is movement. Please stop responding as if I am saying that.

Scatter is not movement. Deep strike counts as both deployment and movement. Scatter is a mechanic of deep strike, determining where deep strike tells you to move/deploy. This has been my stance through the entire argument, and it is now clearly becoming a straw man, as I have not claimed scatter to be movement, and you keep responding as if I have.

And yet you keep claiming that a rule that has to do with movement has anything to do with protection from mishaps...
Either it's movement and a movement rule applies, or its not and a movement rule doesn't apply.

That's because DEEP STRIKE counts as movement/deployment. Scatter is not a seperate entity in and of itself. It is simply a mechanic of deep strike, which counts as both movement and deployment.

If something counts as something else then it is that thing as far as the rules are concerned.

If not then the rules break down in spectacular ways.

If scatter counts as movement then you can not use it to get within 1 inch of an enemy model.

P.S. did I miss a page and graph reference to where Deep Striking counts as movement?

If so please direct me to the page and graph.

 DeathReaper wrote:

P.S. did I miss a page and graph reference to where Deep Striking counts as movement?

If so please direct me to the page and graph.

Rulebook, pg 36.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further...


Moving any FURTHER is only grammatically correct if Deep Strike itself is considered movement.

Betray - so, again, how does being forced to end your move, which the scatter is not, get triggered?

At the itme you mishap you have yet to arrive (ref, the part of DS telling you that you place the model wher eyou WANT the unit to arrive) meaning you cannot have ended your move

If you havent ended your move, you cannot be moved by a rule stating you can be moved out of the way

Meaning you mishap.

Again: Betray please actually answer the chain, rather than going "move/deploy!" as if it means anything

 yakface wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

P.S. did I miss a page and graph reference to where Deep Striking counts as movement?

If so please direct me to the page and graph.

Rulebook, pg 36.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further...


Moving any FURTHER is only grammatically correct if Deep Strike itself is considered movement.

So no one can ever mishap by Deepstriking as you are not allowed to move within 1 inch of an enemy unit?

Or does it only count as movement after the scatter.

and if so aren't the rules kind of messed up?

P.S I just realized this might be the wrong thread I just posted in, because we may have wandered off topic.

 DeathReaper wrote:

So no one can ever mishap by Deepstriking as you are not allowed to move within 1 inch of an enemy unit?

Or does it only count as movement after the scatter.

and if so aren't the rules kind of messed up?

P.S I just realized this might be the wrong thread I just posted in, because we may have wandered off topic.

Yes, we're quite off-topic now.

Models that arrive via Deep Strike count as having moved (and thus cannot move any FURTHER).

Scatter is not movement. Therefore, per the rules for Deep Strike, scatter can change the arriving position of a Deep Striking unit to within 1" of an enemy unit.

So... You're violently agreeing with his base premise?
That skimmers still mishap?

rigeld2 wrote:
So... You're violently agreeing with his base premise?
That skimmers still mishap?

No, because scatter is a mechanic that forces the movement that is deep strike, to end over enemies/allies/whatever. Skimmers would still mishap over enemies, because even after moving to avoid the troops, they'd still be within 1". However, this DOES stop them from suffering mishap on allies, and the rules allow skimmers to deep strike onto impassable terrain so long as they can actually be placed there.

As far as the IGS, the wording is different, and that is a slightly different debate. It's my thought, based on the wording, that drop pods still mishap over enemy units because the "obstacle" based on standard English grammar, can only refer to the words "another model" and "impassable terrain" as listed in it's description. Otherwise, the definition of obstacle becomes far too broad for logic to apply properly. Strictly RAW, it would still mishap as it would still be within 1" of an enemy unit.

Effectively, based on the rules as written, drop pods and skimmers end up having very similar rules for deep striking, with a couple small exceptions.

1. Obviously skimmers don't have the first turn deep strike rules.
2. Drop pods rule is better in regard to impassable terrain, as it reduces the scatter distance rather than allowing it to land there. In allowing it to deploy there, the skimmer side subjects it to dangerous terrain tests.


EDIT: grammar

Betray - except you mishap before you arrive, meaning your movement has not ended, meaning your rule cannot trigger.

DS is only movement once compelted. Scatter is NOT movement, so at this point you have not moved, and have not ended your move.

The context of "obstacle" is "mishap", yet you have decided it can mishap despite being told it must avoid the obstacle == mishap?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - except you mishap before you arrive, meaning your movement has not ended, meaning your rule cannot trigger.

1. DS is only movement once compelted. Scatter is NOT movement, so at this point you have not moved, and have not ended your move.

2. The context of "obstacle" is "mishap", yet you have decided it can mishap despite being told it must avoid the obstacle == mishap?

1. This doesn't matter. The deep strike mishap rules say "If a unit WOULD(as in, in the future) land over an enemy unit, roll for mishap". A skimmer's special rules would prevent it from doing so, so it explicitly WOULD NOT land on top of the enemy models.

2. That is not the context of obstacle at all. In fact, it never mentions mishaps. It only refers to "another model" and "impassable terrain" as being obstacles.

1) Incorrect, as I have already shown. The move has NOT ENDED, because Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT, and you HAVE NOT MOVED yntil you have FINISHED DS.

Have you finished DS? No, you mishapped instead.

Simple concept.

They also say "would" because that is the only way that tense structure could work. It does not state that the move has ended, which is what the skimmer rules require - that your move has ended. It never ends, because mishap gets in the way instead

Only if you manage to land do you count as having moved.
2) And how are they obstacles? They cause mishaps.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) Incorrect, as I have already shown. The move has NOT ENDED, because Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT, and you HAVE NOT MOVED yntil you have FINISHED DS.

Have you finished DS? No, you mishapped instead.

Simple concept.

They also say "would" because that is the only way that tense structure could work. It does not state that the move has ended, which is what the skimmer rules require - that your move has ended. It never ends, because mishap gets in the way instead

Only if you manage to land do you count as having moved.
2) And how are they obstacles? They cause mishaps.

No. Your logic creates a logical paradox. If you wouldn't land there because mishap prevents it, then you wouldn't mishap, because mishap requires that you would.

Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

You'd still end up within 1 inch of the enemy, meaning a mishap.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

So on before the first turn I move my skimmer 6" forward because at some undetermined point in the future he will be forced to stop over models.

Or... it's not being used in a future tense, but in a conditional (like "will").

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

Do you understand conditional usage? IF...then is the basic construction of this sentence.

Try again: the DS scattering tells you to mishap if [you would end up there]. Would is a conditional - if you do not satisfy that condition you do not mishap.

You also continually ignore that the skimmer rule only kicks in if you are forced to *end* your move there - you never get to see if you end your move, because before that occurs you Mishap.

Your argument is still refuted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

Do you understand conditional usage? IF...then is the basic construction of this sentence.

Try again: the DS scattering tells you to mishap if [you would end up there]. Would is a conditional - if you do not satisfy that condition you do not mishap.

Now you're catching on. Keep at it. Since, future-tense, you wouldn't land over the model, you wouldn't mishap. There is no "find out" if you would end your move over enemy units, because since we know the rules, we know we wouldn't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

You'd still end up within 1 inch of the enemy, meaning a mishap.

You are absolutely correct, as I've said over and over:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Skimmers would still mishap over enemies, because even after moving to avoid the troops, they'd still be within 1". However, this DOES stop them from suffering mishap on allies, and the rules allow skimmers to deep strike onto impassable terrain so long as they can actually be placed there.

Betray - seems like you arent catching on.

You have not finished moving, until after you arrive and complete DS [may not move any further]

You cannot arrive because you mishap, at a portion of DS which is NOT movement. So your allownace to move out of the way does not apply. Because you are not moving

Not sure how many times I can explain such a simple concept - you arent moving at this point, so a rule pertaining to movement doesnt apply. It doesnt get a lot simpler than that, really, but keep on trying.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - seems like you arent catching on.

You have not finished moving, until after you arrive and complete DS [may not move any further]

You don't have to finish moving, because the rules for mishap say if you "Would" end up over units, which you wouldn't. Mishap doesn't happen until you know if you would end up there, which means you'd resolve any rules that would cause or prevent you from landing there prior to determining mishap. Since the rules for skimmers would mean you wouldn't land in said location, you'd need to see where you would land before you can determine if you mishap.

Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

That's because you're not acknowledging future-tense wording, and other rules that have been quoted in the original thread, and this one, pertaining to deployment and movement in regards to deep strike.

Look nos, it's obvious that my arguments aren't going to persuade you, and your arguments aren't going to persuade me, so let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives. I don't have time to try to persuade people who don't want to be persuaded. No hard feelings. Have a great night.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

That's because you're not acknowledging future-tense wording, and other rules that have been quoted in the original thread, and this one, pertaining to deployment and movement in regards to deep strike.

Look nos, it's obvious that my arguments aren't going to persuade you,

Because your arguments have no basis in the actual rules of the game.

and your arguments aren't going to persuade me

How you can not understand the rules, after we have laid them out clearly is really something.

so let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives. I don't have time to try to persuade people who don't want to be persuaded. No hard feelings. Have a great night.

It is not about persuasion, it is about what the rules actually say.

and the rules do not back your argument at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because your arguments have no basis in the actual rules of the game.

Only because you choose to ignore quotes and page numbers when I post them, which is why there is no point in continuing this debate with you.

You don't WANT to be persuaded, and you don't WANT to look up quotes and context that I post, and that's perfectly fine. But stating straight up lies, like "Your arguments have no basis in the rules", when every one of my arguments is started based on quotes and page numbers from the book(which I post in my opening threads), is highly inflammatory.

Your responses come off as if I personally harmed you in life or something. Did I dump your sister? Did I father your brother and not pay child support? Unless I've done something to earn such angst, let's stay mature, and not spread outright lies. And if I HAVE done something in life to earn your ire, PM me to work out whatever the problem might be. This isn't the place to take out your frustration about such things. This is a place for logical, mature debate and rules discussions.

Having said that, if you would like to continue discussion with me in a logical, mature manner(which doesn't include spreading lies, or flinging insults), then I would be happy to. If you're just going to ignore it when I post the page numbers and quotes, as several people have, then let's not bother, and just move on, if you're capable. If you're incapable, however, I'll be happy to be the bigger man, and walk away if you continue to post disrespectful and outright false replies.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

That's because you're not acknowledging future-tense wording, and other rules that have been quoted in the original thread, and this one, pertaining to deployment and movement in regards to deep strike.

As I've demonstrated, the "would" use here makes zero sense as future tense and only makes sense as a conditional.
Meaning your interpretation is incorrect.

Or can I move my skimmers as much as I want because eventually they will end up on top of an enemy unit?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because your arguments have no basis in the actual rules of the game.

Only because you choose to ignore quotes and page numbers when I post them, which is why there is no point in continuing this debate with you.

I have not ignored your page numbers, but they do not support your claims.

Scatter is not movement and the mishap happens before the move so the rule about skimmers being forced to end their move over another unit has no bearing on deep strike scatter. Somehow you do not grasp this.

You don't WANT to be persuaded, and you don't WANT to look up quotes and context that I post, and that's perfectly fine. But stating straight up lies, like "Your arguments have no basis in the rules", when every one of my arguments is started based on quotes and page numbers from the book(which I post in my opening threads), is highly inflammatory.

It is not about persuasion, it is about the rules. If you are trying to persuade you are trying to influence others and we should let the rules do that.

Your responses come off as if I personally harmed you in life or something. Did I dump your sister? Did I father your brother and not pay child support? Unless I've done something to earn such angst, let's stay mature, and not spread outright lies. And if I HAVE done something in life to earn your ire, PM me to work out whatever the problem might be. This isn't the place to take out your frustration about such things. This is a place for logical, mature debate and rules discussions.

Okay what?

Where are you getting all of this? I am not sure what you mean.

Having said that, if you would like to continue discussion with me in a logical, mature manner(which doesn't include spreading lies, or flinging insults), then I would be happy to. If you're just going to ignore it when I post the page numbers and quotes, as several people have, then let's not bother, and just move on, if you're capable. If you're incapable, however, I'll be happy to be the bigger man, and walk away if you continue to post disrespectful and outright false replies.

I have not lied or insulted you (At least I can not find any insulting posts towards you in my posts).

If you can not see how scattering is not movement and does not interact with the skimmer rules about being forced to end their move over other models, then Just say that you can not see how it does not interact, and then re-read the rules about how scattering in not movement.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

So on before the first turn I move my skimmer 6" forward because at some undetermined point in the future he will be forced to stop over models.
.

Oh, Oh! On a frequently used gaming table these is bound to be a model anywhere at some future point so there's no legal place to stop and place it, it just keeps moving!



Seriously though. I see where is says "deep striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a deep striking Transport vehicle". This statement could be taken to imply the unit has already moved but contextually that would be incorrect as no movement was previously indicated and it would not later need to be stated the unit counts as having moved if that were the case. Rather this only states the unit cannot move other that to disembark and keeps in mind the fluff that got them there which has no bearing on the rules.Per fluff they drop in from the sky, tunnel up, teleport, etc. Per RAW, they just appear there.

I see where is says units arriving by Deep Strike, in the subsequent shooting phase, count as having moved during the previous movement phase.
"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"
But that rule does not apply til the shooting phase.

I don't see where is says DS counts as movement. It does not gain 'counts as movement' by association with a unit that will retroactively count as having moved in this movement phase but in the future shooting phase. Even if you did somehow try to apply that future past to the present it still only says the unit counts as having moved, which does not indicate the DS counts as movement but rather is limited to an effect on the unit that causes them to count as such.

I would say no, because the Marines are Disembarking FROM the thing that was in reserve-similar debate to stuff disembarking from a deep striking landraider.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

That's because you're not acknowledging future-tense wording, and other rules that have been quoted in the original thread, and this one, pertaining to deployment and movement in regards to deep strike.

Look nos, it's obvious that my arguments aren't going to persuade you, and your arguments aren't going to persuade me, so let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives. I don't have time to try to persuade people who don't want to be persuaded. No hard feelings. Have a great night.

Bzzzt, still wrong. It is not that I am not "acknowledging future tense wording", it is your inabilty to grasp that your "interpretatioN" is nonsense - rigeld2 already pointed that out, and you chose to ignore it

It is a conditional. By the time the conditional can kick in you have already mishapped

Why you are unsable to see the difference between a rule which is ONLY to do with movement and a rule which is NOT movement, and how one really cannot apply to the other, is something I cant quite understand.

Your rules quotes, arguments etc have all been shot down, yet you continue to parrot them as if nothing has changed. Indeed you cant be persuaded, in this or other threads, it seems

 Timmy149 wrote:
I would say no, because the Marines are Disembarking FROM the thing that was in reserve-similar debate to stuff disembarking from a deep striking landraider.

There's no debate, stuff disembarking from a Deep Striking LandRaider do count as arriving from reserve.
They can't Assault, they can be targeted by Interceptor.

rigeld2 wrote:

As I've demonstrated, the "would" use here makes zero sense as future tense and only makes sense as a conditional.
Meaning your interpretation is incorrect.

Or can I move my skimmers as much as I want because eventually they will end up on top of an enemy unit?

The skimmers rule doesn't say "would". The mishap rule does, so your snarky comment about skimmers holds no substance.

As for mishaps, they only happen if you "would" land on a model. Skimmers wouldn't, therefore no mishap occurs over allies.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

As I've demonstrated, the "would" use here makes zero sense as future tense and only makes sense as a conditional.
Meaning your interpretation is incorrect.

Or can I move my skimmers as much as I want because eventually they will end up on top of an enemy unit?

The skimmers rule doesn't say "would". The mishap rule does, so your snarky comment about skimmers holds no substance.

It absolutely does. It's a conditional, not a future tense. According to you, if at some point in the future a skimmer will end up over models in a deep strike, I can move it out of the way.

As for mishaps, they only happen if you "would" land on a model. Skimmers wouldn't, therefore no mishap occurs over allies.

So it's a conditional - a mishap doesn't happen if you do not land on a model. It's not future tense. Your argument makes no sense and therefore cannot be correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The skimmers rule doesn't say "would". The mishap rule does, so your snarky comment about skimmers holds no substance.

It absolutely does.

It doesn't say that. BRB page 83.

rigeld2 wrote:

As for mishaps, they only happen if you "would" land on a model. Skimmers wouldn't, therefore no mishap occurs over allies.

So it's a conditional - a mishap doesn't happen if you do not land on a model. It's not future tense. Your argument makes no sense and therefore cannot be correct.

Right, so it's a conditional. A skimmer wouldn't fulfill that condition, since it would not land on the model.

Except it can only not land there when you are dealing with movement

We arent dealing with movement

Again: you are applying a rule pertaining to MOVEMENT to a rule that does not pertain to MOVEMENT. The illogic there is stunning

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The skimmers rule doesn't say "would". The mishap rule does, so your snarky comment about skimmers holds no substance.

It absolutely does.

It doesn't say that. BRB page 83.

Way to selectively quote! Reported.

rigeld2 wrote:

As for mishaps, they only happen if you "would" land on a model. Skimmers wouldn't, therefore no mishap occurs over allies.

So it's a conditional - a mishap doesn't happen if you do not land on a model. It's not future tense. Your argument makes no sense and therefore cannot be correct.

Right, so it's a conditional. A skimmer wouldn't fulfill that condition, since it would not land on the model.

Yes, it would. There is no rule allowing a skimmer to change its Deep Strike scatter distance. None.
There's a rule pertaining to movement. That's it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Right, so it's a conditional. A skimmer wouldn't fulfill that condition, since it would not land on the model.

Yes, it would. There is no rule allowing a skimmer to change its Deep Strike scatter distance. None.
There's a rule pertaining to movement. That's it.

Deep strike counts as movement. The scatter is only a mechanic of deep strike, directing where deep strike lands/moves.


EDIT: And report me as much as you like. I'm not going to NOT cut quotes down to what I'm responding to. Otherwise, a single reply to say simply "No." would be 8 pages long.

Except by cutting the quote you changed the meaning of it, mneaning it was no longer a quote. You do understand what a "quotation" implies, yes?

The scatter is not movement, and by the time you get to the thing that counts as Movement (finishing DS) you have mishapped. Guess you dont get to use your rule pertaining to movement when youre not moving after all...

However given your more than usual ignorance I guess you have me on ignore - meaning this is mostly just to help others into not thinking you are correct

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Right, so it's a conditional. A skimmer wouldn't fulfill that condition, since it would not land on the model.

Yes, it would. There is no rule allowing a skimmer to change its Deep Strike scatter distance. None.
There's a rule pertaining to movement. That's it.

Deep strike counts as movement. The scatter is only a mechanic of deep strike, directing where deep strike lands/moves.

Right. So when the Deep Strike finishes resolving you can apply movement rules to it. If you end up over models when you finish the Deep Strike the skimmer can float to safety.
By the time the Deep Strike has finished resolving you've already mishapped. So you will never have ended a Deep Strike over models. Or impassable terrain.

EDIT: And report me as much as you like. I'm going to reply simply "No.".

You changed the meaning of what I said, just as I did with your quote here. That's not just not the right way to have a discussion, it's downright rude.

I think an important part being overlooked is that the model is not even on the table until DeepStrike is fully resolved.
You're using a 'marker' (represented by the appropriate model), but the model itself, and any movement rules it may have, cannot be used. These rules belong to the model, not the marker used for determining DeepStrike.
Look closely at the early part of DeepStrike. You're using a marker, not the actual unit.

 grendel083 wrote:
I think an important part being overlooked is that the model is not even on the table until DeepStrike is fully resolved.
You're using a 'marker' (represented by the appropriate model), but the model itself, and any movement rules it may have, cannot be used. These rules belong to the model, not the marker used for determining DeepStrike.
Look closely at the early part of DeepStrike. You're using a marker, not the actual unit.

BRB page 36 wrote:First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

You're remembering 5th edition.

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I think an important part being overlooked is that the model is not even on the table until DeepStrike is fully resolved.
You're using a 'marker' (represented by the appropriate model), but the model itself, and any movement rules it may have, cannot be used. These rules belong to the model, not the marker used for determining DeepStrike.
Look closely at the early part of DeepStrike. You're using a marker, not the actual unit.

BRB page 36 wrote:First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

You're remembering 5th edition.

Ah you're quite right, ignore me!
Shows how much DeepStriking I've done lately.