when you scatter on top of an enemy unit or impassible terrain ect. you must move the minimal amount of inches to not be in contact with whatever it is your not supposed to but if you do this and you scatter into an enemy unit you will be within 1 inch of a model so you would have to take mishap tests because you have to be far enough away to not be in contact but has nothing to do with any measurement.
It's really hard to work out what the question is here. Sentences and grammar help to make things readable.
Are you asking if being within 1" of a model counts as an obstacle?
Yeah, i think pods mishap if you hit an enemy unit. Its says to move the pod so its no longer on top of the enemy, but it doesnt say to move out of an inch.
We had that question not so long ago as I recall. Surely "avoiding the obstacle" must mean you're placed far enough away that you won't mishap? Else there's really no reason to even mention hostile units in the drop pod's special rule, is there?`
Yes, reducing the scatter enough to avoid the obstacle means you would move more than an inch away from enemy models. Otherwise you haven't avoided the obstacle.
forchoas wrote: no it doesnt if you avoid the obstacle you move the minimal amount to not be touching it which means you will be within an inch of the enemy model
...which would mean that you mishap... which would mean that you didn't avoid the obstacle.
forchoas wrote: avoiding the obstacle doesnt mean land outside an inch it means dont hit it
That is not true.
The obstacle is the thing preventing the Drop Pod from landing.
An enemy unit prevents you from landing within 1 inch of it, therefore the obstacle, when talking about an enemy unit, is the unit itself and the 1 inch no fly zone.
OP this has already been discussed and you’re very much in the minority.
No matter how you read the text it is obviously not the intent. Forcing a mishap in these situations makes the rules for landing on top of enemy models totally obsolete. Why would they let you move away if you’re just going to mishap anyway? I suggest you never play it like that, or you will find yourself without opponents very quickly.
Nem wrote: OP this has already been discussed and you’re very much in the minority.
I don't believe there has ever been a poll to prove that statement, being the OP of a thread that recently when round and round on a very similar issue to this. I actually agree with the OP here. Just because people on one side of an argument are more vocal in a thread, posting 15+ times, doesn't mean that they are in the majority. Some people who would vote on a poll, aren't invested enough in the issue to get involved in an 8 page argument.
Then maybe you can answer the question the op hasn't: If obstacles cause you to mishap, and you mishap because of an obstacle, have you avoided that obstacle?
This doesn't need an 8 page argument. It's a really, really simple concept.
Deepstriking is a form of movement, following both the drop pods rules and the rules for movement you would need to place the drop pod out side of an inch. Simple.
Betray and OP's reading of the rule would make the part of the rule saying you move it if you end up on a unit redundant. You would always end up within an inch and mishap... Stop trying so hard to be TFG, Betray. You're a nice person deep inside. I am assured of this.
I was in your corner when you were the poster, Betray, but I can't back forchoas. I think that his interpretation is incorrect, and I also think he's in the minority.
Of course, in the interests of full disclosure I should mention that my opinion is probably as biased as it comes, since I play Drop Pods. That being said, if someone seriously tried to tell me that a Pod that scattered over a unit reduced it's distance to within an inch and still mishapped, I would be very, very annoyed. While I think that the OP is making an honest mistake, I think that this interpretation is a silly reading of the rules at best, and at worst a cheap attempt at flim-flammery.
Spetulhu wrote: Surely "avoiding the obstacle" must mean you're placed far enough away that you won't mishap?
Naturally not. Since an obstacle is the model (friendly or enemy!) or impassable terrain that drop pod would land on (as per Inertial Guidance rule), avoiding the obstacle would mean reducing scatter so that its final position won't be on the top of the obstacle as listed before).
Deepstriking is a form of movement, following both the drop pods rules and the rules for movement you would need to place the drop pod out side of an inch. Simple.
You are absolutely correct! You need to follow the rules of movement. You cannot place models within 1'' of enemy models. Yet you must, as deep strike rules tell you to. A problem, yes? oh, how can it be resolved? How about not deploying the model and rolling on mishap table, seeing as that's exactly what the rulebook tells us to do?
Betray and OP's reading of the rule would make the part of the rule saying you move it if you end up on a unit redundant. You would always end up within an inch and mishap...
Yes to both points. It is redundant, and droppod will always mishap.
And to add to the OP: if droppod scatters not on the top of enemy model, but within 1'' of it, there is no basis whatsoever to claim it does not mishap.
Jimsolo wrote: I was in your corner when you were the poster, Betray, but I can't back forchoas. I think that his interpretation is incorrect, and I also think he's in the minority.
Of course, in the interests of full disclosure I should mention that my opinion is probably as biased as it comes, since I play Drop Pods. That being said, if someone seriously tried to tell me that a Pod that scattered over a unit reduced it's distance to within an inch and still mishapped, I would be very, very annoyed. While I think that the OP is making an honest mistake, I think that this interpretation is a silly reading of the rules at best, and at worst a cheap attempt at flim-flammery.
Yeah, this is a slightly different issue than when I posted. Still, however, the definition of obstacle is either the models blocking placement, which the sentence infers, or is broader. If it's broader than the definition used in the context of the sentence, then that begs the question of just how broad you can define the word obstacle. It becomes silly quickly.
Either way, I'm not too passionate about this, one way or the other. My main shtik was that skimmers actually responded similarly to deep striking based on the new rules.
Rules-wise there's no difference between landing on a model, and landing within 1" of a model.
Both are a mishap, both will mean the pod won't be landing there.
So in terms of rules, why is one an obstacle and the other not?
And bear in mind, the Guidance System rules don't say move to avoid the model, but the obstacle.
So in terms of rules, why is one an obstacle and the other not?
Because one is listed in inertial guidance rules, and the other is not. As there is no properly defined 'obstacle' in rules, the most obvious meaning in context would be "things mentioned in inertial guidance rules".
So in terms of rules, why is one an obstacle and the other not?
Because one is listed in inertial guidance rules, and the other is not.
As there is no properly defined 'obstacle' in rules, the most obvious meaning in context would be "things mentioned in inertial guidance rules".
Something stopping it landing would be a far more obvious definition.
So in terms of rules, why is one an obstacle and the other not?
Because one is listed in inertial guidance rules, and the other is not.
As there is no properly defined 'obstacle' in rules, the most obvious meaning in context would be "things mentioned in inertial guidance rules".
Something stopping it landing would be a far more obvious definition
All kinds of things stop droppods from landing. Partially or fully being outside of table, area effects like warp quake or gsentient singularity. Logically, the list presented in the rule must be full.
Surely using context would be a far better method?
Of course.
Context is determining scatter distance, which explicitely can result in situation where model cannot be deployed in the attained final position.
Something stopping it landing would be a far more obvious definition
All kinds of things stop droppods from landing. Partially or fully being outside of table, area effects like warp quake or gsentient singularity. Logically, the list presented in the rule must be full.
Surely using context would be a far better method?
Of course.
Context is determining scatter distance, which explicitely can result in situation where model cannot be deployed in the attained final position.
Warpquake explicitly doesn't stop it from landing. It makes it mishap once it has landed.
thank you for clarification
However I must assert that default situation in which Deep Strike mishap occurs is on where model cannot be deployed, as per Deep Strike Mishap rule.
insaniak wrote: Yes, reducing the scatter enough to avoid the obstacle means you would move more than an inch away from enemy models. Otherwise you haven't avoided the obstacle.
As was posted in the other thread they have identified the two obstacles you avoid, landing on a model and landing in impassable terrain. Those are the only obstacles mentioned in the rule. Is it their intent that you not mishap by landing next to enemy models, probably. Is that the rule they wrote, no. If they had separated enemy and friendly models into their own sections not simply clarified it in parenthesis then you would have more of a leg to stand on. As it is they have indicated what obstacles they are talking about as landing on models or in terrain. Is landing next to an enemy model listed in what triggers the IG rule, no. Since they did not list them, enemy or friendly models, separately then we have to treat them the same. Otherwise anything that would cause a mishap is an obstacle and it can never do so. The FAQ makes it clear that they do not want to eliminate the risk simply narrow it's effects. The rule still works perfectly fine versus friendly models and impassable terrain making it easier to DP multiple pods into a smaller area.
As you would not mishap when landing on friendly models as you would move the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle (landing on a model). Why did they leave landing within 1" of an enemy model out? Poor writing is my guess as the fourth edition DP specifically mentions landing within 1" of an enemy model. Option two would be it was intentional as they felt drop pods were too powerful giving free rain to drop large numbers of models into your opponents back field. By leaving out the 1" of enemy models you would be taking a chance to actually mishap or move the DP further away allowing enemies more of a chance to respond to the new threat. I read it as option two considering the push with the changes to reserves and charging.
If you have two possible interpretations of a rule, one of which makes the rule function (reduce the scatter onto impassible or models by enough that it doesn't mishap) and one of which doesn't (reduce the scatter but still mishap anyway), then the problem is probably in your interpretation, not in the rule.
Or as I said poor writing. There is no interpretation here. It tells you what causes it to function which must be what is referenced later in the rule. The rule does function. You do not mishap over models or impassable terrain. There is another variable which use to be referenced, being within 1" of an enemy model.
Wouldn't have been easier to write landing on impassable terrain, friendly models, or within 1" of an enemy model if they wanted the 1" to be taken into consideration?
Gravmyr wrote: The rule does function. You do not mishap over models or impassable terrain.
Except if you land over a model, and reduce the scatter by just enough to miss the model and this does not include the 1", then you do mishap over enemy models.
Wouldn't have been easier to write landing on impassable terrain, friendly models, or within 1" of an enemy model if they wanted the 1" to be taken into consideration?
It might have been a little clearer, but not really necessary. If you are forbidden from moving within 1" of an enemy model, than a rule which tells you to move away from an enemy model automatically includes that 1" buffer zone.
It tells you to reduce the scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle. If you interpret obstacle NOT to include the 1" buffer, you are using an interpretation which causes the rule to fail.
Does the rule work over friendly models and impassable terrain? Yes.
Is it as effective as it could be? No.
Have they FAQed it to make it clear they did not want the DP to ever mishap? No.
What other word could they have used beyond obstacle to cover both models and impassable terrain which block your path?
You have to play the rule house rules to move them away 1". RAW the 1" is never even hinted at.
Occum's Razor tells us it does not include the 1".
Once again: If obstacles cause you to mishap, and you miishap as a result of an obstacle, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle?
It might have been a little clearer, but not really necessary. If you are forbidden from moving within 1" of an enemy model, than a rule which tells you to move away from an enemy model automatically includes that 1" buffer zone.
ohreally? So skimmers would not mishap over enemy units either?
Also, Insaniak, your other question you keep asking people to answer is a loaded question. I wouldn't answer it either, as I don't agree with your interpretation of the word obstacle. In the sentence in which obstacle is used, it refers ONLY to models and impassable terrain. Nothing else. The way you're wording the question, in order to answer it, you'd have to cede that your definition of obstacle is correct. I don't believe it is.
An enemy model, and the zone 1" around it, is an obstacle for deep striking. It causes mishaps. The Inertial Guidance rule tells us that if the scatter would take you over models or impassible terrain, to reduce the scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle. I think the meaning of "obstacle" here is clear.
Gravmyr wrote: Is landing on an enemy model the same as landing within 1" of an enemy model?
So far as the rules are concerned, since you are forbidden from moving within an inch of an enemy model, yes, they are exactly the same.
So, I answered your question, now kindly answer mine:
If obstacles cause you to mishap, and you miishap as a result of an obstacle, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle?
You have to define "the obstacle" in that sentence. If you use the wording of the rule, Your question reads:
If landing on a model causes you to mishap, and you mishap as a result of landing within 1" of an enemy model, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid landing on an enemy model?
Yes.
If landing on an enemy model and landing within 1" are exactly the same why does the Deep Strike rule differentiate between them?
grendel083 wrote:Is the1" caused by the model and is it preventing the pod landing?
The 1" is created by movement rules and Deep Strike rules is does not exists as part of the model. The model itself is not causing the mishap nor is the model preventing the pod from landing.
Inertial Guidance tells us that if it scatters into impassible terrain or a model (Friend or Foe!) then to reduce the scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle. In the case of impassible terrain or friendly models, that means right next to them. In the case of enemy models, that means 1" away. The minimum distance needed to avoid the thing that's preventing a legal landing.
BetrayTheWorld wrote: In the sentence in which obstacle is used, it refers ONLY to models and impassable terrain. Nothing else.
They don't need to specify every time models are referenced that you can't move within 1" of enemy models. That would be pointlessly redundant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gravmyr wrote: You have to define "the obstacle" in that sentence. If you use the wording of the rule, Your question reads:
If landing on a model causes you to mishap, and you mishap as a result of landing within 1" of an enemy model, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid landing on an enemy model?
And the answer is 'no' since in a system that forbids you from moving within 1" of an enemy model landing within 1" is the same as landing on the model.
Inertial Guidance tells us if it scatters on top of not into. That is my point. The rule itself defines obstacle as landing on top of a model or impassable terrain. There is no indication in the wording of the rule to take the 1" bubble into consideration at all. The old wording of DP Assault did clearly indicate it. It has always been a rule that is nothing new so why suddenly change the wording to exclude it? If they are always taking 1" into consideration why put both into the Deep Striking rule?
'Avoiding an obstacle' indicates you are to avoid any challenges/risks it may place in the path of your goal. In this case you are attempting to DS and anything that would interfere with that is in fact an obstacle. Enemy models create a 1" bubble in which you cannot DS. Unarguably that bubble is a part of the obstacle they present.
I really don't see how you separate the ' 1" away' part form the 'model' part. The enemy model is one obstacle that poses risks based on two rules, landing on top of it and landing within one inch of it. You are told to avoid this obstacle so you remove yourself from the dangers associated with it. If you do not, you have broken the rule.
Unless otherwise specified general definitions for terms should be used. If you get told to go to the other side of a clearing but to avoid an obstacle, lets say... a machine gun nest. Are you being told not to make physical contact with the it? No, you're being told to avoid taking fire from it because that is the main obstacle it presents.
I really don't see how you separate the ' 1" away' part form the 'model' part. The enemy model is one obstacle that poses risks based on two rules, landing on top of it and landing within one inch of it. You are told to avoid this obstacle so you remove yourself from the dangers associated with it. If you do not, you have broken the rule.
The rule itself is telling you that you do not count the 1" bubble by telling you landing on top of instead of within 1" which would cover both the bubble and the model. It does not on the other hand say "if you would mishap due to models or impassable terrain" which would hold up an interpretation of the mishap being the obstacle or the bubble being part of the enemy model.
Abandon wrote: 'Avoiding an obstacle' indicates you are to avoid any challenges/risks it may place in the path of your goal. In this case you are attempting to DS and anything that would interfere with that is in fact an obstacle. Enemy models create a 1" bubble in which you cannot DS. Unarguably that bubble is a part of the obstacle they present.
I really don't see how you separate the ' 1" away' part form the 'model' part. The enemy model is one obstacle that poses risks based on two rules, landing on top of it and landing within one inch of it. You are told to avoid this obstacle so you remove yourself from the dangers associated with it. If you do not, you have broken the rule.
Unless otherwise specified general definitions for terms should be used. If you get told to go to the other side of a clearing but to avoid an obstacle, lets say... a machine gun nest. Are you being told not to make physical contact with the it? No, you're being told to avoid taking fire from it because that is the main obstacle it presents.
That definition would mean that DPs never mishap. If that were the case, or their intention, it would have been much easier for them to simply say, "Drop pods never mishap. Simply move the model the minimum required distance to avoid the mishap."
It would have been a shorter rule, and much clearer. This is not the rule they went with. In the context rule I made up, obstacle would mean what you're saying. In the context of the actual rule, it specifically refers to models which block your ability to place your models on the table, not "mishap".
Back to the Rules that GW writes that are pointless/redundant. If a Drop Pod can ignore the mishap, so can skimmers. Skimmers have a rule that can only come into place when used with Deepstrike, and maybe 2 other situations. As has been pointed out, many times, a skimmer still mishaps. As the skimmer whose rule only effects a very limited number of rules mishaps, so does a Drop Pod whose rule also only works in the same number of very limited situations.
A Skimmer, if forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models is moved the minimum distance so that they are no longer under it. This only would have Deepstrike, and a Grapple gun thing from the orks for it to function. Tank Shock does not have this effect, as tank shock specifies that the enemy models are moved out from under it. Further, as stated many times, it doesn't help for Mishap, meaning the rule has 1 function, ever.
The Defined obstacle is a model, and impassible terrain, it does not extend beyond the stated, any more than a skimmer can move off of other models during a deepstirke.
How you separate the 1" from the model is defined by Deep Strike rules.
"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 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong." Since only one of those conditions is specified by IG it is the only one that should be taken into account. If the Deep Strike rules simply said within 1" then yes it could always be considered part of the model for the Deep Strike rule.
Abandon wrote: 'Avoiding an obstacle' indicates you are to avoid any challenges/risks it may place in the path of your goal. In this case you are attempting to DS and anything that would interfere with that is in fact an obstacle. Enemy models create a 1" bubble in which you cannot DS. Unarguably that bubble is a part of the obstacle they present.
I really don't see how you separate the ' 1" away' part form the 'model' part. The enemy model is one obstacle that poses risks based on two rules, landing on top of it and landing within one inch of it. You are told to avoid this obstacle so you remove yourself from the dangers associated with it. If you do not, you have broken the rule.
Unless otherwise specified general definitions for terms should be used. If you get told to go to the other side of a clearing but to avoid an obstacle, lets say... a machine gun nest. Are you being told not to make physical contact with the it? No, you're being told to avoid taking fire from it because that is the main obstacle it presents.
That definition would mean that DPs never mishap. If that were the case, or their intention, it would have been much easier for them to simply say, "Drop pods never mishap. Simply move the model the minimum required distance to avoid the mishap."
It would have been a shorter rule, and much clearer. This is not the rule they went with. In the context rule I made up, obstacle would mean what you're saying. In the context of the actual rule, it specifically refers to models which block your ability to place your models on the table, not "mishap".
It doesn't say they never mishap, because they're still able to (and intended to be able to) mishap off the table. They're protected from mishap due to impassible or other models. Which in the case of enemy models, includes the 1" bubble.
If we don't include the 1" bubble around the enemy models as part of the "obstacle", then there is simply no point to the IGS rules. That entire rule may as well not have been written.
Also, it's not like this was a change from 5th. The DS rules are identical.
Let's, for a moment, assume that your interpretation is correct. Can you think of any other reason for IGS to even mention enemy units/models?
**edit**. Just reread your post from 4/7:
So, to fully state your opinion: you believe the entire purpose of IGS is to prevent a mishap over friendly models but allow a mishap over enemy ones?
It doesn't say they never mishap, because they're still able to (and intended to be able to) mishap off the table. They're protected from mishap due to impassible or other models. Which in the case of enemy models, includes the 1" bubble.
But it doesn't say that it includes the 1" bubble, which as shown by Gravmyr, is defined seperately elsewhere in the rules. The argument being made is that if you're including things it doesn't say in the definition of obstacle, then you are flirting with the idea that "obstacle" is some all-encompassing, magical word that would effect other things it doesn't say as well.
If we don't include the 1" bubble around the enemy models as part of the "obstacle", then there is simply no point to the IGS rules. That entire rule may as well not have been written.
Also, it's not like this was a change from 5th. The DS rules are identical.
Let's, for a moment, assume that your interpretation is correct. Can you think of any other reason for IGS to even mention enemy units/models?
**edit**. Just reread your post from 4/7:
So, to fully state your opinion: you believe the entire purpose of IGS is to prevent a mishap over friendly models but allow a mishap over enemy ones?
In older editions DP Assault only worked on enemy models. Could they have been clarifying for players from previous editions that it now included all models? It was at this time they also removed the 1" bubble from what you avoided. Could we still be playing it incorrectly from then? IS it just convention that holds us using this rule instead of using it as written?
It's not the purpose but it is the result as they have written it. If the bubble is part of the enemy model as been has put forth and is not worth mentioning why would they define models as both enemy or friendly? Isn't it also implied that all models are one or the other per the rules? Yet they took the time to define that.... Is it a possibility that they could have been looking to create a long term edition that they could tweak without entirely changing the edition? Is it a possibility they could have been scaling back the power of the Drop Pod so you actually have to think about Drop Pod placement?
Edit: For those of you that don't know IG replaced the section about scatter that use to be part of Drop Pod Assault.
The mishap reasons, broken out as bullet points (based on the elements in the sentence) are: - land partially or fully off the table, - in impassable terrain, - on top of a friendly model, - or on top of [enemy model] - or within 1" of an enemy model.
However, looking at IGS we are told to reduce scatter if we land "on top of": - impassable terrain - another model friendly - [another model] foe
(note: I injected the bracketed parts as part of normal english language sentence parsing)
Now, IGS does a weird thing by ignoring the 1" part of the mishap rules. Going further, the word obstacles is only mentioned in reference to those three items; which means we can scratch items 1, 3 and 4 from the mishap list but that leaves #5. So, taken literally, I believe we have a RAW situation in which the "foe" part of the rule has no bearing on the result. Namely, the DP will mishap when it lands next to enemy models anyway (whether by scattering to just next to or purposely targetting that spot) so why include a provision for "on top of"?
So, if I was to judge intent I'd say that the purpose of including the word "foe" was to allow the DP scatter distance to be reduced to avoid that bubble from the #5 restriction in the mishap list. I'm making this judgement based purely on the fact that including "foe" has zero impact on the fact that a mishap will occur, unless it means to handle that situation as well.
I would like nos/dr/or others to explain how landing on "another model (friendly or foe)" overrides the "within 1" of an enemy model" part without using the movement rules as they've claimed those don't apply..
This is the type of inane arguments I talked about in another thread. This is really an argument?
Let's write a rule that does nothing. Because that's a good use of ink and our time. Are people arguing this just to prove how poorly written stuff is (hint: none of us are surprised by this anymore) or are they really trying to stop drop pods from reducing scatter and causing a mishap? I want to see anyone propose this happens in a legit game or tournament setting and see you either get the most dumbfounded stares, laughed at, and/or asked to leave.
This shouldn't even be a discussion. Drop pods are intended not to mishap. Done.
Let's write a rule that does nothing. Because that's a good use of ink and our time. Are people arguing this just to prove how poorly written stuff is (hint: none of us are surprised by this anymore) or are they really trying to stop drop pods from reducing scatter and causing a mishap? I want to see anyone propose this happens in a legit game or tournament setting and see you either get the most dumbfounded stares, laughed at, and/or asked to leave.
This shouldn't even be a discussion. Drop pods are intended not to mishap. Done.
What are you doing here? This forum is for discussing rules as written. Go somewhere else with your "people will laugh", "everyone plays it like that" and "Drop pods are intended not to mishap" and "but this is pointless!".
To the topic. What about this tangential situation: Drop Pod scattering within 1'' but not on top of enemy model. In this case Inertial Guidance does not comes into effect, and mishap must occur.
PS. I do wonder, can Phased Reinforcements or a squad of Deathmarks drop down before squad(s) in Drop Pod disembark, thus destroying them by denying opportunity to leave the drop pod?..
Survivor19 wrote: To the topic. What about this tangential situation: Drop Pod scattering within 1'' but not on top of enemy model. In this case Inertial Guidance does not comes into effect, and mishap must occur.
Yes a mishap will occur in that specific situation as the Inertial guidance wording says "Should a drop pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model..." P.32 BA Codex
In your situation the pod is not "scatter[ing] on top of impassable terrain or another model."
How does anyone know what the intent of the wording change is? In 4th you didn't mishap you simply lost the models you could not place making DS much less risky. In 5th they started to mishap. The IG rule we know didn't appear till then and they have not FAQed it to my knowledge. People simply assumed it included the bubble.
4th wording: " If this movement would take it into impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them."
5th Wording: "Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle."
In 4th they didn't even talk about friendly models in either DS or the DP rules which they changed in 5th, which would explain the addition of friend or foe. The 1" rule has existed since before 4th yet they included it in the original rule why remove it? Why change the wordage at all in terms of enemy models? I pointed out several ways the rule could have been written to all DP to act as people have been playing it. The simplest would have been to end it with "to avoid a mishap." As I pointed out I'm not sure it's ever been questioned as questioning GW's golden children of space marines is verboten. I'm simply pointing out that you have to argue intent to not have a mishap at all due to enemy models and that is not covered by the rule. I think both sides have stated their positions and it's clear it's a RAW vs RAI discussion at this point and therefor pointless.
4th wording: " If this movement would take it into impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them."
5th Wording: "Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle."
In 4th they didn't even talk about friendly models in either DS or the DP rules which they changed in 5th, which would explain the addition of friend or foe. The 1" rule has existed since before 4th yet they included it in the original rule why remove it? Why change the wordage at all in terms of enemy models? I pointed out several ways the rule could have been written to all DP to act as people have been playing it. The simplest would have been to end it with "to avoid a mishap." As I pointed out I'm not sure it's ever been questioned as questioning GW's golden children of space marines is verboten. I'm simply pointing out that you have to argue intent to not have a mishap at all due to enemy models and that is not covered by the rule. I think both sides have stated their positions and it's clear it's a RAW vs RAI discussion at this point and therefor pointless.
Why remove it?
Because "reduc[ing] the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle." Covers the 1 inch as not landing is an obstacle.
you do not have to argue intent, you have to argue context to not have a mishap at all due to enemy models and that is actually covered by the rule if you can parse the sentence correctly.
Let's write a rule that does nothing. Because that's a good use of ink and our time. Are people arguing this just to prove how poorly written stuff is (hint: none of us are surprised by this anymore) or are they really trying to stop drop pods from reducing scatter and causing a mishap? I want to see anyone propose this happens in a legit game or tournament setting and see you either get the most dumbfounded stares, laughed at, and/or asked to leave.
This shouldn't even be a discussion. Drop pods are intended not to mishap. Done.
What are you doing here? This forum it for discussing rules as written. Go somewhere else with your "people will laugh", "everyone plays it like that" and "Drop pods are intended not to mishap" and "but this is pointless!".
To the topic. What about this tangential situation: Drop Pod scattering within 1'' but not on top of enemy model. In this case Inertial Guidance does not comes into effect, and mishap must occur.
PS. I do wonder, can Phased Reinforcements or a squad of Deathmarks drop down before squad(s) in Drop Pod disembark, thus destroying them by denying opportunity to leave the drop pod?..
I'm here to discuss actual discrepancies. This is not one of them and one of the dumbest arguments I have seen on YMDC. The rules for drop pods have been around for years and not FAQd for this. Maybe because it's forehead slapping simple?
Oh, yea, because it is. They don't mishap unless you fall off the table. How is that so hard to understand. The discussion about Drone controller plus counter defense systems, that's a real thoughtful discussion. This? Lol, get real.
TheKbob wrote: They don't mishap unless you fall off the table.
Don't you think, if this were the intention, it would have been simpler for them to write:
"When deep striking, drop pods don't mishap unless scattering off the table. In all other cases, simply reduce the scatter distance to avoid the mishap."
If this is what it said, no one here would be arguing this. This isn't what it says.
BetrayTheWorld wrote: Don't you think, if this were the intention, it would have been simpler for them to write:
"When deep striking, drop pods don't mishap unless scattering off the table. In all other cases, simply reduce the scatter distance to avoid the mishap."
Ignoring for a moment the fact that pods can also mishap if their original landing point is on something that they can't land on and they don't scatter, the fact that a rule could have been written in a way that is clearer doesn't make the current interpretation of it incorrect...
The rules book can never or will ever be perfect. However some common sense has to be applied in order to prevent chaos from ruining the day. It's post seems to to be not so much a question as it is the need to argue...
Move it far enough away to avoid the obstacle.
However personally drop pods should land where ever and take the damage they deserve. To include a group of dudes it crushes.. Lol
DeathReaper wrote:
Because "reduc[ing] the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle." Covers the 1 inch as not landing is an obstacle.
you do not have to argue intent, you have to argue context to not have a mishap at all due to enemy models and that is actually covered by the rule if you can parse the sentence correctly.
That is intent. You are making a conscious decision to include that one inch and only that one inch as an additional consideration. The beginning of the rule tells you two very specific obstacles, as I have posted multiple times. Using obstacle is overly complex when compared to mishap, obstacle can mean anything including just the model or terrain. Consider this: I have a troop choice wedged into a nook with a 6" psychic power bubble causing mishaps between my unit and a safe area for your Drop pod to land. You take the chance and scatter onto the unit bypassing the power field. You reduce your scatter but if a mishap is considered an obstacle you would continue to reduce it till you could land safely, correct? Is the psychic power one of the things listed in the power as obstacles?
It doesn't say that you do not have mishaps due to enemy models, that is where you are interpreting something that does not exist. It is clearly stated that you do not mishap due to landing on top of enemy models. This is entirely different from not mishaping from enemy models. If you are counting the 1" bubble you are not landing on top of the model now are you? You would have to also allow DP to reduce scatter for simply landing in that bubble as well, which is also clearly not in the text of the rule. There are literally dozens of ways to have written this rule and have the bubble count and they didn't use a single one. Please list a single word other then obstacle which could have been used to cover both of the triggers, models and terrain. Would it not have been simpler to use mishap if they wanted you to avoid all mishaps from models or terrain?
nosferatu1001 wrote:In 4th you actually just lost the WHOLE unit Gravmyr, you are misremembering the rule.
In 5th was the first time DS "mishap" wasnt immediately deadly..
That depended on who landed where if the first model landed there yes but if only some of the subsequent models could not be placed due to impassable terrain only they would have been lost.
"If you are unable to complete a circle of models without any of them coming within 1" of the enemy, entering impassable terrain or going off the table, the surplus models are destroyed."
If you use any mishap is an obstacle then the DP can never mishap. They have made it clear that it can.
Nope, any mishap caused by the obstacles mentioned. And an enemy model causes a mishap by being within 1", so that is the definition of obstacle for enemy models. The context is king
Context is king and context tells us landing on top of enemy models not just enemy models. They even went out of their way to add landing on top of enemy models in the DS rules instead of simply leaving within 1" as it previously was. Those two things give us context that the 1" bubble was intentionally left out.
Gravmyr wrote: Context is king and context tells us landing on top of enemy models not just enemy models. They even went out of their way to add landing on top of enemy models in the DS rules instead of simply leaving within 1" as it previously was. Those two things give us context that the 1" bubble was intentionally left out.
And the context is MISHAPS caused by enemy models. And enemy models cause mishaps within 1".
There is no context in this rule refering to all mishaps caused by models. They have specified in what context they are refering to, landing on top of models.
Gravmyr wrote: There is no context in this rule refering to all mishaps caused by models.
You might want to re-read the rule.
"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
It talks of scattering on top of models or impassible terrain.
Then it tells you to reduce the scatter by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle.
Obstacle is not defined in the BRB so we fall back on the common English definition of Obstacle, which of course is "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress"
In the context of an enemy model the 1 inch "no fly zone" around an enemy model is most definitely something that blocks one’s way and therefore included in the definition of obstacle.
Only if you ignore context does your argument hold water.
This may be redundant, but here goes to simplify this, I will edit later as I read but so far the arguments seem to be going in an infinite loop and I have to chime in...
step one; drop pod is rolled to come in for reserves.
step two; deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
step three; the drop pod scatters (in this instance a direct hit was not rolled) the distance and direction is measured and darn the pod would land on an obstacle (or two depending on terrain or units on the board.
step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location, as this is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRBPG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, friendly models this does not matter.
step five: deploy the drop pod (ignore the petals as per GW) on the table and dis-embark the models inside.
step six; don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.
Again They limited it's effectiveness via either intention or poor writing. They defined the obstacles in the start of the rule landing on terrain or models. I'm still waiting for another term that could have been used in place of obstacle. There isn't one. As such the language they are using may or may not include additional "obstacles" in the way.
You may want to look at that parsing again yourself. See how it says the obstacle, not any obstacle. That tells you that it is refering to the thing that triggered the rule landing on the impassable terrain or landing on the model.
Is landing within 1" of an enemy model what triggers the rule? No. How can that be the obstacle in that case?
Only if you ignore context of the sentence does your arguement hold water.
Yea... enemy units are an obstacle, so you reduce the distance so you avoid it.
Keep in mind you can't reduce past 0. So if you scatter left and have to reduce by moving to the right, you can only go as far right as your original starting point.
Which would be fine if the DS rules did not separate landing on an enemy model and landing within 1" of an enemy model. Then the IG uses only one of them in it's wordage.
chaplaincliff wrote: This may be redundant, but here goes to simplify this, I will edit later as I read but so far the arguments seem to be going in an infinite loop and I have to chime in...
step one; drop pod is rolled to come in for reserves.
step two; deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
step three; the drop pod scatters (in this instance a direct hit was not rolled) the distance and direction is measured and darn the pod would land on an obstacle (or two depending on terrain or units on the board.
step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location, as this is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRBPG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, friendly models this does not matter.
step five: deploy the drop pod (ignore the petals as per GW) on the table and dis-embark the models inside.
step six; don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.
so let it go, be cool, and have fun.
I completely agree with this method. Further, because we are using the movement rules you couldn't even target a landing spot that was normally illegal. Such as being within 1" of an enemy.
The only reason this goes round and round is that the movement rules aren't being included.
chaplaincliff wrote: This may be redundant, but here goes to simplify this, I will edit later as I read but so far the arguments seem to be going in an infinite loop and I have to chime in...
step one; drop pod is rolled to come in for reserves.
step two; deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
step three; the drop pod scatters (in this instance a direct hit was not rolled) the distance and direction is measured and darn the pod would land on an obstacle (or two depending on terrain or units on the board.
step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location, as this is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRBPG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, friendly models this does not matter.
step five: deploy the drop pod (ignore the petals as per GW) on the table and dis-embark the models inside.
step six; don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.
so let it go, be cool, and have fun.
So is this how Skimmers work? So the skimmer, by this set up, also avoids mishap.
Step one Deepstriking skimmer arrives from reserves.
Step two deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
Step three The skimmer scatters and is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models
Step four the Skimmer is moved the minimum distance to avoid having the models end up under it, as this is considered a move in the movement phase of the skimmer.
Step five Deploy the skimmer
Step six don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.
Sounds like a match to me. I will concede that Drop pods don't mishap from enemy models, when others concede that Skimmers don't mishap from enemy models.
Gravmyr wrote: Again They limited it's effectiveness via either intention or poor writing. They defined the obstacles in the start of the rule landing on terrain or models. I'm still waiting for another term that could have been used in place of obstacle. There isn't one. As such the language they are using may or may not include additional "obstacles" in the way.
You may want to look at that parsing again yourself. See how it says the obstacle, not any obstacle. That tells you that it is refering to the thing that triggered the rule landing on the impassable terrain or landing on the model.
Is landing within 1" of an enemy model what triggers the rule? No.
How can that be the obstacle in that case?
Only if you ignore context of the sentence does your arguement hold water.
this seems to be a normal thing recently, trying to read to much into the rules, there is a point when you need to have some common sense, i guess voltaire was right. but in this line of thinking you must also say that Black Templar cannot take drop pods at all, but I digress...
there comes a point when you need to read a bit into the lines and combine several rules and a bit of grey matter to come to a ruling, this is a pure WAAC argument if i ever heard one and I just cannot agree with you here gravmyr. If anyone tried this in the store I play at or against me I would either end the game there and/or never play them again.
chaplaincliff wrote: This may be redundant, but here goes to simplify this, I will edit later as I read but so far the arguments seem to be going in an infinite loop and I have to chime in...
step one; drop pod is rolled to come in for reserves.
step two; deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
step three; the drop pod scatters (in this instance a direct hit was not rolled) the distance and direction is measured and darn the pod would land on an obstacle (or two depending on terrain or units on the board.
step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location, as this is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRBPG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, friendly models this does not matter.
step five: deploy the drop pod (ignore the petals as per GW) on the table and dis-embark the models inside.
step six; don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.
so let it go, be cool, and have fun.
So is this how Skimmers work? So the skimmer, by this set up, also avoids mishap.
Step one Deepstriking skimmer arrives from reserves.
Step two deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
Step three The skimmer scatters and is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models
Step four the Skimmer is moved the minimum distance to avoid having the models end up under it, as this is considered a move in the movement phase of the skimmer.
Step five Deploy the skimmer
Step six don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.
Sounds like a match to me. I will concede that Drop pods don't mishap from enemy models, when others concede that Skimmers don't mishap from enemy models.
first off I am not in the know of the skimmer argument, if I could get a link for that thread so as not to sidetrack this one that would be great....
second you know what i was saying and let me clarify...
step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location in accordance with the inertial guidance system, as deepstriking ,or even coming in from reserves is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRBPG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, for friendly models this does not matter.
Gravmyr wrote: Which would be fine if the DS rules did not separate landing on an enemy model and landing within 1" of an enemy model. Then the IG uses only one of them in it's wordage.
It uses obstacle.
In the context of enemy unit, the obstacle is landing within 1 inch of said unit.
It uses the obstacle not all or any obstacle. As such as soon as you stop landing on top of either impassable terrain or the model then you have avoided the obstacle. You have moved onto a new obstacle yes or no?
DS separates landing within 1" and on top of an enemy model so does that make two ways or one to mishap? If it makes one then does landing within 1" of an enemy model without landing on top of an enemy model trigger IG?
Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation.
I was using your interpretation of obstacle. The 1" is not listed in the obstacles that the IG ignores. Also note that the 1" is also not a model or impassible terrain.
Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation.
I was using your interpretation of obstacle. The 1" is not listed in the obstacles that the IG ignores. Also note that the 1" is also not a model or impassible terrain.
It has been stated repeatedly that the drop pod ignores obstacles. When someone uses the obstacle definition that you set up, you say it isn't a model, or impassible terrain, and then proceed to call the 1" limit as part of a model, when in the deepstrike rule it is separated, and the drop pod does not specify that the same 1" bubble is part of the rule for the IG.
Previous quote from Death Reaper "Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so the Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation."
As such the not stated 1" proximity obstacle is not a covered obstacle, so the Inertial Guidance does not apply.
megatrons2nd wrote: It has been stated repeatedly that the drop pod ignores obstacles. When someone uses the obstacle definition that you set up, you say it isn't a model, or impassible terrain, and then proceed to call the 1" limit as part of a model, when in the deepstrike rule it is separated, and the drop pod does not specify that the same 1" bubble is part of the rule for the IG.
It does if you take the context of the rule into consideration.
Previous quote from Death Reaper "Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so the Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation."
As such the not stated 1" proximity obstacle is not a covered obstacle, so the Inertial Guidance does not apply.
landing within 1 inch of an enemy is most definitely an obstacle. Therefore the Inertial Guidance rule does in fact apply
Ok I see people saying that either the mishap or anything that causes a mishap is an obstacle. That's fine but I think you are leaving out parts of the rule in order to define the model as a whole as well as all effects attached to a model as the obstacle. Let's actually break the wording down.
"Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle."
What are the triggers for this rule? Scattering on top of impassable terrain or another model.
-Identifying a single cause of on top of terrain or on top of another model
What happens? You reduce scatter to avoid the obstacle.
-Notice the use of the obstacle not all or any obstacle which indicts that it only reduces scatter to avoid a single thing.
"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 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong."
-They separate landing on and being within 1" therefor there is two separate conditions involving enemy model which cause mishaps. 4th edition did not do this and included the 1" buffer and yet the DP Assault still covered being within 1" of an enemy model. The use of "the" obstacle instead of "any or all" limits how many things you can avoid to a single one and in this case it would be landing on top of impassable terrain or another model. Due to the separation of the buffer from landing on top of in the DS rule you can only avoid one of those things.
What we see if you look at both pieces together is the wording does not cover one of the causes of a mishap, landing within 1" of an enemy model.
Obstacle also cannot cover the mishap itself as it is not something that blocks your path but a result of something blocking your path. It would be like driving a car and being told you explode if you run into something in your path and then defining the explosion as something in your path.
Is this what they wanted to write? No idea and no one else can know either without a FAQ.
Is the rule still effective when you dropping multiple pods in a crowded back field? Yes.
Does it allow for better planning on your drops with multiple types of terrain? Yes.
Does it allow you to drop a drop pod any where in your opponents backfield without regard for anything? No, you now have to plan.
So is this how Skimmers work? So the skimmer, by this set up, also avoids mishap.
Step one Deepstriking skimmer arrives from reserves.
Step two deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
Step three The skimmer scatters and is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models
Step four the Skimmer is moved the minimum distance to avoid having the models end up under it, as this is considered a move in the movement phase of the skimmer.
Step five Deploy the skimmer
Step six don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.
Sounds like a match to me. I will concede that Drop pods don't mishap from enemy models, when others concede that Skimmers don't mishap from enemy models.
first off I am not in the know of the skimmer argument, if I could get a link for that thread so as not to sidetrack this one that would be great....
second you know what i was saying and let me clarify...
step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location in accordance with the inertial guidance system, as deepstriking ,or even coming in from reserves is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRBPG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, for friendly models this does not matter.
I hope that clarified the matter.
This argument was actually started recently in a related thread that I started, positing that the rules for skimmers keep it from mishapping in certain circumstances. The primary argument against it(correct or otherwise) was that deep striking doesn't count as movement until after the deep strike has been completed, nullifying the movement rules when determining scatter. Basically, it was being pointed out that if you consider the movement rules as part of the justification for drop pods avoiding the 1" bubble, then that would invalidate half the people's arguments in the original thread, found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518371.page
I hope that link helps clarify why referring to ANY movement rules in this debate really doesn't clarify the original discussion, unless you're also arguing that skimmers don't mishap. It's a catch 22. People basically can't both include the movement rules when defending the IGS rule, then deny the movement rules when considering whether or not a skimmer mishaps.
Gravmyr wrote: Ok I see people saying that either the mishap or anything that causes a mishap is an obstacle.
This is not true.
In the case of enemy models, however, the obstacle includes a 1" buffer zone, because you can't move within an inch of an enemy model.
-Notice the use of the obstacle not all or any obstacle which indicts that it only reduces scatter to avoid a single thing.
Note that under this interpretation, if you scatter on top of a piece of impassable terrain, and if reducing the scatter to avoid this terrain puts you on top of a different impassable terrain piece, you would still mishap rather than further reducing the scatter to also miss this new obstacle... which from my experience is not how it is normally played.
-They separate landing on and being within 1" therefor there is two separate conditions involving enemy model which cause mishaps.
That, or they just separated them for (an attempt at) clarity.
I think bringing up a completely separate rules discussion to invalidate this one is a bait and switch.
insaniak has stated it the clearest from page one.... "Avoid the Obstacle." We can rightfully interpret that to avoid something is to ensure it doesn't inhibit us...
... then again, I wish we could just go off Down of War 2 where it's quite obvious that a delivery vehicle shot out of a battle barge in lower orbit pretty much flattens what it lands on and doesn't scatter to save the poor souls underneath, but that's fluff vs. tabletop.
So is this how Skimmers work? So the skimmer, by this set up, also avoids mishap.
Step one Deepstriking skimmer arrives from reserves.
Step two deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
Step three The skimmer scatters and is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models
Step four the Skimmer is moved the minimum distance to avoid having the models end up under it, as this is considered a move in the movement phase of the skimmer.
Step five Deploy the skimmer
Step six don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.
Sounds like a match to me. I will concede that Drop pods don't mishap from enemy models, when others concede that Skimmers don't mishap from enemy models.
first off I am not in the know of the skimmer argument, if I could get a link for that thread so as not to sidetrack this one that would be great....
second you know what i was saying and let me clarify...
step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location in accordance with the inertial guidance system, as deepstriking ,or even coming in from reserves is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRBPG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, for friendly models this does not matter.
I hope that clarified the matter.
This argument was actually started recently in a related thread that I started, positing that the rules for skimmers keep it from mishapping in certain circumstances. The primary argument against it(correct or otherwise) was that deep striking doesn't count as movement until after the deep strike has been completed, nullifying the movement rules when determining scatter. Basically, it was being pointed out that if you consider the movement rules as part of the justification for drop pods avoiding the 1" bubble, then that would invalidate half the people's arguments in the original thread, found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518371.page
I hope that link helps clarify why referring to ANY movement rules in this debate really doesn't clarify the original discussion, unless you're also arguing that skimmers don't mishap. It's a catch 22. People basically can't both include the movement rules when defending the IGS rule, then deny the movement rules when considering whether or not a skimmer mishaps.
Would have to agree with your side of the skimmer debate not only does it make skimmers better and a reliable deep strike method like drop pods but it keeps consistency in rules debates throughout the book.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry for the second post....but this does not nullify the effects of dangerous terrain tests for skimmers ending on impassible terrain in mg mind, but other than that this just made skimmers a bit nicer in my mind.
In the case of enemy models, however, the obstacle includes a 1" buffer zone, because you can't move within an inch of an enemy model.
Is being on top of the same as being within 1"? Yes.
Is being within 1" the same as being on top of? No.
If they wanted the 1" bubble to count they would have had to specific it. Instead they used on top of and being next to is not on top of.
As an aside if I go back through this thread I do in fact find at least one person arguing that a mishap is the obstacle and I am sure you can in fact find the posts I am speaking about.
Note that under this interpretation, if you scatter on top of a piece of impassable terrain, and if reducing the scatter to avoid this terrain puts you on top of a different impassable terrain piece, you would still mishap rather than further reducing the scatter to also miss this new obstacle... which from my experience is not how it is normally played.
If we continue to use how something is normally played then I can ignore the FAQs as it is not how something was normally played. My point is and will remain how it is being played does not match what is written. Yet people will argue that if I play something they see as a violation of the rules I am cheating, just because everyone does it does not mean it is how it should happen.
That, or they just separated them for (an attempt at) clarity.
Gravmyr: This will seem like a personal attack probably, but I'm not understanding your argument. It seems to hinge on a pedantic reading of the rules to try to twist an interpretation so it appears to be RAW.
With DS you mishap if you hit an obstacle or go off the table edge. The BRB defines an obstacle as either impassable terrain or landing on/near an enemy unit.
The Inertial Guidance special rule for the DP says you reduce the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle. This means, for example, if you scatter 4" to the left, but to avoid the obstacle you have to move 5" to the right, you mishap. Likewise, if you scatter 6" to the left and had to reduce 5" to the right to avoid the obstacle, you don't mishap.
In the case of enemy models, however, the obstacle includes a 1" buffer zone, because you can't move within an inch of an enemy model.
Is being on top of the same as being within 1"? Yes.
Is being within 1" the same as being on top of? No.
If they wanted the 1" bubble to count they would have had to specific it. Instead they used on top of and being next to is not on top of.
What are you on about here? Since 3rd edition you couldn't move within 1" of an enemy model except when you charge the enemy unit in the Assault Phase. This is nothing new and is explicitly spelled out in the rules for the Movement and Assault phases... Confused.
The BRB defines an obstacle as either impassable terrain or landing on/near an enemy unit.
That's a bold statement. If BRB defines it, then surely providing quote and a page number, where quote has the form of "The obstacle means..." or something to the effect, shouldn't be a problem.
"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 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong."
-They separate landing on and being within 1" therefor there is two separate conditions involving enemy model which cause mishaps.
You have read that incorrectly. I have color coded the elements of the statement.
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 1" of an enemy model , something has gone wrong.
If we are to assert that the otherwise undefined "obstacle" is in fact one or more things that would cause a mishap then we can not separate "on top of or within 1" of an enemy model" into two lesser elements.
Thems the rules of grammar.
edit: Also, any comparison to a previous edition is a flawed argument.
cowmonaut: It's very simple. The rule only states that landing on top of a model or impassable terrain as triggering mechanism. Does it mention landing next to a model triggers it? Does it say you move an inch away? No it clearly tells you to move the minimum distance to avoid "the obstacle". I define the obstacle as landing on top of another model or impassable terrain. I actually use all the words in the sentence when defining what "the obstacle" is referencing. The rule itself limits what it references out of the DS rules. Is landing within 1" of an enemy model landing on top of an enemy model? It clearly is not.
DJGietzen: I agree with your breakdown of DS in general terms. As I posted above the IG rule itself limits what it can counts as an obstacle to landing on top of. The mishap is not referenced nor is landing within 1" of an enemy model. How can you count either as part of "the obstacle" if the IG limits what it looks at in DS rules to landing on top of enemy models?
My argument is simply one of RAW. I have no problem with people playing it that way as long as they give me the same courtesy when there is a poorly written rule. I can see what their intent is, that's not a problem. What is a problem is people deciding to play by intent and arguing that is how the rule is written.
For those looking at my comparisons to previous editions I did it for a simple reason, they changed how the rule was worded from being within 1" to landing on top of enemy models. Was this done to limit how effectiveness of the drop pod? They changed the wording of DS problems at the same time to now include the landing on top of models? Was this done to illustrate the change to drop pods? Is there a way to prove it wasn't? I don't have all the answers but what I have is a book that clearly changed the wording of an ability which use to clearly spell out that the 1" bubble triggered a move to one that limited it to landing on the same model.
What you posted above was that the statement in the DS rule created two "separate conditions involving enemy model(s) which cause mishaps" and suggested that the IG rule only instructs you to avoid one of these conditions. If your argument had nothing to do with mishap conditions then you should not have brought it up.
There is no RAW argument to be made. We are instructed to avoid the 'obstacle' with out a definition of obstacle. The IG rule might as well say avoid the magical unicorn. Some have stated that 'obstacle' is intended to mean mishaps caused by friendly or enemy units or impassible terrain. While others suggest that 'obstacle' is meant to to only be the physical impediment of the model representing the enemy or friendly units or impassible terrain. Clearly this is a RAI discussion.
Now, I actually agree that the drop pod will mishap. The triggering events in the IG rule that cause you to move the model are limited to landing on top of enemy or friendly models or on impassible terrain. No mention of a 1 inch zone around enemy models. This means, and this IS a RAW argument, that if the drop pod would land within one inch of an enemy model but not on top of it without its position being modified the IG rule would not trigger. In that event the pod would mishap. I cannot believe it was GW's intention to provide a a greater level of protection to the drop pod when the IG is triggered.
That being said, I would not be surprised if the IG rule was errated to trigger if you land within 1 inch of an enemy model.
DJGietzen wrote: What you posted above was that the statement in the DS rule created two "separate conditions involving enemy model(s) which cause mishaps" and suggested that the IG rule only instructs you to avoid one of these conditions. If your argument had nothing to do with mishap conditions then you should not have brought it up.
There is no RAW argument to be made. We are instructed to avoid the 'obstacle' with out a definition of obstacle. The IG rule might as well say avoid the magical unicorn. Some have stated that 'obstacle' is intended to mean mishaps caused by friendly or enemy units or impassible terrain. While others suggest that 'obstacle' is meant to to only be the physical impediment of the model representing the enemy or friendly units or impassible terrain. Clearly this is a RAI discussion.
Now, I actually agree that the drop pod will mishap. The triggering events in the IG rule that cause you to move the model are limited to landing on top of enemy or friendly models or on impassible terrain. No mention of a 1 inch zone around enemy models. This means, and this IS a RAW argument, that if the drop pod would land within one inch of an enemy model but not on top of it without its position being modified the IG rule would not trigger. In that event the pod would mishap. I cannot believe it was GW's intention to provide a a greater level of protection to the drop pod when the IG is triggered.
That being said, I would not be surprised if the IG rule was errated to trigger if you land within 1 inch of an enemy model.
Counter argument to that thought:
Why waste ink to even reduce scatter on DS when landing on enemy models if the end result is STILL a mishap? Seems pretty ludicrous to put a special rule in there to move your model and still say "WHOOPS, STILL BONED!"
No, Drop Pods are intended not to mishap unless you miss the table. It IS Space Marines, poster children, we are talking about here. (Then again, this would apply to Tyranid Mycetic Sports probably, too).
@TheKbob: Well, the game does not have a basic rule describing what to do if your model ends it movement on top of another model. These situations can happen but are handled on a case by case basis using the advanced rules. The IGS rule, as it is written, does not prevent mishaps. It only prevents models being stacked on top of one another.
Lets play "what if"; If a drop pod scatters to 0.75 inches of an enemy model but is not on top of that model do you move the drop pod or does it mishap?
DJGietzen wrote: @TheKbob: Well, the game does not have a basic rule describing what to do if your model ends it movement on top of another model. These situations can happen but are handled on a case by case basis using the advanced rules. The IGS rule, as it is written, does not prevent mishaps. It only prevents models being stacked on top of one another.
Lets play "what if"; If a drop pod scatters to 0.75 inches of an enemy model but is not on top of that model do you move the drop pod or does it mishap?
We already cannot stack models on top of each other. My models can never be within 1" of enemies unless is CC. That's a part of the BRB. The other instances where this would happen, say a stunned flyer, result in "Crash & Burn." Even when placed within 1", but not on top of, enemy units.
I already agreed with insaniak and many others (and every gaming group I have played in over 3 years across 3 states...), you move drop pods to avoid the obstacle. Drop pods don't mishap. This is the first time in three years I have been playing this game that I have ever heard anyone attempt to insinuate otherwise. Even playing in every form of tournament; from local to grand level. I know that C:SM has been out longer then that and if it was anything but super simple, it'd have been FAQ'd. Ergo, common sense tells us "avoid the obstacle". How is it avoided? Move it until no ramification (positive or negative) is required (however obstacle conveys a negative connotation).
This argument is still pretty silly, to me.
Edit: Most of these type arguments should really come with a poll. If it's not a near split on the issue, then there is probably a good reason why it's generally accepted one way or the other. In this instance, it's nitpicking some shoddy writing from GW and almost every individual picking up the correct RAI.
Gravmyr wrote: it clearly tells you to move the minimum distance to avoid "the obstacle". I define the obstacle as landing on top of another model or impassable terrain.
And your definition does not coincide with the standard British English definition of Obstacle, which it would have to as obstacle is not defined in the brb, therefore your definition is incorrect.
As I pointed out the problem with trying to say they are refering to anything that would then get in the way it it is not listed in the triggering mechanism. By using something that stands in the way (such as the mishap) then you have to include the scatter die roll and just put it back where you placed it. What you are in essence saying is once the rule is triggers anything that ever gets in the DP's way is ignored. You want to use the definition that's fine but please explain how you ignore all obstacles you come in contact with instead of "the" obstacle that has triggered the rule.
Edit: Considering english has stolen a majority of it's wordage from other languages, which one in many cases do we follow?
something that impedes progress or achievement
an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path
Something that stands in the way or that obstructs progress (lit. and fig.); a hindrance, impediment, or obstruction
Now the model itself is clearly an obstacle by all accounts. My problem becomes when you add the 1" bubble around it. Is the model the obstacle at that point? Is it the DS that creates the 1" bubble that is the hindrance? If the bubble is part of the model then why isn't it defined in the model section? It's a subset of the rule and not actually a part of the model. They limited what part of the DS rule is affected by the rule when they put it on top of another model, which includes friend or foe. Why would we treat one different from the other in this case? Can you use the IG rule to avoid more than one thing? I say no. They limited that as well by saying "the" obstacle.
Grav, you're looking at it from just the physical impediment whilst the rest of us view it as the game or strategy impediment. The latter is the correct view on this matter.
Again, I reiterate, why would they write something into a codex with the full intention of you moving off the enemy models but still causing a mishap? Now granted, GW doesn't always make the most sense, but this seems highly illogical to waste ink on a scenario where you move off enemy models and are still screwed.
It's okay to be like "whoops, yea I'm wrong. Sorry, guys!"
TheKbob wrote: Grav, you're looking at it from just the physical impediment whilst the rest of us view it as the game or strategy impediment. The latter is the correct view on this matter.
Again, I reiterate, why would they write something into a codex with the full intention of you moving off the enemy models but still causing a mishap? Now granted, GW doesn't always make the most sense, but this seems highly illogical to waste ink on a scenario where you move off enemy models and are still screwed.
It's okay to be like "whoops, yea I'm wrong. Sorry, guys!"
QFT
at this point I think I will say something here as well, when we resort to arguing definition and grammar to prove a point, I think we are beyond good discussion and are just jabbing at each other with blunted sticks. this is pretty clear what was meant, everyone IRL that I have talked to about this is wondering how this has gone on for so long...I think it is time we learn to be adults and either accept when you are wrong as well as kindly take the other sides generosity in giving the proverbial 'field'.
He is arguing a RAW debate, not RAI. I don't think anyone is majorly arguing RAI, but Grav has made a good point which would lead me to question it. If RAI was that the 1" bubble was part of the obstacle, why would they remove that statement from later editions of the books?
Nevermind, don't answer that. Again, this isn't RAI. Trying not to get sidetracked into an intent discussion.
I get what you are saying RAW v RAI betray, but this has become a back and forth slam head against the wall type of discussion, when it comes to RAW I don't think we will find any kind of middle ground on this one because of bad wording.
I wish we could get a solid RAW resolution, I just don't see it on the horizon.
He is arguing a RAW debate, not RAI. I don't think anyone is majorly arguing RAI, but Grav has made a good point which would lead me to question it. If RAI was that the 1" bubble was part of the obstacle, why would they remove that statement from later editions of the books?
Nevermind, don't answer that. Again, this isn't RAI. Trying not to get sidetracked into an intent discussion.
Please, prove us definitively wrong.
AGAIN why even waste ink the book if it's not intended to prevent mishaps over enemy units. Why? Oh, that's right, it's plain as day to a great majority of the gaming community. Drop pods don't mishap unless they fall off the table (or a special rule exists to mess 'em up, too). The same wording is kept in all the books. So by your very logic, why would they KEEP including something that would have zero game effect? Oh, that's right, because it's forehead-slapping obvious that you "avoid the obstacle," meaning the enemy models and their 1" threat range.
Like I said, there's a significant consensus from my own anecdotal experience playing 40K across three states in multiple gaming groups and various level of tournament play (local to grand national invitational). So the burden of proof is on you to prove against the status quo. And some griping over some poor grammar is NOT enough.
This isn't a mature debate. Mature yes, debate no. You're trying to prove something wrong that no one except a small vocal handful object towards. Just because you can post a contrary discourse on YMDC doesn't mean it's a truly valid argument.
We already cannot stack models on top of each other. My models can never be within 1" of enemies unless is CC. That's a part of the BRB. The other instances where this would happen, say a stunned flyer, result in "Crash & Burn." Even when placed within 1", but not on top of, enemy units.
Well, no this is not true. The BRB tells us not to intentionally move one inch or closer to an enemy model unless we are charging them in the assault phase. Even the basic rules for a charge do not allow for the possibility for one model to be on top of another model. The BRB then provides a few exceptions via advanced rules where this sort of intentional movement is allowed. It is in these advanced rules, like tank shock, that tell us what to do to avoid models being placed on top of each other. We also have unintentional movement, like scatter or crash and burn, and these advanced rules also tell us not to place our models on top of other models. This is what I mean when I say it is handled on a case by case basis.
If we take the instruction that I cannot move my models within 1 inch of an enemy model and use it as the reason I cannot place my models on top of enemy models, even when deep striking, it would also mean that when deep striking I could not place my model within 1 inch of an enemy model. This would prevent all deep striking units from mishaps caused by being to close to the enemy.
I already agreed with insaniak and many others (and every gaming group I have played in over 3 years across 3 states...), you move drop pods to avoid the obstacle. Drop pods don't mishap. This is the first time in three years I have been playing this game that I have ever heard anyone attempt to insinuate otherwise. Even playing in every form of tournament; from local to grand level. I know that C:SM has been out longer then that and if it was anything but super simple, it'd have been FAQ'd. Ergo, common sense tells us "avoid the obstacle". How is it avoided? Move it until no ramification (positive or negative) is required (however obstacle conveys a negative connotation).
This argument is still pretty silly, to me.
Edit: Most of these type arguments should really come with a poll. If it's not a near split on the issue, then there is probably a good reason why it's generally accepted one way or the other. In this instance, it's nitpicking some shoddy writing from GW and almost every individual picking up the correct RAI.
You never directly answered my question. If a drop pod scatters to within 1 inch of an enemy model but is not on top of that model do you move the drop pod or does it mishap? It sounds like you would move the drop pod but I have to ask why? What in the IGS rule allows you to do that?
If you did mishap after the drop pod correction there would be no reason to even have the drop pod correction rule in the first place since there is difference in what happens either way. So we are now left with the question of why make a rule that would never actually matter anyways. So the only logical conclusion is that there is no mishap unless you actually manage to miss the table.
The rule would still matter. GW may have learned from its former Monolith rules, which could be used to push opposing models from their position. As they rewrote this rule in different incarnations they removed this ability to push.
White Ninja wrote: If you did mishap after the drop pod correction there would be no reason to even have the drop pod correction rule in the first place since there is difference in what happens either way. So we are now left with the question of why make a rule that would never actually matter anyways. So the only logical conclusion is that there is no mishap unless you actually manage to miss the table.
the rule prevents you from placing your drop pod on impassible terrain or on top of another unit. Here is a list possible drop pod deep strike results with and without the IGS rule as I've described it.
The Drop Pod ... | Without the IGS Rule |With the IGS Rule[u]
would end it's move partially or fully off the table. | The Drop Pod mishaps. |The Drop Pod mishaps.
would end it's move in impassable terrain. | The Drop Pod mishaps. | The Drop Pod is moved.
would end it's move in any other kind of terrain. | The Drop Pod does not mishap. | The Drop Pod does not mishap.
would end it's move on top of a friendly or enemy rnodel. | The Drop Pod mishaps. | The Drop Pod is moved.
would end it's move within 1" of an enemy model. | The Drop Pod mishaps. | The Drop Pod mishaps.
As you can see, the rule is not a "waste of ink" and still provides a service.
Unless one of you can post wording from the rule itself I have to assume the model or terrain itself. Occum's Razor tells us so.
Again the mishap can't be the obstacle as it is not there till after you can't deploy. Reference previous posts. If the mishap is the obstacle then it is too late to move it as it isn't triggered till after you can't deploy.
Until someone can actually post a rules reason not intent or RAI then I'm out.
Gravmyr wrote: Unless one of you can post wording from the rule itself I have to assume the model or terrain itself. Occum's Razor tells us so.
Again the mishap can't be the obstacle as it is not there till after you can't deploy. Reference previous posts. If the mishap is the obstacle then it is too late to move it as it isn't triggered till after you can't deploy.
Until someone can actually post a rules reason not intent or RAI then I'm out.
Look at the thread, there are numerous rules reasons.
Choosing to ignore them does not make them go away.
In the case of an enemy unit what is the obstacle that needs to be avoided?
Well the enemy unit and getting to close causing a mishap is the obstacle that needs to be avoided. Linguistically this is the correct application of obstacle.
Call me crazy here, and if this has been mentioned before, I am sorry. But. what if, somehow, we viewed this 1" 'buffer zone' as impassible terrain, as this buffer zone is not a unit, but is terrain you cannot move into. Thus the rule is activated for the 1" buffer zone and you can move the pod out of this zone that in fact is impossible to move into, unless you are assaulting.
Easy, land within 1" of an enemy unit, but not on it, did you just incur an obstacle that would stop your progress of deep striking?
Yes.
Move the damned thing. Done.
They don't mishap. I have never, ever seen anyone in three years claim otherwise. Again, from new dudes to GT players. Asinine argument. I don't have my multiple Space Marine variant codecis on hand, but I'd bet they all have the relatively same wording when it comes to this subject (tyranids, as well).
TheKbob wrote: Easy, land within 1" of an enemy unit, but not on it, did you just incur an obstacle that would stop your progress of deep striking?
Yes.
Move the damned thing. Done.
They don't mishap. I have never, ever seen anyone in three years claim otherwise. Again, from new dudes to GT players. Asinine argument. I don't have my multiple Space Marine variant codecis on hand, but I'd bet they all have the relatively same wording when it comes to this subject (tyranids, as well).
The IGS rule does not say "If the Drop Pod would mishap..." it only gives you permission to move the pod if it would land on top of an enemy or friendly model, or in impassible terrain. You have absolutely no permission to move it if it lands within one inch of an enemy model but not on top of it. Why would you assume you could?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaplaincliff wrote: Call me crazy here, and if this has been mentioned before, I am sorry. But. what if, somehow, we viewed this 1" 'buffer zone' as impassible terrain, as this buffer zone is not a unit, but is terrain you cannot move into. Thus the rule is activated for the 1" buffer zone and you can move the pod out of this zone that in fact is impossible to move into, unless you are assaulting.
that is a RAI argument I can live with. No book with me atm to see if it has any RAW standing.
TheKbob wrote: Easy, land within 1" of an enemy unit, but not on it, did you just incur an obstacle that would stop your progress of deep striking?
Yes.
Move the damned thing. Done.
They don't mishap. I have never, ever seen anyone in three years claim otherwise. Again, from new dudes to GT players. Asinine argument. I don't have my multiple Space Marine variant codecis on hand, but I'd bet they all have the relatively same wording when it comes to this subject (tyranids, as well).
The IGS rule does not say "If the Drop Pod would mishap..." it only gives you permission to move the pod if it would land on top of an enemy or friendly model, or in impassible terrain. You have absolutely no permission to move it if it lands within one inch of an enemy model but not on top of it. Why would you assume you could?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaplaincliff wrote: Call me crazy here, and if this has been mentioned before, I am sorry. But. what if, somehow, we viewed this 1" 'buffer zone' as impassible terrain, as this buffer zone is not a unit, but is terrain you cannot move into. Thus the rule is activated for the 1" buffer zone and you can move the pod out of this zone that in fact is impossible to move into, unless you are assaulting.
that is a RAI argument I can live with. No book with me atm to see if it has any RAW standing.
ok, give me a shot at getting this from RAW:
this part fits the argument to a 'T', with models being generally unable to enter the 1" buffer zone outside of one exception, this part of the rule would seem to label the buffer zone as impassible terrain.
this may turn a wrench into the works here, so I will try to work this one out a bit. I can see the argument that 'physically impassable' means that because you can IRL place a model in the space 1" next to an enemy model it is passable. I say not really, Physically impassible in the context of the game means any terrain that a model cannot pass through, thus the 1" buffer zone is actually Impassible terrain with one printed exception of assaulting units.
Using your reasoning for 'physically impassible' means we determine it on a case by case bases. For example a skimmer can enter the 'zone' but other vehicles cannot. If we do this that being instructed to move my model into the zone by an advanced rule would mean its not impassable terrain and we are right back where we started. Sadly I would say there is no context argument for what 'physically impassible' means. I literally means a model cannot be placed in the terrain and based on what you posted here I would say there is no RAW argument to be had.
The BRB defines an obstacle as either impassable terrain or landing on/near an enemy unit.
That's a bold statement. If BRB defines it, then surely providing quote and a page number, where quote has the form of "The obstacle means..." or something to the effect, shouldn't be a problem.
Alright, fair enough. Looks like 'obstacle' is never defined anywhere, despite being used more than a dozen times throughout the book. Apparently they are using the dictionary definition of obstacle, but arguing dictionary definitions is a weak argument and against the rules regardless. As far as I can tell only the two rule exerpts appear to be relevant to this thread:
Spoiler:
Deep Strike Mishaps Deep striking onto a crowded battlefield may prove
dangerous, as one may arrive miles from the intended
objectiveor even materialise inside solid rock! 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 model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap
table and apply the results. If the unfortunate unit is also a
Transport, the Deep Strike Mishap result applies to both the
unit and anything embarked within it.
Page 36, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book (6th Edition)
Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle.
Page 47, Codex: Space Wolves (5th Edition)
Gravmyr is arguing that because the Inertial Guidance System special rule for Drop Pods doesn't explicitly list everything the way the Deep Strike Special Rule does that you mishap if you are within 1" of an enemy model.
This is a stupid argument.
Look, the IGS special rule tells you to reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle, yes? The rules of the game do not let you be within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging it in the Assault Phase. Ergo, if you are avoiding an enemy model/unit, you have to maintain the minimum distance allowed by the rules.
MODELS IN THE WAY
A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they
are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move
past,they must go around.
Page 10, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book(6th Edition)
Starting here, and continuing on pages 21, 27, 30, 36, 38, 79, 80, 85, 86, 95, and 98, one of the core constants of the entire game: You cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of Close Combat.
The IGS special rule doesn't need to explicitly state this. It is already a well established fact. If you are going to reduce the distance to 'avoid the obstacle' that is the enemy model, you implicitly have to move so you are 1" away from the enemy model in question.
Gravmyr is arguing that because the Inertial Guidance System special rule for Drop Pods doesn't explicitly list everything the way the Deep Strike Special Rule does that you mishap if you are within 1" of an enemy model.
This is a stupid argument.
Look, the IGS special rule tells you to reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle, yes? The rules of the game do not let you be within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging it in the Assault Phase. Ergo, if you are avoiding an enemy model/unit, you have to maintain the minimum distance allowed by the rules.
MODELS IN THE WAY
A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they
are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move
past,they must go around.Page 10, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book(6th Edition)
Starting here, and continuing on pages 21, 27, 30, 36, 38, 79, 80, 85, 86, 95, and 98, one of the core constants of the entire game: You cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of Close Combat.
The IGS special rule doesn't need to explicitly state this. It is already a well established fact. If you are going to reduce the distance to 'avoid the obstacle' that is the enemy model, you implicitly have to move so you are 1" away from the enemy model in question.
Its not a stupid argument. Its actually quite reasonable. Stupid is rude to say btw. I think you mean flawed.
You are reasoning that we cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of close combat so no model could ever deep strike within 1 inch of an enemy model and the IGS rule does not need to repeat this information. This simply cannot be true.
Deep Strike Mishaps Deep striking onto a crowded battlefield may prove
dangerous, as one may arrive miles from the intended
objective or even materialize inside solid rock! 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 model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap
table and apply the results. If the unfortunate unit is also a
Transport, the Deep Strike Mishap result applies to both the
unit and anything embarked within it.
Page 36, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book (6th Edition)
If your reasoning is correct the highlighted portion would have no meaning. Terminators would never mishap from being to close to an enemy model, nothing would because it is impossible with your reasoning.
Are you saying nothing can mishap because it is within 1 inch of an enemy model?
DJGietzen wrote: Its not a stupid argument. Its actually quite reasonable. Stupid is rude to say btw. I think you mean flawed.
No, I meant stupid. The argument is lacking common sense and intelligence IMO. Flawed is just a PC way of saying stupid. I've made stupid arguments before that I thought weren't stupid at the time. I'm not going to coddle someone just because they might be easily offended by a word. It isn't like I called Gravmyr stupid. I don't think he is, I just think he's wrong.
I also think the argument is unreasonable. It is just grasping too much at straws and relying too much on assumptions that don't jive with the rest of the rules in the BRB.
DJGietzen wrote: You are reasoning that we cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of close combat so no model could ever deep strike within 1 inch of an enemy model and the IGS rule does not need to repeat this information. This simply cannot be true.
Why not, pray? The rules do not let you, willingly or unwillingly, move within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging them in the Assault Phase. For crying out loud, if your unit falls back in the Assault Phase and doesn't get the minimum distance necessary to be farther than 1" from an enemy model the rules tell you to move the minimum distance for all your models to be more than 1" from an enemy model! Check out all those page numbers I listed. Every single one of them has a rule where either it says you can't be within 1" of an enemy, or that if some sort of movement or result would leave you within 1" of an enemy that you get automatically moved for free so you are more than 1" away.
Deep Strike Mishaps Deep striking onto a crowded battlefield may prove
dangerous, as one may arrive miles from the intended
objective or even materialize inside solid rock! 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 model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap
table and apply the results. If the unfortunate unit is also a
Transport, the Deep Strike Mishap result applies to both the
unit and anything embarked within it.
Page 36, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book (6th Edition)
If your reasoning is correct the highlighted portion would have no meaning. Terminators would never mishap from being to close to an enemy model, nothing would because it is impossible with your reasoning.
Are you saying nothing can mishap because it is within 1 inch of an enemy model?
Not at all! If a normal unit Deep Strikes and scatters within 1" of an enemy unit, they definitely mishap. The model you place before you roll to scatter also cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model. But we are not talking about a normal unit. We are talking Drop Pods with Inertial Guidance Systems. IGS forces you to move your Drop Pod so you don't land on an enemy model, rather than mishap. You are not allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model outside of specific circumstances in the Assault Phase. So again, the basic rules of the game are what keep Drop Pods from having a mishap.
DJGietzen wrote: If your reasoning is correct the highlighted portion would have no meaning.
Which proves nothing more than that GW sometimes include superfluous text.
I would suggest, though, that it's there for clarity. IIRC, at least some previous editions didn't include specific mention of the 1"... which sparked the exact same discussion we're having now, just for regular Deep Striking rather than for drop pods specifically.
Are you saying nothing can mishap because it is within 1 inch of an enemy model?
The Deepstrike Mishaps rule has a list of obstacles. IGS has a very limited list, as in it has two of the six mentioned. This is the definition of Deepstrike obstacles. Using obstacle by the English language would then remove all of these, to include missing the table. Using the parameters set in the rule only has two of these items being protected against.
For ease, a list of obstacles:
Partially off the Table
Fully off the Table
In Impassible Terrain ****
On top of a Friendly Model ****
On top of an Enemy Model ****
Within 1" of an Enemy Model
**** protected by IGS
And to the poster who says GW doesn't waste ink on pointless rules, please read the skimmer rules. As they have a rule that might have an effect in 1 out of every 1000 games, unless it includes deepstrike. As forcing a skimmer to stop on top of a model can only very rarely happen, and is highly improbable when tank shocking.
No, stupid is the correct phrasing here. Asinine works quite well, too. Someone just posted the rules verbatum.
You don't avoid an obstacle by still being affected by it, now do you?
Make another thread, put a poll, and allow the same inane discourse to continue, but don't be surprised when a small handful votes "IT MISHAPS!" and the rest of the universe rules it the way it's been played for years.
It doesn't mishap. Avoid the obstacle. If I'm within 1" of the enemy model, I'm not avoiding the obstacle, now am I?
The landing within 1" of enemy models but not on enemy models may be debatable, but the rare instance this happens, I'd rather say w/e, back up 1/4" of an inch and go on. At the end of day, it's not that big of deal for the low odds of that happening (and the ensuing rules debate you're seeing here.) The accuracy of our measuring devices, viewing angles, etc. make that sort of nonsense not really worth it in my books, more so given IGS exists.
Edit: I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm sure the skimmer rule is there for a reason or will be given a codex update. Most of the new 6E stuff falls right in line with 6E rules. A lot of the special rules outlined in the BRB were not used until subsequent codex updates. A better wording of the phrasing would be then: outside of things made irrelevant by a FAQ or edition update (which in this case, drop pods still exist and IGS is still quite relevant), GW doesn't waste ink on rules. What's IGS say for the new DA codex? If it's the same, then case definitively closed.
And yea, if anything else lands within 1", it mishaps, unless it too has some special rule that pulls it's butt from the fryer. Never argued that because I'm talking about Drop Pods (and not skimmers, either...)
Gentlemen, Lets not sling around deragatory comments about others arguments, it's bad form.
Stupid, Assinine, dumb...etc, are not needed.
It's a disagreement about wording.
Once again, it's a RAW argument vs a RAI argument.
That being said. The RAI to me is clear and could be evidenced by prior rules and the understanding of what an obstacle is. Drop Pods don't mishap unless they scatter off the table. (There is that odd time where it will both land on models and would have scattered off the table, I believe that it should mishap in those casses, but I have no hopes of persuading anyone to that point of view.)
The RAW could go either way as there is ambiguity and proves again that RAW arguments just don't work all that often.
Idolator wrote: Once again, it's a RAW argument vs a RAI argument.
That sort of depends on your interpretation of the RAW. To my mind, both the RAW and the RAI on this are the same. For those who feel that landing within 1" is not the same as landing on the model, not so much.
Drop Pods don't mishap unless they scatter off the table.
Or their initial landing point is on something that causes a mishap, and they don't scatter.
DJGietzen wrote: You are reasoning that we cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of close combat so no model could ever deep strike within 1 inch of an enemy model and the IGS rule does not need to repeat this information. This simply cannot be true.
Why not, pray? The rules do not let you, willingly or unwillingly, move within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging them in the Assault Phase. For crying out loud, if your unit falls back in the Assault Phase and doesn't get the minimum distance necessary to be farther than 1" from an enemy model the rules tell you to move the minimum distance for all your models to be more than 1" from an enemy model! Check out all those page numbers I listed. Every single one of them has a rule where either it says you can't be within 1" of an enemy, or that if some sort of movement or result would leave you within 1" of an enemy that you get automatically moved for free so you are more than 1" away.
Some might argue that arriving via deep strike is movement, others might claim it only counts as movement. Either discussion would be irrelevant as you pointed out (quoted below) that you cannot intentionally place the drop pod within 1 inch of the enemy model and the only way for it to get there is to scatter. You have claimed that the rules prohibiting a model moving within 1 inch of of an enemy model apply to the re-positioning of the drop pod via the IGS rule because you are instructed to 'move' the drop pod. Page 6 of the BRB also instructs us to 'move' the object that has been re-position via scatter.This means that models are prohibited from scattering within 1 inch of an enemy model.
Deep Strike Mishaps Deep striking onto a crowded battlefield may prove
dangerous, as one may arrive miles from the intended
objective or even materialize inside solid rock! 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 model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap
table and apply the results. If the unfortunate unit is also a
Transport, the Deep Strike Mishap result applies to both the
unit and anything embarked within it.
Page 36, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book (6th Edition)
If your reasoning is correct the highlighted portion would have no meaning. Terminators would never mishap from being to close to an enemy model, nothing would because it is impossible with your reasoning.
Are you saying nothing can mishap because it is within 1 inch of an enemy model?
Not at all! If a normal unit Deep Strikes and scatters within 1" of an enemy unit, they definitely mishap. The model you place before you roll to scatter also cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model. But we are not talking about a normal unit. We are talking Drop Pods with Inertial Guidance Systems. IGS forces you to move your Drop Pod so you don't land on an enemy model, rather than mishap. You are not allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model outside of specific circumstances in the Assault Phase. So again, the basic rules of the game are what keep Drop Pods from having a mishap.
Actually, for this part of the discussion we ARE talking about a normal unit. Lets use a specific normal unit. I have a Dark Angels Chapter Master in Terminator armor arriving via Deep Strike. If he scatters to half an inch away from an enemy model does he mishap or is he prohibited from moving with 1 inch of the enemy model?
Deep strike is an advanced rule, which overrides the basic rule that you cannot move within 1" of an enemy. Of course, deep strike goes on to tell us that if you WOULD scatter to within said distance, you mishap.
Playing that Drop Pods can land within 1" of enemy models and immediately mishap renders the inertial guidance system's mention of enemy models meaningless. It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.
Mannahnin wrote: Playing that Drop Pods can land within 1" of enemy models and immediately mishap renders the inertial guidance system's mention of enemy models meaningless. It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.
Half the rule is landing in impassible terrain. The other half is landing on top of another model (friend or foe!). Neither half is meaningless. Very little of the rule has to do with enemy models specifically.
If you land close to an enemy model, less then an inch, but not on top of it you would mishap. Why should landing smack dab right on top of an enemy model put you in a better position?
DJGietzen wrote: Why should landing smack dab right on top of an enemy model put you in a better position?
Uh, that's exactly the point, though... Arguing that IG only works if you actually land on the model, and not if you land right beside them, means that landing on the model is the better proposition.
What is being argued is that it shouldn't make any difference. If the enemy model would cause you to mishap, then IG kicks in and reduces the scatter to avoid them.
Mannahnin wrote: Playing that Drop Pods can land within 1" of enemy models and immediately mishap renders the inertial guidance system's mention of enemy models meaningless. It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.
and yet GW does this ALL the time. See disembarking from a flyer for example, which GW chooses to totally ignore in the case of Nightscythes. There are literally dozens of examples of rules like this.
Mannahnin wrote: Playing that Drop Pods can land within 1" of enemy models and immediately mishap renders the inertial guidance system's mention of enemy models meaningless. It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.
and yet GW does this ALL the time. See disembarking from a flyer for example, which GW chooses to totally ignore in the case of Nightscythes. There are literally dozens of examples of rules like this.
How so? They can disembark just fine, it's one of the best transports and flyers around.
Or are you talking about disembarking in general being a redundant rule on flyers? In that case it's a function of two rules (transport and flyer), and has a fully working rule to allow for disembarking. So it's in no way non-functional.
You can't disembark from a zooming flyer per the brbpg 80. They had to add rules to fliers to make it possible like invasion beams for the nightscyhte.
Yes, they have a functional method of disembarking. As do all Flying Transports (through extra rules, and/or Hover). So the disembark rules are in no way rendered non-functional.
The point being that this...
Mannahnin wrote: It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.
DJGietzen wrote:Actually, for this part of the discussion we ARE talking about a normal unit. Lets use a specific normal unit. I have a Dark Angels Chapter Master in Terminator armor arriving via Deep Strike. If he scatters to half an inch away from an enemy model does he mishap or is he prohibited from moving with 1 inch of the enemy model?
BetrayTheWorld wrote:Deep strike is an advanced rule, which overrides the basic rule that you cannot move within 1" of an enemy. Of course, deep strike goes on to tell us that if you WOULD scatter to within said distance, you mishap.
BetrayTheWorld already did for me. Deep Strike is an advanced rule for the Movement Phase, it trumps the normal movement rules by opening up the possibility that you'd be within the 1" buffer zone. So they added a piece to the advanced rule to make it so you end up having problems (a Mishap) if you do.
Anyways, judging by the vote thread the majority of people (nearly overwhelming, but I'll wait for there to be more than 100 votes before saying that) seem to agree here. Only 6-8 people think Gravmyr is on to something and 60+ don't, so I think I'll drop out now. Can't explain why I think the argument is flawed more clear than I have.
It may be a more advanced rule, but unless it explicitly overrules the restriction on being within 1" of an enemy model, the basic rule still wins out.
Just to clarify grrrfranky: Deep Strike does not have to explicitly state anything of the sort. Under the basic rules it is impossible to move within 1" of an enemy model. Deep Strike throws in Scatter Dice however, so mere chance can mean you end up within 1". This makes the advanced rules of Deep Strike trump the basic rules forbidding such a thing. This is why they added a specific clause about you suffering a Mishap if you would end up within 1" of an enemy model. That makes it so that its impossible for you to break their "one inch buffer" rule.
Might want to re-read that rule.
In order for an Advanced rule to Override a Basic one they must contradict each other.
One one rule says you can't, and another says you can, they contradict. In this case the advanced rule wins out.
Here there is no contradiction. The Advanced rule doesn't say it allows you to move with 1", so it does not, cannot, override the basic rule. I'm afraid it really does need to specify.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. My take is that the rules state you can not purposely and willingly move a model within 1" of an enemy model, but that Deep Strike gives you a situation where you can unintentionally end up within 1". The various other situations where you can unintentionally be within 1" generally give you a free move so you can be 1" away from the enemy (see the dozen or so pages I listed previously in this thread). Deep Strike is different in that they don't do that, they tell you specifically its a Mishap.
And then you have the Codex rule that trumps the Deep Strike advanced rule in that IGS tells you to move to avoid the problem, putting you outside the 1" buffer.
Again, that's all my take on it. I'm not sure how to clarify it much further than that.
What grendel083 said. It's only where the rules contradict each other that advanced beats out basic, and as there's no reference to the 1" in the advanced rule, the basic one still holds true.
cowmonaut wrote: We'll have to agree to disagree there. My take is that the rules state you can not purposely and willingly move a model within 1" of an enemy model, but that Deep Strike gives you a situation where you can unintentionally end up within 1". The various other situations where you can unintentionally be within 1" generally give you a free move so you can be 1" away from the enemy (see the dozen or so pages I listed previously in this thread). Deep Strike is different in that they don't do that, they tell you specifically its a Mishap.
Well that's fair enough, and a valid interpretation.
I'm currently undecided in this debate, and can see the point on both sides.
My point being that the "Basic Vs. Advanced" rule has been brought up a couple of times in this thread, and was being applied incorrectly. It really isn't a rule that can be applied in this situation for the reasons I posted above.
Unintentional movement however, is a valid point. Gentlemen, please continue to debate!
grrrfranky wrote: What grendel083 said. It's only where the rules contradict each other that advanced beats out basic, and as there's no reference to the 1" in the advanced rule, the basic one still holds true.
But there IS a reference to it in the advanced rule. It tells you to scatter, then says if you scatter within 1" of an enemy, you mishap.
Yes, and if your contention is that Scatter is movement, NOTHING in the scatter rule actually allows you to move within 1", because the scatter rules do NOT override this.
Which is one way of showing you that scatter isnt movement....
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, and if your contention is that Scatter is movement, NOTHING in the scatter rule actually allows you to move within 1", because the scatter rules do NOT override this.
Which is one way of showing you that scatter isnt movement....
Actually, it doesn't work that way. There are other rules that can cause compulsory movement, and that have rules stating that if this causes you to move within 1" of an enemy unit, move the minimum distance so that you're no longer within that range, remove the model as being unable to place them, or, in the case of deep strike, mishap. There are SEVERAL rules that cause units to violate the 1" bubble, and all of them tend to have contingencies for when that happens. Deep strike scatter is no different, and DOES override that basic rule.
DJGietzen wrote: Why should landing smack dab right on top of an enemy model put you in a better position?
Uh, that's exactly the point, though... Arguing that IG only works if you actually land on the model, and not if you land right beside them, means that landing on the model is the better proposition.
What is being argued is that it shouldn't make any difference. If the enemy model would cause you to mishap, then IG kicks in and reduces the scatter to avoid them.
Now, there, right there, is the problem I keep trying to point out. The IGS rule does not say it will kick in if the drop pod would mishap. It only kicks in if you are going to land smack dab on top of another model or in impassible terrain. This leaves us with TWO possible drop pod mishap events. A) Landing partially or completely off the table edge and B) Landing within one inch, but not on top of, and enemy model.
How can you suggest anything else? If you assume that drop pods only mishap at the table edge and that nothing else can cause a mishap then you can read between the lines here and give your self permission to avoid the second form of mishap I mentioned above. Other then your belief in what the IGS rule is meant to do, what what proof is there that a drop pod landing half an inch away from an enemy model does not mishap?
Like you said, it shouldn't make any difference if you land on them or beside them. You don't have permission to not land beside them when you scatter, why would you have permission to not land beside them when you adjust the scatter via IGS?
Betray - so as your contention is that scatter is movement, provide the rule that states you may move within one inch. Page and para
You will find a rule stating what happens IF you end up within an inch, however that is not the same as having a rule allowing you to actually perform that action
Additionally I assume you take dangerous terrain tests for scattering through terrain as well?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Betray - so as your contention is that scatter is movement, provide the rule that states you may move within one inch. Page and para
You will find a rule stating what happens IF you end up within an inch, however that is not the same as having a rule allowing you to actually perform that action
Additionally I assume you take dangerous terrain tests for scattering through terrain as well?
Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT.
You WOULD take a dangerous terrain test for scattering onto dangerous terrain, if there weren't already a rule that says if you would do so, you mishap. The rules for scatter say that you place the marker where scatter would take you, and resolve according to the rules. You aren't given permission to NOT penetrate the 1" bubble. Under that line of thought, no units could mishap ever by scattering to within 1" of an enemy unit. The 1" buffer is a basic rule. If an advanced rule has mechanics that can come in conflict with that, the advanced rule takes precedence.
Basic rule - You aren't allowed to move within 1" of an enemy unit unless you're charging.
Advanced rule - Roll dice for scatter, and place your model where the scatter dice indicates. Anything that prevents you from being able to deploy your model there(ie, being within 1" of an enemy) causes you to suffer a mishap. Roll on the deep strike mishap table.
BetrayTheWorld wrote: The rules for scatter say that you place the marker where scatter would take you, and resolve according to the rules.
The underlined is not what the rules for scatter say.
The actual rules state "First, place one model frorn the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and ro11 for scatter to determine the model's final position." P.36
You place a model.
You WOULD take a dangerous terrain test for scattering onto dangerous terrain, if there weren't already a rule that says if you would do so, you mishap.
This really does not address what Nos was saying. Plus you do not mishap for landing on dangerous terrain, no such rule exists.
5th edition deep strike "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice."
Same wording.
No rule to mishap on dangerous terrain, scroll back to check this in this thread as well.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Betray - so as your contention is that scatter is movement, provide the rule that states you may move within one inch. Page and para
You will find a rule stating what happens IF you end up within an inch, however that is not the same as having a rule allowing you to actually perform that action
Additionally I assume you take dangerous terrain tests for scattering through terrain as well?
Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT.
You WOULD take a dangerous terrain test for scattering onto dangerous terrain, if there weren't already a rule that says if you would do so, you mishap.
No such rule exists. You may want to recheck your rulebook.
Again: your contention is that SCATTER == MOVEMENT. Please find a rule stating this.
BetrayTheWorld wrote:The rules for scatter say that you place the marker where scatter would take you, and resolve according to the rules. You aren't given permission to NOT penetrate the 1" bubble.
There is a specific restriction stating you may not MOVE within 1" of an enemy model. Find PERMISSION in the scatter rule (which you are stating is movement) to violate that restriction. Specific rule.
BetrayTheWorld wrote: Under that line of thought, no units could mishap ever by scattering to within 1" of an enemy unit.
Yeah, you still havent understood the point I am making
Your contntin: scatter is movement
My rules based argument: scatter is NOT movement, because the ruls for scatter never invoke the movement rules. My hints to you were to point out that for it to be scatter you could never mishap, and you woudl take dangerous terrain tests for passing THROUGH (see, reading is key!) dangerous terrain, not just landing in the terrain (and not mishapping due to other elemtns, such as enemy models)
The point I am making, to reiterate, is that Scatter is NOT movement. Any attempt to claim it is movement suffer a burden of proof you will be unable to pass.
I really don't see how you separate the ' 1" away' part form the 'model' part. The enemy model is one obstacle that poses risks based on two rules, landing on top of it and landing within one inch of it. You are told to avoid this obstacle so you remove yourself from the dangers associated with it. If you do not, you have broken the rule.
The rule itself is telling you that you do not count the 1" bubble by telling you landing on top of instead of within 1" which would cover both the bubble and the model. It does not on the other hand say "if you would mishap due to models or impassable terrain" which would hold up an interpretation of the mishap being the obstacle or the bubble being part of the enemy model.
It mentions nothing of the bubble which is unarguably part of the obstacle the enemy model presents and is avoided given the wording of the rule. The distinction you are drawing comers from the qualifier for the rule to be invoked which you are misinterpreting as part of the effect. If you would land on an enemy model you avoid the obstacle entirely(bubble included). If you do not land on it but are within 1" of the enemy model then you mishap since you have not met the qualifications for the rule.
I'm not arguing for scatter or DS either way. We know DS is movement. If you search you will see a thread, which I started, where I agreed that skimmers could not use their rule for DS. I was simply pointing out the beginning line for DS in 5th and 6th is virtually identical. If it was a marker in 5th it is still a marker in 6th.
5th "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice." BRB small edition pg 95
6th "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." BRBpg 36
I can't seem to find the part that made it a marker in 5th. Can you quote me the part that makes it a marker out of 5th?
Edit: I agree it is a marker BTW.
Abandon wrote: It mentions nothing of the bubble which is unarguably part of the obstacle the enemy model presents and is avoided given the wording of the rule.
They are both a marker, as when placing a model you put it "in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position." 36
In 6th its a marker as well (Edited my previous posts).
rigeld2 wrote: So you missed his point entirely. Well done.
No, I'm just not going to rekindle the argument about scatter being movement, because it doesn't matter. DS is movement, and scatter is simply the mechanic that tells you where that movement is directed. Rolling for scatter on DS is the same as rolling run distance for a run move. It's just rolling dice to see where you end up.
rigeld2 wrote: So.. It follows none of the rules for movement, but its movement.
Cool story.
See, this is the problem. You consistently put words in my mouth and argue as if I say something I didn't say. I even think that's against the rules of this forum. Scatter is just a mechanic that directs where deep strike happens, like rolling the dice for run moves. Rolling the dice isn't running, but it determines how the run move happens. The same is true of deep strike. It's not "moving" from the position you wanted the model to deep strike, so there is no movement in between, but the model IS moving onto the map, to the location specified by the scatter dice.
BetrayTheWorld wrote: This argument was actually started recently in a related thread that I started, positing that the rules for skimmers keep it from mishapping in certain circumstances. The primary argument against it(correct or otherwise) was that deep striking doesn't count as movement until after the deep strike has been completed, nullifying the movement rules when determining scatter. Basically, it was being pointed out that if you consider the movement rules as part of the justification for drop pods avoiding the 1" bubble, then that would invalidate half the people's arguments in the original thread, found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518371.page
I hope that link helps clarify why referring to ANY movement rules in this debate really doesn't clarify the original discussion, unless you're also arguing that skimmers don't mishap. It's a catch 22. People basically can't both include the movement rules when defending the IGS rule, then deny the movement rules when considering whether or not a skimmer mishaps.
Tell me again how you never claimed scattering was movement.
No, rolling the dice doesn't determine "how the run move happens" - it only determines distance.
The codex says this
"Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on
top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!)
then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in
order to avoid the obstacle."
Now lets look at it with the 2 examples listed (drop pods don't roll for mishap and the second it does)
no mishap: drop pod lands on a unit doesn't roll or mishap lands
does mishap:drop pod lands on unit as per rules it lands right next to the unit, then roll for mishap and ether the drop pod is placed back in reserve, gets placed somewhere else by the enemy or destroyed
basically the second example completely inactivates the drop pod ability and making it a useless rule
BetrayTheWorld wrote: This argument was actually started recently in a related thread that I started, positing that the rules for skimmers keep it from mishapping in certain circumstances. The primary argument against it(correct or otherwise) was that deep striking doesn't count as movement until after the deep strike has been completed, nullifying the movement rules when determining scatter. Basically, it was being pointed out that if you consider the movement rules as part of the justification for drop pods avoiding the 1" bubble, then that would invalidate half the people's arguments in the original thread, found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518371.page
I hope that link helps clarify why referring to ANY movement rules in this debate really doesn't clarify the original discussion, unless you're also arguing that skimmers don't mishap. It's a catch 22. People basically can't both include the movement rules when defending the IGS rule, then deny the movement rules when considering whether or not a skimmer mishaps.
Tell me again how you never claimed scattering was movement.
No, rolling the dice doesn't determine "how the run move happens" - it only determines distance.
I wasn't. My position has remained the same. DS is movement, and scatter is simply a mechanic of deep strike. The scatter itself is EXACTLY like rolling dice for any other thing in the game. It's just a dice roll that influences the Deep Strike, which is movement.
Gwan123 wrote: The codex says this
"Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on
top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!)
then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in
order to avoid the obstacle."
Now lets look at it with the 2 examples listed (drop pods don't roll for mishap and the second it does)
no mishap: drop pod lands on a unit doesn't roll or mishap lands
does mishap:drop pod lands on unit as per rules it lands right next to the unit, then roll for mishap and ether the drop pod is placed back in reserve, gets placed somewhere else by the enemy or destroyed
basically the second example completely inactivates the drop pod ability and making it a useless rule
It is a more useful rule than the skimmer rule at present. Even with the IGS not protecting from mishap next to enemy units.
Skimmer rule moves a skimmer off of other models in 1 situation, having the ork grapple gun move it. That's it, tank shock moves other models out from under it, it can't choose to end it's move over other units, it can't randomly drift over other units, nothing. Just 1 situation. So a limited rule on the drop pod that is useful when landing on your own models, or in impassible terrain is already more effective.
As for intent, I believe that both skimmers and drop pods were meant to have protection from mishap on enemy units.
As played, most people say skimmers mishap, and drop pods don't.
megatrons2nd wrote: Skimmer rule moves a skimmer off of other models in 1 situation, having the ork grapple gun move it. That's it, tank shock moves other models out from under it, it can't choose to end it's move over other units, it can't randomly drift over other units, nothing. Just 1 situation.
That is not 100% true, there is more than one situation where the skimmer rule can come into play. The Blood Angel Magna Grapple can move a skimmer over a unit as well. Therefore the assessment that there is "Just 1 situation." is factually incorrect.
Oh, so two whole weapons in the entire game can move it. Yeah, that is so much more useful than not misshaping on your own units or impassible terrain. It is still not as useful as my interpretation of the IGS rule.
Is the Magna Grapple and the Ork Grappler pretty much the same thing? Which means all of 2 weapons can move my skimmer, which still leaves 1 way to do it, Enemy weapon special rule. If they are completely different what manner is it moved?
megatrons2nd wrote: Oh, so two whole weapons in the entire game can move it. Yeah, that is so much more useful than not misshaping on your own units or impassible terrain. It is still not as useful as my interpretation of the IGS rule.
Is the Magna Grapple and the Ork Grappler pretty much the same thing? Which means all of 2 weapons can move my skimmer, which still leaves 1 way to do it, Enemy weapon special rule. If they are completely different what manner is it moved?
They are two totally different things.
The Magna grapple rolls to hit then rolls to pen at Str 8 and work out any damage results. Then you roll a die add the Str of 8 and if the total is higher than the AV the vehicle is moved closer to the BA Dred.
rigeld2 wrote: And a tank shock can absolutely do it - if you're over a unit and get immobilized, you float off.
Nope. The Tank Shock rule moves the unit out from under the tank, not to mention the non tank skimmers. The more Specific Tank Shock (Tank Only) rules take precedence over the Skimmer (General vehicle) rules.
Not to mention that the Drop Pod is at least half the cost of pretty much every the skimmer in the game.
I've not read every post by Betray, but in this thread I did say that scatter was movement in the same way that IGS re-positioning is movement. Many have argued that the IGS cannot place the model within one inch of an enemy model because this placement is a form of movement that you do not have permission to penetrate the one inch bubble around enemy models set up in the movement rules. This idea is flawed. The re-positioning of the drop pod is done by reducing the scatter distance. If the re-positioning is movement then so is the actual scatter. Its actually the same act. If scattering models can never end up within one inch of an enemy model then they can never end up on top of an enemy model. As we have multiple references to that exact possibility in both the codex and the BRB this belief the IGS re positioning is movement must be false. If it is false then the argument that the movement rules prohibit a drop pod from being re-positioned next to an enemy model is also false.
I have been trying to champion two arguments in this thread. One RAW and the other RAI. The RAI argument is the complicated one and it is dependent on the RAW argument.
RAW: The IGS will not reduce the scatter if the pod would end up less then an inch from an enemy model but not right on top of that model. This is black and white to me. The wording of the IGS rule is simple and clear as to when it reduces scatter. Landing near an enemy model is not mentioned at all.
RAI: The word 'obstacle' in the IGS rule must only refer to, in the case of en enemy model, the physical model itself and not any mishap that might be caused by that model. The reasoning here is that the pod will still mishap if lands close to an enemy model and GW probably did not intend for the pod to be in a better position if it had landed right on top of the enemy. It should make no difference. Some argue that reducing the scatter and still misshaping from the proximity to an enemy model 'make this rule useless'. This is not true. In the frame work of this discussion we have only talked about enemy models but this rule also handles impassible terrain and friendly models. In both those situations the rule performs quite well and no conflicts arise. The truth of the mater is that the IGS rule needs an errata. The wording of the rule seems to imply that the pod should never mishap from enemy models. This may have been GW's intent but that is a greater leap of logic then then believing their intent was not to put the DP in a better position then merely scattering close. If they intended the rule to prevent mishaps from enemy models all together then they need to errata the rule to 'trigger' in such a scenario. If they did intend to put the DP in a better position then the rule needs to be clear on what an obstacle is. If they intended it to work exactly as I described then they should replace "another model(friend or foe!)" with "a friendly model"
rigeld2 wrote: And a tank shock can absolutely do it - if you're over a unit and get immobilized, you float off.
Nope. The Tank Shock rule moves the unit out from under the tank, not to mention the non tank skimmers. The more Specific Tank Shock (Tank Only) rules take precedence over the Skimmer (General vehicle) rules.
Not to mention that the Drop Pod is at least half the cost of pretty much every the skimmer in the game.
If a skimmer tank tank shocks a unit that is behind an immobile vehicle, and the tank skimmer stops over the immobile vehicle then the rule will come into play.
rigeld2 wrote: And a tank shock can absolutely do it - if you're over a unit and get immobilized, you float off.
Nope. The Tank Shock rule moves the unit out from under the tank, not to mention the non tank skimmers. The more Specific Tank Shock (Tank Only) rules take precedence over the Skimmer (General vehicle) rules.
Not to mention that the Drop Pod is at least half the cost of pretty much every the skimmer in the game.
If a skimmer tank tank shocks a unit that is behind an immobile vehicle, and the tank skimmer stops over the immobile vehicle then the rule will come into play.
A matter of contention, as tank shocking disallows going over the vehicle, as it must stop 1" away from an intervening vehicle, or friendly unit. As this is still more specific it should stop the moment it reaches the 1" of the enemy vehicle, or be ramming. If you are one who contends that a skimmer may skip over some units please note that it is "units" that must be moved, so the enemy vehicle unit would also move out from under the tank shocking tank skimmer.
DeathReaper wrote: A Skimmer can ignore enemy units when moving. Tank Shock is a move.
Tank shock is a special rule that includes moving.
"To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the spot to face the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move," P. 85
DeathReaper wrote: A Skimmer can ignore enemy units when moving. Tank Shock is a move.
Tank shock is a special rule that includes moving.
"To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the spot to face the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move," P. 85
Emphasis mine.
Page 83 "Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either."
And "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."
Page 10 "A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the assault phase."
So following the rules for movement and Skimmers we place the skimmer 1" away from the enemy model. No conflict or grey area really.
Okay, lets look at it this way. A 20 ton steel pear shaped thing is falling from space, leaving a trail of smoke behind it. It is going to land on you, but it's trusters kick in to move it just shy of smashing you into a pancake...do you stand there? And do you think landing on one IG or Eldar warrior will cause that 20 ton pear shaped ball of death from landing correctly?
Take it for how it is. The system kicks in to stop you from crashing, and moves you to just enough to avoid having some sort of mishap.
After some point I left the thread, thinking all necessary arguments were already made, and arguing further was pointless.
However, sheer amount of wrong understanding of rules on last few pages makes it necessary to correct it.
So. How Deep Strike rules and basic movement rules work.
Quite simply, really.
1) Deep Strike is a special kind of movement, that uses scatter to determine position in which model(s) is to be deployed
2) It does not override, in any way, basic rules of 1'' from enemy model being a forbidden zone
3) This can create a situation where you must place model in certain place (after determining its position via scatter roll and after applying all rules related to it, such as IGS) but you are forbidden from doing so by basic movement rules
In that situation there is one thing you cannot do - and it is deploy the model.
4) This special situation is described separately in the section Deep Strike Mishaps of the Deep Strike rule. It is spelled out. It goes like "if for some reason the model cannot be deployed" yadda yadda. In there we have precise instruction on what to do, that is, roll on mishap table and apply the result.
To reiterate.
Scatter is not movement, it is the mechanism of determining the final position of deep striking model(s). Deep Strike is movement.
If the model is not deployed on table, movement does not occur.
Deep Strike does not override restrictions laid out in basic movement rules in any way, but is written with following them to the letter in mind.
You skipped IGS trigger, but let's put this aside. Let's also put aside the whole substituting reduction of scatter distance to moving from illegal position (presumable in any way one wants).
For normally deep striking units an obstacle is within 1" of an enemy model, landing this close will trigger a deep strike mishap.
How do you define obstacle?
If it is something that causes Drop Pod to mishap, then why off-board is not an "obstacle that is to be avoided", according to FAQ?
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.
The "obstacle" encompasses both impassible terrain and other models... In order to avoid the other models (friend or foe!), reduce scatter the minimum distance.. Which includes the 1" bubble... Otherwise you haven't avoided the obstacle have you?!
Yes you have. You just have not avoided the mishap, which is RAW.
By moving an additional 1" away you are adding a move that in every other case you do not do. You do not move outside 1" of friendly models, board edges, or impassible terrain. So there is no basis to add an additional 1" when avoiding enemy models.
NecronLord3 wrote: Yes you have. You just have not avoided the mishap, which is RAW.
By moving an additional 1" away you are adding a move that in every other case you do not do. You do not move outside 1" of friendly models, board edges, or impassible terrain. So there is no basis to add an additional 1" when avoiding enemy models.
No you have not, as obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" From the Oxford dictionary. The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units.
RAW tells us to avoid the obstacle, if you do not avoid the obstacle when dealing with an enemy unit you have not followed the rules. this is RAW.
The basis is you need to avoid the obstacle, which you have not done unless you move an additional 1" away from an enemy unit.
NecronLord3 wrote: Yes you have. You just have not avoided the mishap, which is RAW.
By moving an additional 1" away you are adding a move that in every other case you do not do. You do not move outside 1" of friendly models, board edges, or impassible terrain. So there is no basis to add an additional 1" when avoiding enemy models.
No you have not, as obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" From the Oxford dictionary. The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units.
RAW tells us to avoid the obstacle, if you do not avoid the obstacle when dealing with an enemy unit you have not followed the rules. this is RAW.
The basis is you need to avoid the obstacle, which you have not done unless you move an additional 1" away from an enemy unit.
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
Yes but being instructed to move outside of 1" or a rule stating to avoid mishap are defined in rules. They are not defined in the context of IGS. That is RAW.
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
The underscore definitely applies to this situation. Some in this thread are using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner. so rule 6 does not apply.
The drop pod rule specifies the obstacles, they are enemy models and impassible terrain. That is the qualifier used in the rule, thus the obstacle has been defined as being these two items, nothing more.
Using the dictionary definition would include table edges, as that is an obstacle by the dictionary definition.
The Deep Strike rules for mishaps include a section defining what causes a mishap, and of these items, the 1" bubble is defined separately, so should be considered separate items when used with other rules.
The obstacle word is not being misused in an obvious manner, it is being used in the context of the rule provided, and some are expanding it marginally to include more than what is specified in the rule, but then go back on their definition the moment someone points out that the Board edge is an obstacle by the dictionary definition provided.
Basically, the definition is being used elastically, to expand beyond the defined model and impassible terrain, but not to include board edges. If used as defined than board edges are included. If used in the context of the rule, the 1" bubble is not included.
NecronLord3 wrote: I am not, and your definition was done in a direct reply to me.
So define Obstacle then.
If yours falls in line with the Dictionary definition of a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress then there is no issue.
If you definition is incorrect in a very obvious manner, then there is an issue.
landing within 1 inch of an enemy model is definitely something that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress.
it does not. You can avoid the obstacle. You have no permission whatsoever to avoid the mishap. RAW
Only if you use obstacle "incorrectly in a very obvious manner" do you not avoid the mishap for landing near an enemy unit.
Therefore rule 6 does not apply in this situation as some are using obstacle "incorrectly in a very obvious manner"
In the case of an enemy unit the 'landing within 1 inch' is most definitely something that that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress as that is what Obstacle means.
megatrons2nd wrote: So you are saying that drop pods ignore missing the table. If you are not you are using obstacle incorrectly.
Please do not misrepresent my position.
Not in context of the sentence, since the sentence mentions two things, then the IGS rule only kicks in when scattering into those two things. It seems like context actually matters.
And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.
grendel083 wrote: If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.
Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean. The dictionary definition of the word is useful in these situations but is not the only information we must consult. The context of the words use is also important as is the contextual use of the word in similar writings. The English rules of grammar also way in on the subject but in the end it is a judgment call and as a result is merely an opinion and cannot possibly be correct or incorrect. That's why we have the most important rule.
In this case, obstacle is not defined and its contextual use has resulted to two polarizing different opinions. The only way for us to know what obstacle mean is for games workshop to define it for us through an faq or errata. This is a discussion what is the more reasonable opinion and why.
megatrons2nd wrote: And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.
Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.
In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.
The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.
an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path
That's from merriam-webster so a valid definition. Did you miss the second part of my definition? Is being within 1" of the model having it block your path?
megatrons2nd wrote: And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.
Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.
In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.
The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.
in the context of the IGS rule an obstacle cannot be "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" as this definition to broad and/or vague. Here is an example (pictured attached but not drawn to scale. Important distances are noted.) A Salamanders drop pod wants to land on the other side of a lake of lava (lava in this game is lethal terrain) from some thousand sons. The sally player places his drop pod as indicated in the picture and rolls for scatter. To his dismay the drop pod scatters 6 inches over the lava and right on top of an enemy unit. With the oxford definition you have provided we must reduce the scatter to avoid anything (other then the table edge) that hinders progress. A pool of lethal lava hinders progress so we reduce the scatter all the way down to zero. Clearly this was not the intent of the IGS rule.
Gravmyr wrote: Did you miss the definition I quoted above?
an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path
That's from merriam-webster so a valid definition. Did you miss the second part of my definition? Is being within 1" of the model having it block your path?
We can evaluate one dictionary definition. Since these books are publish in the UK we should be using the most authoritative UK dictionary. I do not believe merriam-webster counts.
megatrons2nd wrote: And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.
Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.
In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.
The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.
With the oxford definition you have provided we must reduce the scatter to avoid anything (other then the table edge) that hinders progress. A pool of lethal lava hinders progress so we reduce the scatter all the way down to zero. Clearly this was not the intent of the IGS rule.
Not true, as in context, the obstacle can only be applied to Units or Impassible terrain, not lethal terrain.
Gravmyr wrote: Did you miss the definition I quoted above?
an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path
That's from merriam-webster so a valid definition. Did you miss the second part of my definition? Is being within 1" of the model having it block your path?
We can evaluate one dictionary definition. Since these books are publish in the UK we should be using the most authoritative UK dictionary. I do not believe merriam-webster counts.
That is why I posted the Oxford English version instead of the american english definition.
megatrons2nd wrote: And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.
Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.
In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.
The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.
With the oxford definition you have provided we must reduce the scatter to avoid anything (other then the table edge) that hinders progress. A pool of lethal lava hinders progress so we reduce the scatter all the way down to zero. Clearly this was not the intent of the IGS rule.
Not true, as in context, the obstacle can only be applied to Units or Impassible terrain, not lethal terrain.
Why? How is lethal terrain any less in context then the single inch bubble. Neither are directly mentioned by the rule.
DJGietzen wrote: Why? How is lethal terrain any less in context then the single inch bubble. Neither are directly mentioned by the rule.
Because the rule says "Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." P.32 BA codex
You are required to avoid the obstacle in which situations?
When the Drop Pod scatters on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!). That is the only time you are told to avoid the obstacle, so Lava does not count unless you ignore what the rule actually says.
grendel083 wrote: If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.
Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean.
Short of asking the author there's no way to know the intention. Trying to base a ruling on what you think the intention is (RAI) is all very good, but not everyone will agree with your interpretation.
You could also assume that the author meant the word he used to mean the word he used (hence why there was no rulebook definition). So a dictionary definition would be appropriate.
If the author meant "obstacle" to mean something other than obstacle, how would you suggest we determine what was intended?
grendel083 wrote: If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.
Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean.
Short of asking the author there's no way to know the intention. Trying to base a ruling on what you think the intention is (RAI) is all very good, but not everyone will agree with your interpretation.
You could also assume that the author meant the word he used to mean the word he used (hence why there was no rulebook definition). So a dictionary definition would be appropriate.
If the author meant "obstacle" to mean something other than obstacle, how would you suggest we determine what was intended?
With the rest of the post you did not quote. I did not say we cannot use the dictionary definition. I just said that we 'must' is an incorrect statement.
DJGietzen wrote: Why? How is lethal terrain any less in context then the single inch bubble. Neither are directly mentioned by the rule.
Because the rule says "Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." P.32 BA codex
You are required to avoid the obstacle in which situations?
When the Drop Pod scatters on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!). That is the only time you are told to avoid the obstacle, so Lava does not count unless you ignore what the rule actually says.
In my example the drop pod scattered over an enemy model. The IGS rule is now actively reducing the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle. Now remember, my example is ONLY meant to point out that the oxford definition of obstacle is unsuitable for the IGS rule. The argument present to me is that the 1 inch bubble around an enemy model while not the object that caused the scatter reduction, is still an obstacle because it hinders the progress of the drop pod. Lethal terrain does not cause the drop pod to mishap, but does certainly hinder its progress (because it will destroy the drop pod) would also be an obstacle under the oxford definition and if the argument presented to me is correct will also be avoided during the scatter reduction. Since no one can agree this is proper the use of the oxford definition of obstacle in relation to the IGS rule is clearly a mistake.
grendel083 wrote: If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.
Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean.
Short of asking the author there's no way to know the intention. Trying to base a ruling on what you think the intention is (RAI) is all very good, but not everyone will agree with your interpretation.
You could also assume that the author meant the word he used to mean the word he used (hence why there was no rulebook definition). So a dictionary definition would be appropriate.
If the author meant "obstacle" to mean something other than obstacle, how would you suggest we determine what was intended?
IMO your argument takes nit-picking to an extreme and I find it grossly absurd. As 'the obstacle' is not defined by the rule, only specifying which obstacle (the one you landed on) it must be applied to it's fullest which would include every manner of obstacle the enemy model presents. After all is said and done if you misshaped because of an enemy model it cannot be said you avoided it as it as an obstacle. That the qualifier for the rule(landing on the model) to be triggered is more specific than the obstacle presented by an enemy model (within 1" of the enemy model) does not mean the effect is limited to only that which triggers the rule and further more, to believe it does is a baseless assumption lacking any support from the text. I've now read 8 pages of misappropriated connections and 'we don't know what they meant by obstacle'.... well they could have meant pink fairies but unless they say that somehow we have to presume it as the common meaning of the term which would indicate any difficulty or hindrance caused by the enemy model that would interfere with the progress of the DS is to be avoided by shortening the scatter distance the minimum length required to do so.
megatrons2nd wrote: And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.
Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.
In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.
The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.
I understand what obstacle means, I also understand English sentence structure. The obstacle is not all obstacles. So if you avoid the obstacle, which is the enemy model, you have satisfied the rule. Adding the 1" bubble goes beyond what the rule allows, as it is a not covered obstacle. As you have pointed out the rule only covers friendly and enemy models, and impassible terrain. It does not say and 1" from enemy models. Which is a separate obstacle. The rule ends the moment it has missed the obstacle of the model. The board edge, lava and the 1" bubble are all obstacles by the dictionary definition, yet you seem to add one of the three, and disallow the other two.
You have only proven that "obstacle" covers more items than the rule allows for, nothing more.
grendel083 wrote: If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.
Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean.
Short of asking the author there's no way to know the intention. Trying to base a ruling on what you think the intention is (RAI) is all very good, but not everyone will agree with your interpretation.
You could also assume that the author meant the word he used to mean the word he used (hence why there was no rulebook definition). So a dictionary definition would be appropriate.
If the author meant "obstacle" to mean something other than obstacle, how would you suggest we determine what was intended?
IMO your argument takes nit-picking to an extreme and I find it grossly absurd. As 'the obstacle' is not defined by the rule, only specifying which obstacle (the one you landed on) it must be applied to it's fullest which would include every manner of obstacle the enemy model presents. After all is said and done if you misshaped because of an enemy model it cannot be said you avoided it as it as an obstacle. That the qualifier for the rule(landing on the model) to be triggered is more specific than the obstacle presented by an enemy model (within 1" of the enemy model) does not mean the effect is limited to only that which triggers the rule and further more, to believe it does is a baseless assumption lacking any support from the text. I've now read 8 pages of misappropriated connections and 'we don't know what they meant by obstacle'.... well they could have meant pink fairies but unless they say that somehow we have to presume it as the common meaning of the term which would indicate any difficulty or hindrance caused by the enemy model that would interfere with the progress of the DS is to be avoided by shortening the scatter distance the minimum length required to do so.
Grossly absurd? That's strange as my argument is strangely similar to yours.
Obstacle isn't defined in the rules, so use the standard meaning. A hindrance. I would count the model and it's 1" effect as an obstacle.
megatrons2nd wrote: And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.
Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.
In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.
The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.
I understand what obstacle means, I also understand English sentence structure. The obstacle is not all obstacles. So if you avoid Utheu obstacle, which is the enemy model, you have satisfied the rule. Adding the 1" bubble goes beyond what the rule allows, as it is a not covered obstacle. As you have pointed out the rule only covers friendly and enemy models, and impassible terrain. It does not say and 1" from enemy models. Which is a separate obstacle. The rule ends the moment it has missed Uthe obstacleu of the model. The board edge, lava and the 1" bubble are all obstacles by the dictionary definition, yet you seem to add one of the three, and disallow the other two.
You have only proven that "obstacle" covers more items than the rule allows for, nothing more.
One of those three is added because it is inherent to the enemy model and therefore a part of the obstacle you are told to avoid. IE:
1. You are told to get to the other side of a clearing and avoid an obstacle, in this case a wall(impassable terrain). You walk around the wall. Easy. The wall has no way to hinder your progress if you don't run into it.
2 You are told to get to the other side of a clearing and avoid an obstacle, in this case a machine gun nest. You go a long way around because this obstacle can hinder your progress at a distance even though it is not larger than the other.
As you claim to understand English you should know that an obstacle is not limited to something physically in the way.
DJGietzen wrote: In my example the drop pod scattered over an enemy model. The IGS rule is now actively reducing the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle.
Which, in the context of the IGS rule, is only the enemy models (Which includes anything linked to the enemy models) and Impassible terrain.
Now remember, my example is ONLY meant to point out that the oxford definition of obstacle is unsuitable for the IGS rule.
It is not unsuitable, as your example ignores context.
The argument present to me is that the 1 inch bubble around an enemy model while not the object that caused the scatter reduction, is still an obstacle because it hinders the progress of the drop pod. Lethal terrain does not cause the drop pod to mishap, but does certainly hinder its progress (because it will destroy the drop pod) would also be an obstacle under the oxford definition and if the argument presented to me is correct will also be avoided during the scatter reduction. Since no one can agree this is proper the use of the oxford definition of obstacle in relation to the IGS rule is clearly a mistake.
Again do not ignore context. If you do then your situation viable, but if you do not ignore context your situation is not viable.
megatrons2nd wrote: I understand what obstacle means, I also understand English sentence structure. The obstacle is not all obstacles. So if you avoid the obstacle, which is the enemy model, you have satisfied the rule.
So what happens, since the is singular, if you land partially on a model and partially on Impassible terrain?
The obstacle has to be anything that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. When looking at enemy models the can't land within 1 inch does in fact block one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. Therefore it has to be included.
I haven't ignored any context. Landing on an enemy will cause a mishap. Landing next to an enemy model will also cause a mishap. Landing on lethal terrain will cause the drop pod to be destroyed. Only the 1st is prohibited by the IGS rule.All three hinder progress. The 1st and the second cannot be the same obstacle because the 1st is prohibited by the IGS rule and the 2nd is permitted. If we presume the IGS will will treat the 2nd additional obstacle as something we must also avoid while we are reducing scatter because it 'hinders progress' then we must also conclude the 3rd is such an obstacle as well.
As a result something that is hindering progress is not a sufficient definition.
DJGietzen wrote: Landing next to an enemy model will also cause a mishap.
This is an obstacle, in the context of the IGS rule, as the context deals with models and impassible terrain. This is something that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress in relation to the unit. therefore Obstacle is the correct context.
Landing on lethal terrain will cause the drop pod to be destroyed.
Which is not a model or Impassible terrain, therefore context dictated you do not reduce scatter to avoid this.
You are adding an additional rule by moving outside of 1" that does not apply to any situation other than scattering into enemy models. This is not backed by any rule whatsoever.
GW more clearly defined this type of rule that you are implying and/or are assuming to be intended. It was very clearly written in that way under the Monolith Deep Strike Rules in the 3rd edition Necron Codex. GW choose not to word IGS in this manner. It is not RAW and incorrect to assume the GW intended it to work in such away, when they have proven an example in the past of more specific wording different from that used in IGS.
Your interpretation may very well be RAI, it is not however RAW and until clarified by an FAQ, should be treated in such a manner.
megatrons2nd wrote: I understand what obstacle means, I also understand English sentence structure. The obstacle is not all obstacles. So if you avoid the obstacle, which is the enemy model, you have satisfied the rule.
So what happens, since the is singular, if you land partially on a model and partially on Impassible terrain?
The obstacle has to be anything that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. When looking at enemy models the can't land within 1 inch does in fact block one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. Therefore it has to be included.
Since the 1" bubble is a separate obstacle in the Deep Strike rule, then it is a separate item. There is no "link" to it. As to partially on 2 effected items the rule would kick in, as it covers both instances. How would you do it if it was partially off the board and partially on a friendly model? I'm betting you would choose to use IGS to move off the model, thus saving you from misshaping off the board, as would I as it had a situation happen that activates the rule.
OK I call shenanigans yet again. Nothing on the list as presented causes a mishap. Only one thing does. Not being able to deploy. You are then told what stops DS from allowing you to deploy. The Mishap is not a cause of anything it is a result of failure to deploy. There is a difference. The Mishap should never even be brought up in this discussion. If you want to say failure to deploy then fine but the mishap doesn't cause you a hindrance nor is it an obstacle, it is a result. Saying a mishap is an obstacle is like saying the resulting explosion is a hindrance not the object you just ran into.
Call what you like. You are trying to claim that the obstacle causing the mishap is NOT the obstacle causing the mishap, but something else entirely. WHen they arent. The 1" bubble IS the same obstacle as the enemy model, as they are intrinsically linked.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Call what you like. You are trying to claim that the obstacle causing the mishap is NOT the obstacle causing the mishap, but something else entirely. WHen they arent. The 1" bubble IS the same obstacle as the enemy model, as they are intrinsically linked.
They are not, as you can satisfy the rule for IGS and still mishap.
The mishap rule has the 1" from the model separate from the model. As the rule in question has it as a separate entity then it is a separate entity, and not part of the model.
I wonder what would happen if a Drop Pod scattered right on top of some Grey Knights utilizing Warp Quake... would the IGS simply reduce the scatter by the 12" necessary to avoid the mishap then? After all, it's an obstacle.
Or maybe this breaks the IGS rule with the "obstacle is anything that hinders progress" interpretation.
azazel the cat wrote: I wonder what would happen if a Drop Pod scattered right on top of some Grey Knights utilizing Warp Quake... would the IGS simply reduce the scatter by the 12" necessary to avoid the mishap then? After all, it's an obstacle.
Or maybe this breaks the IGS rule with the "obstacle is anything that hinders progress" interpretation.
By RAW absolutely not. As it is not included in the IGS. By the way others are arguing it here on Dakka it would have to, as well.
azazel the cat wrote: I wonder what would happen if a Drop Pod scattered right on top of some Grey Knights utilizing Warp Quake... would the IGS simply reduce the scatter by the 12" necessary to avoid the mishap then? After all, it's an obstacle.
Or maybe this breaks the IGS rule with the "obstacle is anything that hinders progress" interpretation.
]
This is not possible, as scatter can only be at max 12 inches. To scatter into warp quake and land over a unit means that the Drop Pod was initially placed in the warp quake, and would mishap as IGS only reduces scatter.
azazel the cat wrote: I wonder what would happen if a Drop Pod scattered right on top of some Grey Knights utilizing Warp Quake... would the IGS simply reduce the scatter by the 12" necessary to avoid the mishap then? After all, it's an obstacle.
Or maybe this breaks the IGS rule with the "obstacle is anything that hinders progress" interpretation.
]
This is not possible, as scatter can only be at max 12 inches. To scatter into warp quake and land over a unit means that the Drop Pod was initially placed in the warp quake, and would mishap as IGS only reduces scatter.
So then if it scattered 11" into a warp quake zone, do you contend that the IGS would reduce that scatter and prevent the mishap?
With Warp Quake, you'd move as per the BRB would require it, by not existing in a 1" bubble around enemies, but then special codex rules would take precedent. The Warp Quake rules don't allow you to exist within 1", but then they override the standard mishap rules. It's codex trumping codex trumping BRB.
TheKbob wrote:With Warp Quake, you'd move as per the BRB would require it, by not existing in a 1" bubble around enemies, but then special codex rules would take precedent. The Warp Quake rules don't allow you to exist within 1", but then they override the standard mishap rules. It's codex trumping codex trumping BRB.
Standard situation.
Either I read that wrong or you missed the context:
Deathreaper's overly broad interpretation of "obstacle" implies that IGS should reduce the scatter of the DP in order to avoid the mishap, not just the physical obstacle. So then with his reasoning, it should follow that IGS should reduce the scatter on the DP in order to land outside of the Warp Quake bubble, or else it has not avoided the mishap, which Deathreaper considers to be an obstacle.
azazel the cat wrote: Deathreaper's overly broad interpretation of "obstacle" implies that IGS should reduce the scatter of the DP in order to avoid the mishap, not just the physical obstacle.
Only when the mishap is caused by being within 1 inch of a model.
So then with his reasoning, it should follow that IGS should reduce the scatter on the DP in order to land outside of the Warp Quake bubble, or else it has not avoided the mishap, which Deathreaper considers to be an obstacle.
Not at all. Do not ignore the context of the IGS rule. Warp Quake is a psychic power, not impassible terrain or a model.
IGS only reduces scatter if you scatter onto Impassible terrain or a model.
Scattering into a Warp Quake is neither impassible terrain or a model so you can scatter freely into Warp quake and it will cause a Drop pos to mishap.
It's the same thing you are arguing with the 1" bubble.
You can't have it both ways. Your argument is that save for drifting off the boards drop pods are immune to mishap, which is false. If you start making exceptions for situations like wrap quake you are ignoring the 1" rule from the brb.
Sounds like the same old Dakka arguments. Argue to you are blue in the face even when you are shown examples that you are wrong until GWFAQs one way or the other.
azazel the cat wrote: Deathreaper's overly broad interpretation of "obstacle" implies that IGS should reduce the scatter of the DP in order to avoid the mishap, not just the physical obstacle.
Only when the mishap is caused by being within 1 inch of a model.
So then with his reasoning, it should follow that IGS should reduce the scatter on the DP in order to land outside of the Warp Quake bubble, or else it has not avoided the mishap, which Deathreaper considers to be an obstacle.
Not at all. Do not ignore the context of the IGS rule. Warp Quake is a psychic power, not impassible terrain or a model.
IGS only reduces scatter if you scatter onto Impassible terrain or a model.
Scattering into a Warp Quake is neither impassible terrain or a model so you can scatter freely into Warp quake and it will cause a Drop pos to mishap.
Not the same situation at all.
It actually is:
1. IGS states that you move the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle.
2. the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle will place the DP immediately beside the obstacle.
3. If the obstacle is an enemy unit, then the DP will be within 1" and will mishap
4. You claim "obstacle" refers to "anything that hinders or impedes progress" and because a mishap hinders or impedes progress, the DP moves the extra 1" to avoid the mishap.
5. Warp Quake effectively extends that 1" bubble to 12".
6. Therefore, according to the reasoning in #4, the IGS rule will cause the DP to reduce scatter such that the DP does not land within the Warp Quake bubble.
It's both or none; you don't get to cherrypick. The problem is...
if the scatter is less than the necessary amount to be reducsed so that the landing spot is outside of the Warp Quake bubble (as in, the player tried to deploy the DP within that bubble), then the rule breaks itself.
Therefore, if it has to be a choice between both or none, and both breaks the game, the answer must be none: the IGS rule does not give you the extra 1" needed to avoid the mishap according to RAW.
I stated quite clearly how they are still affected by warp quake.
You HAVE to stay 1" away from models per BRB and couple that with IGS and avoiding that specific obstacle, you do so. Then, you kick in Codex: Grey Knight rules. They make the area 1" to 12" away an automishap, not accounted for in Codex: Space Marines IGS rules.
Thus, Codex: GK > Codex: SM (or like) > BRB.
Easy path of logic to follow. You're all really trying WAY too hard to go against an extremely well established grain. Again, when have you ever seen anyone NOT playing it as such? Ever? I'll restate that I have played in tournaments from local to grand tournaments and this has never been addressed in any sort of FAQ or dispute between players/TO.
It really is a non-issue. The small sticking point of landing a drop pod within 1" but not striking any models is so rare that at that point, dice off? I still think IGS would protect them.
couple that with IGS and avoiding that specific obstacle
Stopped reading after that.
Nothing in in IGS mentions that specific obstacle. Several specific obstacles are mentioned, but not 1''.
To include 1'' in obstacles that IGS applies to, one must introduce the notion of some all-encompassing obstacle, that covers thins not mentioned in IGS.
azazel the cat wrote: 4. You claim "obstacle" refers to "anything that hinders or impedes progress" and because a mishap hinders or impedes progress, the DP moves the extra 1" to avoid the mishap.
This is true, but only in the context of landing on a model or impassible terrain.
Azazel - you continally misrepresent this argument, and did so in the other thread
The claim is not, as you state "4. You claim "obstacle" refers to "anything that hinders or impedes progress" and because a mishap hinders or impedes progress, the DP moves the extra 1" to avoid the mishap. "
The claim i that the "Obstacle" is related to the enemy model / impassable terrain. Not ANY possible obstacle.
Please correct your error, as you have been asked to in previous threads
azazel the cat wrote: 4. You claim "obstacle" refers to "anything that hinders or impedes progress" and because a mishap hinders or impedes progress, the DP moves the extra 1" to avoid the mishap.
This is true, but only in the context of landing on a model or impassible terrain.
Warp Quake is neither of these.
Yeah, that's cherrypicking. I'm afraid that doesn't work. You don't get to be the arbiter to decide when your rule applies according to your whims. So sorry.
If you mean cherry picking, it seems that you agree that IGS rules tell to cherry pick "on top of model (friendly or enemy)" from causes of mishap, but do not pick "in 1'' distance from enemy model" as the obstacles that need to be avoided, yes?
No, it tells you that Enemy models are an obstacle, that causes a mishap. This obstacle must include the 1" field around the enemy model, as the two are instrinsically linked - the 1" only exists because of te enemy model.
Saying they arent linked is a very, very odd argument to make.
Is being within 1" of an friendly or enemy model being on top of a friendly or enemy model? No. Does the rule cover being within 1" of an enemy model? No. The Cherry picking is expanding the rule to include 1" of an enemy model, as an obstacle, and excluding other obstacles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, it tells you that Enemy models are an obstacle, that causes a mishap. This obstacle must include the 1" field around the enemy model, as the two are instrinsically linked - the 1" only exists because of te enemy model.
Saying they arent linked is a very, very odd argument to make.
They may be symbiotic, but they are separated in the deep strike mishap rule, so must be treated as separate entities when applied to other rules.
Except when you are told that an enemy model represents an obstacle, as that enemy model has more than just the "on top" of them that "impedes progress"
The 1" bubble absolutely 100% fulfils the requirements to be an obstacle presented by an enemy model. Do you have a rules argument otherwise? Because the language the game is written in supports the inclusion of the 1" bubble.
Slippery slope fallacies, like azazels, can be ignored.
Black Templar Codex pg. 22:
If this movement (2D6”scatter) would take it into impassable terrain or within 1” of an enemy model, reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them.
Seems clear to me what the RAI for drop pods in Codex Space Marines are.
Frank&Stein wrote: Black Templar Codex pg. 22:
If this movement (2D6”scatter) would take it into impassable terrain or within 1” of an enemy model, reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them.
Seems clear to me what the RAI is for Codex Space Marines is.
And the change, via FAQ:
Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of
impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe) then
reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order
to avoid the obstacle. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the
edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike Mishap as
per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.”
when you are told that an enemy model represents an obstacle
In the IGS you are told that top of the model (friendly or enemy) represents an obstacle, though. Not quite exactly what you are telling.
When you substitute the rule phrases with your own, you may easily derive conclusions you want. Let us not engage in that activity.
This obstacle must include the 1" field around the enemy model, as the two are instrinsically linked - the 1" only exists because of the enemy model.
They are linked, yes. But they are distinct as well. There are situations in which model moves into 1'' area of enemy model, but never on top of enemy model (disregarding wrecked vehicles as they aren't counted as models anymore). A mathematition would say that places on top of the model are subset of places within 1'' of it, but not the other way around and thus they are not equivalent.
Frank&Stein wrote: Black Templar Codex pg. 22:
If this movement (2D6”scatter) would take it into impassable terrain or within 1” of an enemy model, reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them.
Seems clear to me what the RAI is for Codex Space Marines is.
And the change, via FAQ:
Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of
impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe) then
reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order
to avoid the obstacle. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the
edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike Mishap as
per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.”
Main reason to FAQ that particular rule was that it did not have a contingency for when you landed on your own troops, hence the change to: another model (friend or foe). It does not change the fact that the 1” rule was part of the ‘obstacle’ from the get go.
JJust because GW, in their attempt to fix an oversight in their rules did more harm than good does not change the initial intent of the rules.
Not so, as they managed to omit that rule - they have stated you cannot move through other units, but only as a rule in the ASsault section. Bit of a mess.
The problem is, the sentence structure itself defines what an obstacle is, and that doesn't include the 1" bubble.
If I were to say, "We are having a race. You must stay on the track. Occasionally, there will be a road block. When there is a road block, you may avoid the obstacle by going around it on the track."
This says nothing about being able to leave the track, or drive off the track to avoid spike strips. The word "obstacle" is specifically referring to the road block, and nothing else. Spike strips next to a road block would be the equivalent to the 1" bubble. You have permission to avoid the road block, but not the spike strips. Same with the 1" bubble.
RAI? Probably not. But it is current RAW. If you added the 1" bubble for IGS, you'd basically have to assume that skimmers would get the 1" bubble as well, but that's another debate. Neither one says that.
BetrayTheWorld wrote: The problem is, the sentence structure itself defines what an obstacle is, and that doesn't include the 1" bubble.
This is not at all true.
As nos correctly stated:
nosferatu1001 wrote: you are told that an enemy model represents an obstacle, as that enemy model has more than just the "on top" of them that "impedes progress"
The 1" bubble absolutely 100% fulfils the requirements to be an obstacle presented by an enemy model. Do you have a rules argument otherwise? Because the language the game is written in supports the inclusion of the 1" bubble.
Betray - it specifically states the enemy model is an obstacle. An enemy model impedes progress in 2 ways - one by directly landing on top, and the other by landing within 1". You are artificially limiting the rules text by stating only the former is the obstacle, when this is not supportd by the language the game is written in.
To correct your imprecision: the rules text does not "define" obstacle, but it sels the context that Obstacles are considered in- those Obstacles derived from enemy,friendly and impassable terrain.
Bausk wrote: Deepstriking is a form of movement, following both the drop pods rules and the rules for movement you would need to place the drop pod out side of an inch. Simple.
Except that Deepstriking is not a form of movement, it is a form of deployment. Deepstriking only occurs when moving units from off board to on board. As such it precedes the movement phase and is not part of it. There are a few limited examples of movement mechanics that work like Deepstriking and they are specifically referred to, i.e. Gate of Infinity, The Summoning.
I do agree however that the Inirtial Guidance System prevents the Drop Pod from a mishap deployment by stopping the Pod 1 inch from an enemy unit or impassable terrain. It is possible to deploy into difficult terrain and would neccessitate a dangerous terrain check in that instance.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - well, you do when that is what the rule says. Shocked you keep missing that.
The 1" extra is entirely based on the definition of "obstacle" as being "anything that hinders or impedes progress". Please tell me how to use that stupidly-broad definition in such a way that it gives you 1" from an enemy model, but not 12" from a Warp Quake libby.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except when you are told that an enemy model represents an obstacle, as that enemy model has more than just the "on top" of them that "impedes progress"
The 1" bubble absolutely 100% fulfils the requirements to be an obstacle presented by an enemy model. Do you have a rules argument otherwise? Because the language the game is written in supports the inclusion of the 1" bubble.
Slippery slope fallacies, like azazels, can be ignored.
Oh, great. You don't know what a slippery slope is.
My situation is an actual, in-game situation, that causes a rule to break due to your RAI argument, which on its face, invalidates your interpretation.
Azazel - because Warp Quake has nothing to do with the enemy models mishap, but a psychic power from that enemy model. Your failure to use context isnt our issue here, but yours.
No, I know what a slippery slope is. You're changing the argument to bring in a slope of other things that it "breaks" You did this in the other thread as well.
If you avoid altering peoples arguments you can avoid your fallacies. That would be a start.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - because Warp Quake has nothing to do with the enemy models mishap, but a psychic power from that enemy model. Your failure to use context isnt our issue here, but yours.
No, I know what a slippery slope is. You're changing the argument to bring in a slope of other things that it "breaks" You did this in the other thread as well.
If you avoid altering peoples arguments you can avoid your fallacies. That would be a start.
Deathreaper's argument is this: "the definition of obstacle is 'anything that hinders or impedes advancement', a a mishap qualifies as such, therefore IGS moves the extra 1" to prevent the mishap"
And my argument is this: "that interpretation of 'obstacle' is far too broad, because using that definition consistently treats the mishap caused by Warp Quake as an obstacle, therefore IGS moves to avoid the Warp Quake bubble"
You need an extreme level of cognitive dissonance to claim one but not the other.
EDIT: if the language in the game supports 1", then it also supports 12" when Warp Quake is in effect. RAW.
Deathreaper's argument is this: "the definition of obstacle is 'anything that hinders or impedes advancement', a a mishap qualifies as such, therefore IGS moves the extra 1" to prevent the mishap"
Why do people keep doing this?
Please stop misrepresenting me and retract that statement.
This is not my argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Your view of my argument ignores context. my argument does not ignore context.
it specifically states the enemy model is an obstacle
You keep saying this. But that's not how it is Specifically, droppod landing on top of model (friendly or enemy!) is mentioned, which isn't how you describe it at all. In fact, enemy models are mentioned in the rule only as throwaway clarification, and the rule would function exactly the same if (friendly or enemy!) clarifier was not included.
Deathreaper's argument is this:
"the definition of obstacle is 'anything that hinders or impedes advancement', a a mishap qualifies as such, therefore IGS moves the extra 1" to prevent the mishap"
Why do people keep doing this?
Please stop misrepresenting me and retract that statement.
This is not my argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Your view of my argument ignores context. my argument does not ignore context.
Thanks.
Would it be more accurate to say your argument is "Any object of effect emanating from impassible terrain or another model (friend or foe!) that hinders progress is an obstacle." ?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Or option X, the rules work perfectly well, as "Obstacle" is made equivalent to Mishap, as that is what it is telling you you are avoiding.
Maybe it would be easier if you both stopped using mishap.
Deathreaper's argument is this: "the definition of obstacle is 'anything that hinders or impedes advancement', a a mishap qualifies as such, therefore IGS moves the extra 1" to prevent the mishap"
Why do people keep doing this?
Please stop misrepresenting me and retract that statement.
This is not my argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Your view of my argument ignores context. my argument does not ignore context.
Thanks.
I'd rather double down, thanks:
Deathreaper wrote:No you have not, as obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" From the Oxford dictionary. The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units.
RAW tells us to avoid the obstacle, if you do not avoid the obstacle when dealing with an enemy unit you have not followed the rules. this is RAW.
The basis is you need to avoid the obstacle, which you have not done unless you move an additional 1" away from an enemy unit
Deathreaper wrote:Only if you use obstacle "incorrectly in a very obvious manner" do you not avoid the mishap for landing near an enemy unit.
Therefore rule 6 does not apply in this situation as some are using obstacle "incorrectly in a very obvious manner"
In the case of an enemy unit the 'landing within 1 inch' is most definitely something that that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress as that is what Obstacle means.
Azazel - nope, you still owe DR an apology as despite going to all the effort to find the posts, you still didnt bother to read them
"when dealing with an enemy unit", from the very first quote you gave.
Do you see how that isnt your "anything is an obstacle" claim of DRs argument? Do you now, possibly, see the context to which "obstacle" has been applied by DR>
Will you now stop misrepresenting, and actually apologise?
Why would they write this rule to have no effect whatsoever?
Why would they list models (friend or foe!) as reducing the scatter distance to avoid a mishap if they could have just NOT listed models?
I don't play drop pod lists, but I would never ever try this WAAC "rule" on my friends that do. It's just ugly. If someone did this to me, this would be a model scoop and walk away.
