This is similar to Hollisman's thread but it's a separate enough issue that I think it warrants it's own discussion.
I don't have the direct rules in front of me, so I appologize for paraphrasing, but the rules state something to the effect of : if a skimmer is forced to end its movement on top of friendly or enemy models, move it the shortest distance possible.
The legitimate question, I think, is, when else would this happen outside of Deep Striking? Some would argue that Deep Striking is "placing" not actually "moving," but I think that's splitting hairs. In multiple junctures the rules state to treat units that have Deep Struck to "count as having moved" or "count as having moved Combat Speed" etc.
Personally, I think I would allow it. Just curious what the Dakka lawyers think.
This one's been argued back and forth for a while now. One side says the mishap rules should take precedence, the other that the skimmer rule should over-ride the mishap.
Whether or not there is any other situation where this would apply isn't really relevant to the question. Rules are sometimes just built in to 'future-proof' against unforeseen situations.
Hollismason wrote: I honestly cannot actually name another skimmer that can deep strike so I mean I dunno how that has been argued back and forth.
I'd say it states clearly that if it ends its move on top of another model and Deep Strike actually requires you to place them, then yes it works.
Except the deep strike scatter is not a move.
So it mishaps.
If it were a move normal infantry units would have to take a Difficult Terrain test when scattering across Difficult Terrain, they would have to take Dangerous Terrain tests when moving across Dangerous Terrain, and they would not be able to scatter through impassible terrain (Such as an impassible wall). But of course it is not a move so none of the previous situations are possible.
Hollismason wrote: I honestly cannot actually name another skimmer that can deep strike so I mean I dunno how that has been argued back and forth.
I'd say it states clearly that if it ends its move on top of another model and Deep Strike actually requires you to place them, then yes it works.
Except the deep strike scatter is not a move.
So it mishaps.
If it were a move normal infantry units would have to take a Difficult Terrain test when scattering across Difficult Terrain, they would have to take Dangerous Terrain tests when moving across Dangerous Terrain, and they would not be able to scatter through impassible terrain (Such as an impassible wall). But of course it is not a move so none of the previous situations are possible.
All you have established is that the scatter, in and of itself, is not a move. That doesn't establish that Deep Striking onto the field isn't moving onto the field.
I think people are consistently misinterpreting what the scatter represents. It's not like the unit starts "here" and moves "there" via scatter. It's that their method of moving onto the field is inaccurate, and the scatter is a way to approximate that inaccuracy.
The rules pretty consistently treat Deep Striking as moving, as far as I can tell.
Shadar - they only count as moving once they have finished the DS process. Until you complete the DS process you have not been forced to end your move, as your move has yet to occur.
What do you not understand in this sentence from the holy bible ?
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
0. Not on the board.
1. Deep Strike.
2. No more movement.
morgoth wrote: What do you not understand in this sentence from the holy bible ?
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
0. Not on the board.
1. Deep Strike.
2. No more movement.
We understand it perfectly.
Once the deep striking unit has arrived, it can move no further.
But before it arrives (Like when you are figuring you scatter and placement), that is not a move.
morgoth wrote: What do you not understand in this sentence from the holy bible ?
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
0. Not on the board.
1. Deep Strike.
2. No more movement.
Until yo ucheck for mishap the unit has not arrived, meaning it has not moved. What abotu this do you not understand?
morgoth wrote: What do you not understand in this sentence from the holy bible ?
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
0. Not on the board.
1. Deep Strike.
2. No more movement.
We understand it perfectly.
Once the deep striking unit has arrived, it can move no further.
But before it arrives (Like when you are figuring you scatter and placement), that is not a move.
I don't think you get it.
Before it arrives, it's in reserves.
After scattering, it's on the table.
After that, no more movement.
There is no time slot to place your tank shock, deep striking eats your whole movement phase, except for transported units.
morgoth wrote: What do you not understand in this sentence from the holy bible ?
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
0. Not on the board.
1. Deep Strike.
2. No more movement.
We understand it perfectly.
Once the deep striking unit has arrived, it can move no further.
But before it arrives (Like when you are figuring you scatter and placement), that is not a move.
I don't think you get it.
Before it arrives, it's in reserves.
After scattering, it's on the table.
After that, no more movement.
There is no time slot to place your tank shock, deep striking eats your whole movement phase, except for transported units.
Part if 'arriving' is checking for mishap. Are you unable to place the model without being within 1" of an enemy unit? If so, then mishap. No movement related rule has time to trigger before you mishap.
morgoth wrote: What do you not understand in this sentence from the holy bible ?
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
0. Not on the board.
1. Deep Strike.
2. No more movement.
We understand it perfectly.
Once the deep striking unit has arrived, it can move no further.
But before it arrives (Like when you are figuring you scatter and placement), that is not a move.
I don't think you get it.
Before it arrives, it's in reserves.
After scattering, it's on the table.
After that, no more movement.
There is no time slot to place your tank shock, deep striking eats your whole movement phase, except for transported units.
Part if 'arriving' is checking for mishap. Are you unable to place the model without being within 1" of an enemy unit? If so, then mishap. No movement related rule has time to trigger before you mishap.
morgoth wrote: What do you not understand in this sentence from the holy bible ?
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
0. Not on the board.
1. Deep Strike.
2. No more movement.
We understand it perfectly.
Once the deep striking unit has arrived, it can move no further.
But before it arrives (Like when you are figuring you scatter and placement), that is not a move.
I don't think you get it.
Before it arrives, it's in reserves.
After scattering, it's on the table.
After that, no more movement.
There is no time slot to place your tank shock, deep striking eats your whole movement phase, except for transported units.
THis thread has nothing to do with tank shock, whcih is possibly why noone understands your point.
This thread is about skimmers and their rule about being forced to end their move, and whether that saves them from DS mishap. If you could address that?
THis thread has nothing to do with tank shock, whcih is possibly why noone understands your point.
This thread is about skimmers and their rule about being forced to end their move, and whether that saves them from DS mishap. If you could address that?
Somebody mentioned tank shock, just before I joined the discussion.
For the main point.
0. Unit is in Reserve.
1. Unit follows the Deep Strike rules.
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. If a vehicle scatters when arriving via Deep Strike, do not change its facing – it must continue to face the same direction as it did before you rolled for scatter.
2. Unit is on table
There is no mention on movement, therefore no movement rules could be applied, be it Skimmers' or others'.
DeathReaper,
Not being able to Move any further does not mean the Unit has Moved.
It simply means said Unit does not have access to the Movement Rules, as step one requires us to select a Unit which is capable of Moving.
Nosferatu1001, If we where grading Game Worship on the perfect use of syntax and grammar then maybe that inclusion of the word "further" would have been relevant. However, as we know this company has already played fast and loose with the English language in the past, the inclusion of this one word is not enough to dramatically change the possible meanings behind that single sentence. Given that it really is a Language Debate, which the forum has Tenets against as language is very flexible depending on location and personal interpretations, I'm going to counter that a restriction on Moving 'to a greater distance' can still be applied to a Model which has not Moved, as 1 Inch is a greater distance then 0 Inches.
From a Rule perspective: There is no reason to have a Restriction preventing the Unit from 'moving further' if it had already Moved, as the default method to Move a Unit involves selecting a Unit that has yet to Move that turn. There is no need to state that it counts as having Moved in the following Shooting phase, as it would have actually Moved instead.
So the question remains: Has a Unit Moved if it does not utilize any of the Movement related Rules and the Rule does not specifically state that it is Movement?
Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.
I think this is more important than even DS rules. This means skimmer cannot stay atop models in ANY situation. So when it ends its scatter over any model, it will mishap. DS skimmers don't possess any kind of scatter reduce rule (like Drop Pods), so they suffer mishap.
Half of this question is easily answered: Skimmers definitely mishap when Deep Striking onto enemy models.
Deep Strike Mishap: If any of the models in a Deep Striking unit cannot be deployed...on top or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table and apply the results.
Skimmers: If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.
The minimum distance will be one where there's a microscopically small distance between the enemy model and the skimmer, so that it is no longer over it. The skimmer will certainly still be within 1".
Please continue your discussion about Deep Striking onto friendly models though.
Deathreaper,
Apologize, too used to arguments using the word 'Move further' as evidence that the Unit Moved during the process and it led me to drawing a conclusion where one was not present.
Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either.
I think this is more important than even DS rules. This means skimmer cannot stay atop models in ANY situation. So when it ends its scatter over any model, it will mishap. DS skimmers don't possess any kind of scatter reduce rule (like Drop Pods), so they suffer mishap.
It's not a "scatter reduce rule", however the line in question is this one from the BRB under Skimmers
BRB wrote:"If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."
And the debate over DS/Scatter/Et al. being movement (and therefore triggering this line) or not movement (meaning the skimmer will mishap).
I am in the camp that movement hasn't happened prior to checking for mishap and so Skimmers will mishap.
Deep Strike is a USR, and it's my understanding that USRs trump the regular rules for movement, shooting, etc, in the BRB.
Therefore, even if arriving via Deep Stike is considered movement, the Deep Strike Mishap rules superseded the rules for Skimmers ending their move over other models.
As others have pointed out: The Skimmer will still be within 1 inch and trigger a Mishap regardless of this debate, the Rule does not state to move the skimmer an inch away but it move it only far enough that no Model is underneath.
Hunam0001, Can you quote me a Rule which state Special Rules trump Advanced Rules?
I bring it up because I know no such Rule exists, the lack of a proper Rule hierarchy is second only to the lack of a Rule Glossary explaining basic Terminology when it comes to discussing the many Formatting problems Game Workshop has. What little we have been given in relation to a hierarchy is along the lines of Basic < Advanced < Codex and as you can easily see there is huge number of problems with such a basic hierarchy. For Example: An Advanced Rule found in the Unit Type section of the Book is in conflict with an Advanced Rule found in the Special Rule section of the book. In these situations the game literally breaks as obeying one of the Rules will have to be broken and we do not have permission to break any of them.
A follow up question: Where does a Rule found on a Dataslate fall on this hierarchy?
DarknessEternal wrote: The minimum distance will be one where there's a microscopically small distance between the enemy model and the skimmer, so that it is no longer over it. The skimmer will certainly still be within 1".
In which case the rule is useless... because you can't finish your movement within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging.
That's not only going to cause mishaps when deep striking, but also apply during any other movement.
We've had the same argument over the years about the Drop Pod's inertial guidance. Because you can't wind up within 1" of an enemy model, when calculating how far you need to move to avoid that enemy model you need to include that 1" bubble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote: Somebody mentioned tank shock, just before I joined the discussion..
They really didn't. You're confusing two different threads.
'Reduce till Mishap is avoided' and 'Reduce till no Models are underneath' are two completely different things, which is why Drop Pods can take that inch into consideration as stopping within triggers the Mishap.
Deep striking Vehicles count as moving at combat speed. Counts as and the actual thing are for rules purposes considered the same thing.
If it said for example; Deep Striking vehicles counts as eggplants and you had flavor text that said the best way to serve eggplants was to stuff them with tempura battered shrimp a little bit of oyster sauce and roast them if you had a rule to select eggplants in your army you could stuff your Deep Striking vehicle (even though it is not a actual eggplant )with breaded shrimp and cook it because it counts as a eggplant.
Deepstriking vehicles are not eggplants but sometimes for rules purposes we consider them eggplants.
If I could ask the posters a question? Do YOU use deepstriking skimmers?
Personally, I would be fine with allowing skimmers to function as Drop Pods in this instance. I play Tau. I use skimmers. I do NOT use deepstriking skimmers. (the skimmers I use do not have access to deepstriking, not 'I do not use this legal tactic.' I wish it was otherwise - I wish Devilfish, Skyrays, and Hammerheads could deep strike.)
It doesn't matter what the model is. If you deep strike and land on another unit or impassible terrain, then you roll on the mishap table. Unless the vehicle in question has some equipment that states otherwise. i.e. drop pod's IGS. I don't recall witnessing any one deep strike skimmers, but i've had my fair share of mishaps with terminators and LOTD due to ballsy decisions on my part.
It's just a definitive statement that says this occured. It's not a past statement. It's a little weird grammatically but if you read the book and other things similar to that are just written that way and I think honestly it's just a English vs. American thing of a phrasing.
Here's some more proof though that deep strike is a move
Deep Striking units may not move any further,
In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run, Turbo-boost or move Flat Out) as normal, and count as having moved in the previous Movement phase
There's very few vehicles in the game that has the skimmer type and can deep strike. I think people state that at one point and I kind of remember this or maybe they still can Landspeeders, Monolith, Dark Eldar stuff.
Then you have this in the movement phase:
For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section.
Which implies movement other than just humdrum movement is still movement it's just explained later.
Then you've got this from the Vehicle Section:
• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.
Then you've got this from the actual rules for reserve
Moving On From Reserve
When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge. Measure the model’s move from the edge of the table, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn. A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve.
Which is weiiiiiiird.
There is a important thing to note about all of this, in regards to if you allow this, if it moves onto anything but a troop during scatter, it most certainly mishaps.
carldooley wrote: If I could ask the posters a question? Do YOU use deepstriking skimmers?
Personally, I would be fine with allowing skimmers to function as Drop Pods in this instance. I play Tau. I use skimmers. I do NOT use deepstriking skimmers. (the skimmers I use do not have access to deepstriking, not 'I do not use this legal tactic.' I wish it was otherwise - I wish Devilfish, Skyrays, and Hammerheads could deep strike.)
Anyone else?
I think any non-fast skimmer would be quite good to deep strike. Imagine DSing a Devilfish filled with FWs +an Ethereal near a group of enemies outside view from the front lines...
I just disputed it so now what? Also don't make definitive statements actually back your statements up like have been. It's actually just poor argument to state " Reason X" and not provide documentation.
I've listed multiple instances where Deep Striking and Arriving from Reserves is in fact movement.
It's ending it's move on top of another model. Skimmper rules specifically state if you do that then you move the minimum to kick you out of that area.
Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.
Secondly, when you do check for mishap? WHen the marker for the unit has scattered. The marker is wher you WANT the unit to arrive, it is not where it HAS arrived.
Scatter is not movement. It cannot be, otherwise you could never mishap (as you could never end over other models, or off the table)
So, you have a non-arrived unit, that hasnt finished its move, when you check for mishap.
So, the model mishaps
I've explained this all the way through. This isnt a new thought from you, there have beenn many threads on this in 6th and 7th, as people smoehow think a rule about movement has any effect on non-movement. It doesnt.
Jinxdragon, there isn't anywhere that it explicitly states this in the book, but, as you pointed out, the game breaks down completely if we don't take this as a given.
Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.
Secondly, when you do check for mishap? WHen the marker for the unit has scattered. The marker is wher you WANT the unit to arrive, it is not where it HAS arrived.
Scatter is not movement. It cannot be, otherwise you could never mishap (as you could never end over other models, or off the table)
So, you have a non-arrived unit, that hasnt finished its move, when you check for mishap.
So, the model mishaps
I've explained this all the way through. This isnt a new thought from you, there have beenn many threads on this in 6th and 7th, as people smoehow think a rule about movement has any effect on non-movement. It doesnt.
You mishap. RAW.
Which is why the Skimmer rule causes such confusion. It is a useless rule, so why include it?
As to the Drop pod, that everyone agrees works, it also only avoids the model. The model is the described obstacle in the rule, not the 1" bubble, so as written the Drop pod also mishaps.
Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.
Well, you do count as moving in the movement phase, but you don't count until the the shooting phase.
In the shooting phase it counts as having moved in the previous movement phase.
So you do count as moving if you could somehow get to the shooting phase; which you cannot do since you mishap in the movement phase, before you retroactively count as moving.
Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.
Well, you do count as moving in the movement phase, but you don't count until the the shooting phase.
In the shooting phase it counts as having moved in the previous movement phase.
So you do count as moving if you could somehow get to the shooting phase; which you cannot do since you mishap in the movement phase, before you retroactively count as moving.
I love this one. If denied then those who deny it are saying that Scarabs can in fact eat armor on a model that passes FnP. As that one is saved in the past before the save was failed. Ah time travel and rules, the argument I love to hate.
So with this new time travel rule, skimmers are forced to end their move over a model, and are now moved off of them. Sure we have to time travel a rule around to do it, but we already do that, so not an issue.
Not really. Just an aside pointing out the quality of GW rules. The skimmer drift rule is a waste of ink, and time to read/learn. I really think it is a left over from around 3rd edition when a stunned skimmer drifted. I no longer have that book so can't go back and look.
Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.
Well, you do count as moving in the movement phase, but you don't count until the the shooting phase.
In the shooting phase it counts as having moved in the previous movement phase.
So you do count as moving if you could somehow get to the shooting phase; which you cannot do since you mishap in the movement phase, before you retroactively count as moving.
I love this one. If denied then those who deny it are saying that Scarabs can in fact eat armor on a model that passes FnP. As that one is saved in the past before the save was failed. Ah time travel and rules, the argument I love to hate.
So with this new time travel rule, skimmers are forced to end their move over a model, and are now moved off of them. Sure we have to time travel a rule around to do it, but we already do that, so not an issue.
Not really. Just an aside pointing out the quality of GW rules. The skimmer drift rule is a waste of ink, and time to read/learn. I really think it is a left over from around 3rd edition when a stunned skimmer drifted. I no longer have that book so can't go back and look.
actually your false "time travel" analogy would never apply because there would be no going back as you would mishap before you can even figure out if you were allowed to tank shock.
it would be "time travelling" to allow the model to not mishap because it was doing a action allowed in the movement phase during its deployment.
So the way I read it is:
- You can declare tank shock
- Then place/scatter model, mishapping if appropriate
- then apply Tank Shock rules if you didnt mishap. Affecting noone.
That's not actually what's occuring we're arguing over whether Deep Strike is movment and therefore ending the movement on top of a model would in fact trigger a skimmers special rule.
megatrons2nd wrote: As to the Drop pod, that everyone agrees works, it also only avoids the model. The model is the described obstacle in the rule, not the 1" bubble, so as written the Drop pod also mishaps.
This is not true.
The obstacle, in the case of an enemy unit, includes being within 1 inch of the model, so the Drop Pod scatter is reduced to avoid the obstacle, this includes the extra inch for enemy models and mishaps.
megatrons2nd wrote: As to the Drop pod, that everyone agrees works, it also only avoids the model. The model is the described obstacle in the rule, not the 1" bubble, so as written the Drop pod also mishaps.
This is not true.
The obstacle, in the case of an enemy unit, includes being within 1 inch of the model, so the Drop Pod scatter is reduced to avoid the obstacle, this includes the extra inch for enemy models and mishaps.
The last book I've read says enemy models, and impassable terrain. No mention as to 1" of an enemy model. It does say obstacle, which is predefined by enemy models and impassable terrain. I suppose it may have change in new iterations, but as I don't purchase marine crap(as it is all ugly to me) and haven't played more than 4 games in the last 2 years, all I haave to go by is the last book I have for them. Could you please quote the exact wording of the rule for me?
Placing the model is simply done because you HAVE TO SCATTER!
You place the model, and then roll to scatter. If the deep striking unit scatters onto something it's not supposed to, it mishaps.
You can place the model anywhere you want....why would anyone place it within an inch of a Unit? First off, you can't place it with in an inch because the rules state you can't place models within an inch of each other. Unless the model is part of a unit. Correct me if I'm wrong about this but I do believe two separate units can't be within an inch from each other.
Hence, if you scatter and land on a unit, you mishap.
I believe this even counts towards storm raven gunships. I guess when they arrive, they land on the ground.
The only real question that needs to be debated is whether Deep Strike is movement. That's not me being rude but the fact is we are getting so far off topic we're bleeding into discussing other issues.
I posted why I think it is and put in my references. You're welcome to post your reasons why you think it isn't though.
Other's need to back that up that is not in fact movement.
Also, I am seriously considering starting a thread called The Preponderence of Evidence and really wish people would follow that logic instead of what's happening as of late which is the idea of a "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".
I don't believe anyone stated that scattering is movement, but that deep strike in itself is considered movement.
I have not made that argument, my statement is that Deep Strike is movement.
It is movement that has a definitive end to it, that after rolling for scatter. If the model in question is on top of another unit the rules for skimmer kicks in and it does not mishap because it would end it's move on top of another model.
So , disregarding that I've not been arguing that why do you believe Deep Strike of itself is not movement.
Deep Strike itself is Movement.
Deep Strike Scatter is not Movement.
Mishap applies before the unit is "in play". Therefore, anything that "protects" a unit from ending its move from where it cannot be, does not work. Unless it specifically does.
Actually it doesn't it's quiet clear that you physically check to place a model on deepstrike, then account for scatter, then check the rule for mishap.
The skimmer rule states that it cannot end it's move on top of another model.
Like you don't "place a marker"
You physically put that model or a model from that squad on the board then roll to see IF it scatters. There's a physical placement on the board of a model straight up.
DeathReaper wrote: Obstacle, when talking about deep strike, is the mishap.
So you need to clear the 1 inch zone for enemy models.
Mishap is an effect of being on/near units or impassable terrain, it is not in and of itself, an obstacle.
The rule calls out enemy models, and impassable terrain. 1" bubble(unless called out in the rule) is not a defined obstacle in the rule. If it were, then the rule would also scatter you off of dangerous, forest, and any other non discussed terrain. Obstacle is a very generic word, and can be anything. As such you must limit it to what the rule actually states. So if the rule does not say "an enemy model or within one inch of an enemy model" then the 1" bubble is not included as part of the obstacles that it avoids. Which is why I asked for the exact wordage of the rule.
DeathReaper wrote: Obstacle, when talking about deep strike, is the mishap.
So you need to clear the 1 inch zone for enemy models.
Mishap is an effect of being on/near units or impassable terrain, it is not in and of itself, an obstacle.
This is incorrect.
Obstacle is not defined in the BRB, so we use the common English definition of the word.
With this definition any placement that results in a mishap after reducing the scatter (Provided the initial model was placed where it would not mishap) is an obstacle and you need to account for that inch and reduce the scatter to not mishap.
DeathReaper wrote: Obstacle, when talking about deep strike, is the mishap.
So you need to clear the 1 inch zone for enemy models.
Mishap is an effect of being on/near units or impassable terrain, it is not in and of itself, an obstacle.
This is incorrect.
Obstacle is not defined in the BRB, so we use the common English definition of the word.
With this definition any placement that results in a mishap after reducing the scatter (Provided the initial model was placed where it would not mishap) is an obstacle and you need to account for that inch and reduce the scatter to not mishap.
Obstacle is defined in the rule itself. ie Enemy models, and impassable terrain. Using the common English definition of the word allows for silly things like allowing it to not scatter off the table, not take dangerous terrain tests due to landing in difficult terrain, and ignore units that have special rules that affect things that land in their radius of effect(at least there use to be models that hindered deepstrike) If the 1" is not in the pods obstacle list, it is not ignored.
Hollismason wrote: Actually it doesn't it's quiet clear that you physically check to place a model on deepstrike, then account for scatter, then check the rule for mishap.
The skimmer rule states that it cannot end it's move on top of another model.
Like you don't "place a marker"
You physically put that model or a model from that squad on the board then roll to see IF it scatters. There's a physical placement on the board of a model straight up.
You're ignoring rules again, as it states you place a model form the unit where you want the unit to arrive. Until you check for mishap, the unit hasn't arrived.
I've already stated that you cannot in fact physically place a model onto another it's clearly a restriction and basic rule layed out in the beginning of the book. My least favourite Wizard of Oz character is the Scarecrow.
The argument is if you place it and it scatters onto a unit does it mishap or does the Skimmer special rule kick in.
A noted interested would be that if you follow the reserve rules there is actually a direction implied by deep strike and it is not in fact up and down. It's from your board edge to where it is placed.
So if this did occur it would be placed 1 inch in front of said model/unit because the direction would in fact be from your board edge.
DarknessEternal wrote: The minimum distance will be one where there's a microscopically small distance between the enemy model and the skimmer, so that it is no longer over it. The skimmer will certainly still be within 1".
In which case the rule is useless... because you can't finish your movement within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging.
That's not only going to cause mishaps when deep striking, but also apply during any other movement.
We've had the same argument over the years about the Drop Pod's inertial guidance. Because you can't wind up within 1" of an enemy model, when calculating how far you need to move to avoid that enemy model you need to include that 1" bubble.
I'm still not convinced by anyone who says the definition of "obstacle" includes being within 1" of enemy models. Because that isn't an "obstacle", it is open ground.
The reason people bring Drop Pods into this argument is because the wording is quite similar.
And how come the people who argue "you can't use the dictionary definition of the word Move as it pertains to Deep Strike and Deploying." then turn around and "use the dictionary definition of the word Obstacle." to imply it also includes the 1" bubble around enemy models...
which it sure as spam doesn't say it does?
The fall back of "people have been playing it that way for ages so that's how it works" is utter nonsense. The only reason people have been playing it like that is because someone noticed the wording, people on the internet had an argument about it, and one ruling/interpretation won out.
This IS THE SAME EXACT THING in regards to the skimmer rule. It just so happens that the skimmer question/interpretation issue was discovered at a later date than the drop pod one.
When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.
Mavlun wrote: When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.
Except that's against the rules. Because the skimmer isn't forced to end its movement over a model until after the mishap is resolved - at which point the skimmer won't be there.
Mavlun wrote: When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.
If it was that simple this thread would have been done on the first page
Not being able to use a dictionary meaning for the word "Move" has justification: There exists whole sets of Rules for Movement and Movement related activities, Rules which provides the processes which a Model has to go through in order to 'Move.' If a Model does not use any of these processes, nor does it have a Rule stating it Moved even without following these processes, then it is literally impossible for us to state that the Model has Moved from a Rule perspective. It won't matter if we can find a dictionary that defines Movement in such a way that we can apply it to the situation.... As far as the Rules are concerned, that Model has not moved.
Laughingcarp wrote: I'm still not convinced by anyone who says the definition of "obstacle" includes being within 1" of enemy models. Because that isn't an "obstacle", it is open ground.
If it prevents you from placing a model there, it's an obstacle.
Has anyone sent a message to GW to ask?
For what purpose? Any answer you get from GW will be the personal opinion of a mail order guy. The guys who are actually in a position to answer rules questions don't answer rules questions. According to GW, that would be creating some sort of cult of personality, and players prefer to discuss rules issues amongst themselves than to have clearly written rules.
Mavlun wrote: When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.
Except that's against the rules. Because the skimmer isn't forced to end its movement over a model until after the mishap is resolved - at which point the skimmer won't be there.
No, the skimmer is forced to end its movement, which we know is at Combat Speed, on top of an enemy model, therefore, before checking for mishap, the skimmer's rule comes into effect.
Mavlun wrote: When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.
Except that's against the rules. Because the skimmer isn't forced to end its movement over a model until after the mishap is resolved - at which point the skimmer won't be there.
No, the skimmer is forced to end its movement, which we know is at Combat Speed, on top of an enemy model, therefore, before checking for mishap, the skimmer's rule comes into effect.
The Deep Strike is movement. Scatter is part of that Deep Strike. Resolving the mishap is part of the Deep Strike. The Deep Strike hasn't finished when it's time to check for mishap, so it hasn't been forced to finish its movement over an enemy unit.
Mavlun wrote: No, the skimmer is forced to end its movement, which we know is at Combat Speed, on top of an enemy model, therefore, before checking for mishap, the skimmer's rule comes into effect.
Given that one of the results of a mishap is that the vehicle is put somewhere else, or doesn't deploy at all, until the mishap has been resolved the vehicle has not ended its movement.
Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).
Mavlun wrote: Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).
iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.
Mavlun wrote: Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).
iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.
Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles, and when ramming, you declare the number of inches from the beginning, and if you ram a vehicle that isn't removed from play, you stop right there, if you reach a friendly unit you halt, and if you reach another unit, you follow the rules for tank shocking or tank ramming. So no, I don't think so.
The only scenario I can think of when a skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of an enemy -or- friendly model, is a deep strike scatter.
Mavlun wrote: Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).
Tank Shock is the only one that springs to mind, but I'm not really seeing what difference that makes. The fact that a rule has no current effect on the game doesn't mean that the rule should be read differently... it just means that the rule currently has no effect on the game. It's entirely possible that it was included to 'future-proof' against unforeseen rules interactions that might occur with codex-specific rules additions. It's entirely possible that they included that rule for completeness without realising that it would never actually apply.
Regardless, the reason for the rule being there is irrelevant, and whether or not it currently applies to anything in the game does not change the rule.
Honestly, why would it matter if this was the only 'reasonable application' or not?
Ignoring that there have been previous pieces of war-gear capable of 'pushing' Enemy Units around, and the concept of 'future proofing' should there be such in the future, demanding that we post situations in which the Rule can be evoked does not prove a thing. Even if such a scenario does not exist, we still do not have permission to shoe-horn it in one that we believe it will fit in. Besides, it is very lazy a debate tactic to demand that your opponent carry out the research to prove that such a Rule has a purpose. No one here is going to be bothered to review every Rule that has existed at the same time as this one to populate such a list, least of all the person requesting that it be done, so as a debate tactic it is pointless.
If one wishes to use the Rule, it is up to them to prove it can be Evoked....
Mavlun wrote: Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).
iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.
Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles, and when ramming, you declare the number of inches from the beginning, and if you ram a vehicle that isn't removed from play, you stop right there, if you reach a friendly unit you halt, and if you reach another unit, you follow the rules for tank shocking or tank ramming. So no, I don't think so.
The only scenario I can think of when a skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of an enemy -or- friendly model, is a deep strike scatter.
Box in an enemy unit using terrain and your units. Tank Shock it with a skimmer. DoG immobilizes it. It ends its movement on top of a unit.
Mavlun wrote: Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).
iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.
Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles, and when ramming, you declare the number of inches from the beginning, and if you ram a vehicle that isn't removed from play, you stop right there, if you reach a friendly unit you halt, and if you reach another unit, you follow the rules for tank shocking or tank ramming. So no, I don't think so.
The only scenario I can think of when a skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of an enemy -or- friendly model, is a deep strike scatter.
Box in an enemy unit using terrain and your units. Tank Shock it with a skimmer. DoG immobilizes it. It ends its movement on top of a unit.
You can't pass through friendly models when Tank shocking
Mavlun wrote: Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).
iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.
Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles, and when ramming, you declare the number of inches from the beginning, and if you ram a vehicle that isn't removed from play, you stop right there, if you reach a friendly unit you halt, and if you reach another unit, you follow the rules for tank shocking or tank ramming. So no, I don't think so.
The only scenario I can think of when a skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of an enemy -or- friendly model, is a deep strike scatter.
Box in an enemy unit using terrain and your units. Tank Shock it with a skimmer. DoG immobilizes it. It ends its movement on top of a unit.
You can't pass through friendly models when Tank shocking
And skimmers, when moving move over intervening models.
rigeld2 wrote: Box in an enemy unit using terrain and your units. Tank Shock it with a skimmer. DoG immobilizes it. It ends its movement on top of a unit.
You can't pass through friendly models when Tank shocking
Read the underlined. Skimmers don't pass through anything.
If I am not mistake it actually states the word if, so regardless of whether mishap would be resolved the word if automatically makes it become placed one inch away. I may be incorrect don't have my book near me but I am pretty sure it states IF.
It's literally just basic grammar.
Would it's placement of the model otherwise create a situation where it could end it's movement over another model?
If the the answer is Yes. Then it stops one inch away.
I dunno what's unclear about that but if it said WHEN it would be different.
It doesn't it's a important grammatical point to make and usually I don't argue semantics to much but the word if clearly implies a future situation occuring. The deep strike scatter would be a situation where it could end it's movement. It doesn't care about the deep strike rules or mishap, just that there is a situation where it could possibly end its move on top f another and it interjects and stops that from occuring.
It's also the reason you can't plop it down on top of a unit physically plus the actual rule that states models can't be placed on one another.
Er mah gerd. Deep Striking says that the unit moves onto the field from Reserves, and then quotes the page for Reserves. Reserves specifically says that the unit "moves" onto the board, Deep Striking just gives them a specific way to do so. So, Monoliths, Land Speeders, and Raiders, all "move" onto the board, they just do so in the specific Deep Strike way.
Anyone who argues, well, let me ask you this. Why would Skimmers ever end their movement over a model? If they can't move over it, then under normal circumstances, they wouldn't be able to initiate that move in the first place. So, there must be a reason that they put that rule in there.
krodarklorr wrote: Anyone who argues, well, let me ask you this. Why would Skimmers ever end their movement over a model? If they can't move over it, then under normal circumstances, they wouldn't be able to initiate that move in the first place. So, there must be a reason that they put that rule in there.
krodarklorr wrote: Anyone who argues, well, let me ask you this. Why would Skimmers ever end their movement over a model? If they can't move over it, then under normal circumstances, they wouldn't be able to initiate that move in the first place. So, there must be a reason that they put that rule in there.
Already been asked and answered.
A pointless waste of ink that has persisted for at least 2 editions?
A left over from 3rd(?) edition from when skimmers drifted when stunned?
A rule actually meant to save a skimmer from mishapping?
megatrons2nd wrote: Tank Shock specifically moves models out from under the tanks shocking/ramming unit, if it does not clear the unit.
Meaning, aside from deepstrike, the rule has no effect.
If the death or glory stuns the model, without killing it, it's leave a tank shocking deep striking model hovering an inch above.
The then useless rule of moving clear would come into effect.
Anyone who argues, well, let me ask you this. Why would Skimmers ever end their movement over a model? If they can't move over it, then under normal circumstances, they wouldn't be able to initiate that move in the first place. So, there must be a reason that they put that rule in there.
Do you mean "why" or "how"? Because there are ways that a skimmer can end their movement over a model.
XXXXXXX(skimmer)
[====](building or terrain)
[====]
[====]+++++(unit)
==============
Side view of such a situation where a skimmer can end it's movement over a unit but then has to move because of it's rules that it can't end it's movement over another unit. RAW makes it silly to force the skimmer to move away.
Hollismason wrote: You should post the actual skimmer rule. I don't have access to it right now.
I'm almost positive it states if it would.
It will not, because it WILL mishap and WILL NOT end its move over another model, as the mishap rules present it
So, if youre correct on the "if", you still cannot ever actually TS from DS. If youre NOT correct on the IF, you still cannot TS from DS, as you still mishap before you end your move
Either way, you cannot end your move on top of a model using the DS rules. Proven.
megatrons2nd wrote: Tank Shock specifically moves models out from under the tanks shocking/ramming unit, if it does not clear the unit.
Meaning, aside from deepstrike, the rule has no effect.
If the death or glory stuns the model, without killing it, it's leave a tank shocking deep striking model hovering an inch above.
The then useless rule of moving clear would come into effect.
If of course, deep strike tank shock is possible.
Actually it wouldn't the Skimmer rule would kick in and put it away from it. That's kind of the whole debate.
Hollismason wrote: You should post the actual skimmer rule. I don't have access to it right now.
I'm almost positive it states if it would.
It will not, because it WILL mishap and WILL NOT end its move over another model, as the mishap rules present it
So, if youre correct on the "if", you still cannot ever actually TS from DS. If youre NOT correct on the IF, you still cannot TS from DS, as you still mishap before you end your move
Either way, you cannot end your move on top of a model using the DS rules. Proven.
Yes but which occurs first the deep strike mishap or the skimmer rule. I'd say the skimmer rule as it states if something would happen and the Deep strike mishap states when. There's a difference between those two statements.
Hollismason wrote: Yes but which occurs first the deep strike mishap or the skimmer rule. I'd say the skimmer rule as it states if something would happen and the Deep strike mishap states when. There's a difference between those two statements.
Has the Deep Strike rule been fully resolved? If not, how can the skimmer have ended its movement there?
Please, cite rules support instead of linking to mocking videos.
krodarklorr wrote: Er mah gerd. Deep Striking says that the unit moves onto the field from Reserves, and then quotes the page for Reserves. Reserves specifically says that the unit "moves" onto the board, Deep Striking just gives them a specific way to do so. So, Monoliths, Land Speeders, and Raiders, all "move" onto the board, they just do so in the specific Deep Strike way.
Anyone who argues, well, let me ask you this. Why would Skimmers ever end their movement over a model? If they can't move over it, then under normal circumstances, they wouldn't be able to initiate that move in the first place. So, there must be a reason that they put that rule in there.
Nothing in that rules states it has to take.effect during your own phase.
Things it does work with...
Thunderblitz, result of 6.
Wargear like the Magna Grapple.
The rub is that whenever a USR and Basic BRB rule conflict each other, the USR wins.
Relentless states you may charge after shooting heavy, the basic rules conflict this and say you can not.
Skimmers say you move in order to avoid being on top of a model. Deep Strike says vehicles can not move any further than what you scatter.
Hollie, stop the spam. I already explained that a DS vehicle can never end its move, as the scatter and mishap, which is before the vehicle counts as having moved, are resolved
You keep ignoring this glaringly straight forward rule.
Hollismason wrote: Yes but which occurs first the deep strike mishap or the skimmer rule. I'd say the skimmer rule as it states if something would happen and the Deep strike mishap states when. There's a difference between those two statements.
Has the Deep Strike rule been fully resolved? If not, how can the skimmer have ended its movement there?
Please, cite rules support instead of linking to mocking videos.
Where does it say that the Skimmer rule would not prevent that it's whole goal is to ensure that a Skimmer will not end it's move on top of another model. That's the point of the rule. It's specifically in the rules to stop you from saying " I am just going to place my Skimmer on top of your tank".
Like that's the purpose and function of that rule.
So how does that rule not prevent a mishap, as the model is being placed in such a way to end it's movement.
The rule isn't " After ending your move, move it one inch away"
The Rule is " IF it would end its move then it's placed one inch away"
It stops it from every even happening which is why it occurs before mishap, because it literally cannot be placed int such a way as a ending of its move.
Think of it this way it is preventative medicine, versus medical treatment.
You may take vitamens to prevent getting a cold, but if you get a cold you may take cold medicine. That's the difference between those two rules. Hence the video. Also Sesame Street by its very nature cannot be anything but wonderful
Malkov wrote: Deep Strike says vehicles can not move any further than what you scatter.
That's the discussion now, with one side saying that when you scatter, you've finished your move and you're on top of an enemy/friendly model, therefore the skimmer rule applies, and one side saying that your movement doesn't end, because you could be moved further by the result of the mishap, therefore making the move end after resolving the mishap.
Hollismason wrote: Yes but which occurs first the deep strike mishap or the skimmer rule. I'd say the skimmer rule as it states if something would happen and the Deep strike mishap states when. There's a difference between those two statements.
Has the Deep Strike rule been fully resolved? If not, how can the skimmer have ended its movement there?
Please, cite rules support instead of linking to mocking videos.
Where does it say that the Skimmer rule would not prevent that it's whole goal is to ensure that a Skimmer will not end it's move on top of another model. That's the point of the rule. It's specifically in the rules to stop you from saying " I am just going to place my Skimmer on top of your tank".
Like that's the purpose and function of that rule.
So how does that rule not prevent a mishap, as the model is being placed in such a way to end it's movement.
The rule isn't " After ending your move, move it one inch away"
The Rule is " IF it would end its move then it's placed one inch away"
It stops it from every even happening which is why it occurs before mishap, because it literally cannot be placed int such a way as a ending of its move.
Think of it this way it is preventative medicine, versus medical treatment.
You may take vitamens to prevent getting a cold, but if you get a cold you may take cold medicine. That's the difference between those two rules. Hence the video. Also Sesame Street by its very nature cannot be anything but wonderful
Because the actual rule is that if you would be forced to end your move...
The end of the scatter is not the end of the move. The mishap is the end of the move. Once you mishap you're no longer forced to end your move on top of a unit.
Post your actual rule quotes, cause I've repeatedly stated that the Skimmer rule and Mishap both occur at different times. They both check to see if the model is going to be placed within 1 inch or on top of a model as it's ending move.
Skimmer rule doesn't even let this happen.
The Mishap rule has you place it and check. If you cannot place it you mishap.
Both of these rules function the same way, one though doesn't even let you place it it checks before it's even placed and that is the skimmer rule.
No, the mishap rule is not concerned with a move. Scatter is not a move, for the tenth time stop conflating two different concepts. The unit does t even ARRIVE until after you check for mishap, so how you can claim it has ended its move is ludicrous.
The quotes were already given, and your argument rebutted at every turn.
Hollismason wrote: Post your actual rule quotes, cause I've repeatedly stated that the Skimmer rule and Mishap both occur at different times. They both check to see if the model is going to be placed within 1 inch or on top of a model as it's ending move.
Skimmer rule doesn't even let this happen.
The Mishap rule has you place it and check. If you cannot place it you mishap.
Both of these rules function the same way, one though doesn't even let you place it it checks before it's even placed and that is the skimmer rule.
And yet the skimmer rule forces the check at the end of the skimmer's movement.
Is before the mishap resolution the end of the skimmer's movement?
Hollismason wrote: Post your rules because that's not what the skimmer rule states at all.
It's not?
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.
Let's look at what I said
And yet the skimmer rule forces the check at the end of the skimmer's movement.
Is before the mishap resolution the end of the skimmer's movement?
So if something happens before the end of the skimmers move that makes it not be forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in.
The mishap rule happens before the end of the skimmers move. The mishap rule makes it not be forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models. The skimmer rule doesn't kick in.
Mishap doesn't happen before the end of the move. You physically go to place the model that's during it. You place it check if it's going to mishap. It's being forced to end its move , Skimmer kicks in.
RAW and RAI, I am like 100% sure this is why there was not thought given to giving Raiders and the like anything to manage deep strike with.
Hollismason wrote: RAW and RAI, I am like 100% sure this is why there was not thought given to giving Raiders and the like anything to manage deep strike with.
What's funnier is the notion of a Monolith having to mishap because it clips a termagant
Laughingcarp wrote: I'm still not convinced by anyone who says the definition of "obstacle" includes being within 1" of enemy models. Because that isn't an "obstacle", it is open ground.
If it prevents you from placing a model there, it's an obstacle.
Right, but by the argument you're supporting VS skimmers being able to drift 1" away, the drop pod model bounces off the enemy unit and is placed within 1". It CAN physically be placed there. Same as the skimmer.
No obstacle is presented to the model placement, by any definition of the word.
Then, by the explanation you're supporting, mishap apparently happens BEFORE it could move any further away., e.g. out of 1" bubble.
Same as the skimmer.
But if you read that the drop pod gets to shuffle the full 1" away, why can't the skimmer?
When I get home I'll write up something since people seem to not want to quote rules, but even if you argue that it happens at the same time you'd get to choose as it's your turn.
I think it's RAW and RAI. Anyway I'll post them and take it apart.
Laughingcarp wrote: Right, but by the argument you're supporting VS skimmers being able to drift 1" away, the drop pod model bounces off the enemy unit and is placed within 1". It CAN physically be placed there.
No, it can't, because the rules say it's not allowed to be there.
But if you read that the drop pod gets to shuffle the full 1" away, why can't the skimmer?
Because the Drop Pod's Inertial Guidance rule specifically kicks in if the Drop Pod would mishap.
The skimmer rule just applies when the skimmer finishes its movement. At the time you check if it mishaps, it hasn't yet finished its movement.
Laughingcarp wrote: Right, but by the argument you're supporting VS skimmers being able to drift 1" away, the drop pod model bounces off the enemy unit and is placed within 1". It CAN physically be placed there.
No, it can't, because the rules say it's not allowed to be there.
But if you read that the drop pod gets to shuffle the full 1" away, why can't the skimmer?
Because the Drop Pod's Inertial Guidance rule specifically kicks in if the Drop Pod would mishap.
The skimmer rule just applies when the skimmer finishes its movement. At the time you check if it mishaps, it hasn't yet finished its movement.
I think it occurs before or at the same time. If before it works if at the same time you get to pick. When I get home I'll post the actual rules.
"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, it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as per the Warhammer 40,000 rule book."
Okay so people can actually start arguing here are the rules verbatim.
Skimmers :
MOVING SKIMMERS Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either. Skimmers can move over all terrain, ignoring all penalties for difficult terrain and Dangerous Terrain tests . However, if a moving Skimmer starts or ends its move in difficult or dangerous terrain, it must take a Dangerous Terrain test. A Skimmer can even end its move over impassable terrain if it is possible to actually place the model on top of it, but if it does so it must take a Dangerous Terrain test.
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.
And the actual rules for Mishap and Deep strike verbatim
Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:
• • 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. If a vehicle scatters when arriving via Deep Strike, do not change its facing – it must continue to face the same direction as it did before you rolled for scatter.
• • Next, the unit’s remaining models are arranged around the first one. Models must be placed in base contact with the first model and begin to form a circle around it. When the first circle is complete, a further concentric circle must be placed with each model touching the circle inside it. Each circle must include as many models as will fit.
• • Models deploying via Deep Strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain.
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.
The actual mishap rules
Deep Strike Mishaps
Deep Striking onto a crowded battlefield can be dangerous, as one may miss the intended objective or 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.
I've underlined the parts that I feel relevant, Deep strike is forcing it to end it's movement over a model, there for it's skimmer rule kicks in. In fact I don't think you can name another situation in the entire game where something can force it to end it's move on top of another model. If so please quote specifically the circumstance and rule.
Again please Name a situation where a skimmer could be forced to move other than deep strike and that very specific instance
It's convenient that you're choosing to believe that Skimmer rules trump Deep Strike rules, and not the other way around.
The model arrives, it's movement is done, the skimmer rules attempt to move it but then the deep strike rules prevent that movement. End result: Mishap.
Is a skimmer "forced to move" in DS? The scatter is not movement. DS is movement, but the player chooses to DS. The player chooses to DS into a position in which a potential scatter would cause a mishap. Does that qualify for "forced to move"? Also, is it correct to assume that the must apply to something considering it was in at least one prior edition exactly as stated? GW has left obsolete rules in before. The've also included rules with an eye towards what might be included in the future.
Also, does "minimum distance so that no models are left underneath" mean that it includes the 1" buffer for enemy models in the mishap rules?
solkan wrote: It's convenient that you're choosing to believe that Skimmer rules trump Deep Strike rules, and not the other way around.
The model arrives, it's movement is done, the skimmer rules attempt to move it but then the deep strike rules prevent that movement. End result: Mishap.
Name one other situation with rules quotations that allows the forcible movement of a skimmer. Deep Strike in of itself is movement, it would in fact cause it to end it's movement on top of a model if it scattered, this would still be a true statement even if Deep Strike did not have the the Mishap rule.
Deep Strike would be forcing the Skimmer to end it's move.
Again please Name a situation where a skimmer could be forced to move other than deep strike and that very specific instance
Thunderblitz table on ram result of of 6 pg 95 "Flipped: The vehicle being rammed scatters D6" and then suffers an Explodes! result from the Vehicle Damage table." The vehicle is forced to move by scatter D6" and then after it scatters it explodes.
Tank shock is another not-normal movement that can force the skimmer to move.
Hollismason wrote: Deep strike is forcing it to end it's movement over a model,...
Except that it hasn't finished its movement until you resolve the mishap.
In fact I don't think you can name another situation in the entire game where something can force it to end it's move on top of another model.
And once again, why would this be relevant?
Ignore Deep Strike just follow the progression of the skimmer rule. Do not bring up deep strike, let's pretend there is something else in effect.
This is the order that you think a skimmer rule applies. and this is why it's important for another example.
1. Something forcibly moves the skimmer to being over another model.
2. You physically place the model on top of the other model. Ending your move.
3. You then move the skimmer back after your movement has ended.
Are you saying it works this way? If not show me the way that it works step by step for another force not even Deep Strike just anything at all.
This is how it actually works.
1. Something forcibly moves the skimmer , this movement would end it's move on top of another..
2. Since it would move it on top of another model and force this, the skimmer rules prevent this.
3. Skimmer rules kick in and disallow that.
This is how the actual rule functions.
You do not "end your move" then move the model back, it never goes there to begin with.
This is the same function as saying Deep Strike will force it to end it's move on top of another model. You don't get there to begin with so you never Mishap because the skimmer rule absolutely does not allow you to put the model in a situation where it would be placed on top of another for any reason.
Hollismason wrote: This is the order that you think a skimmer rule applies. and this is why it's important for another example.
1. Something forcibly moves the skimmer to being over another model.
2. You physically place the model on top of the other model. Ending your move.
3. You then move the skimmer back after your movement has ended.
Whether or not you physically place the model there, yes, that would be how it would work.
This is the same function as saying Deep Strike will force it to end it's move on top of another model. You don't get there to begin with so you never Mishap because the skimmer rule absolutely does not allow you to put the model in a situation where it would be placed on top of another for any reason.
This would be true if the rule read "If a Skimmer would be forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."
It doesn't. You have to complete the skimmer's movement before the rule kicks in.
Hollis - again you ignore the very important "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"
Youre wrong. Again. You keep quoting rules, but not reading them, even when pointed to the exact part of the rule that proves your position to be wrong.
SCatter is not movement. The unit hasnt yet arrived, as the model used is simply a marker to represent the unit.
So, the mdoel representing the unit scatters. It is in a position that would trigger mishap. It mishaps. If it didnt mishap, then the rest of the unit arrives, and you again ensure no mishap. If you pass ALL OF THIS successfully, THEN you have arrived by deesptrike, anD AT THAT POINT you count as having mvoed.
NOt before
Not at ANY TIME before.
Meaning you mishap. Stop posting irrelevancies, and ignoring the actual rules pointed out to you 14 times now: the model is only a marker until after you check for mishap. It has to be, otherwise in a multi model unit you would be claiming, hilariously, that the unit is both on the table and not, in 2 parts. Oh, and if scatter were movement, NOONE COULD SCATTER-MISHAP, EVER. The movement rules prohibit any form of scattered mishap currently available (1", off board)
You have been proven incorrect at every turn. Maybe step back and realise you havent spotted something new?
Hollismason wrote: Mishap doesn't happen before the end of the move. You physically go to place the model that's during it. You place it check if it's going to mishap. It's being forced to end its move , Skimmer kicks in.
RAW and RAI, I am like 100% sure this is why there was not thought given to giving Raiders and the like anything to manage deep strike with.
Except it's not being forced to end it's move over that unit - the Deep Strike (it's move) isn't finished.
Are you arguing that the scatter alone is it's move? The burden is on you to prove that.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Hollis - again you ignore the very important "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"
Youre wrong. Again. You keep quoting rules, but not reading them, even when pointed to the exact part of the rule that proves your position to be wrong.
SCatter is not movement. The unit hasnt yet arrived, as the model used is simply a marker to represent the unit.
So, the mdoel representing the unit scatters. It is in a position that would trigger mishap. It mishaps. If it didnt mishap, then the rest of the unit arrives, and you again ensure no mishap. If you pass ALL OF THIS successfully, THEN you have arrived by deesptrike, anD AT THAT POINT you count as having mvoed.
NOt before
Not at ANY TIME before.
Meaning you mishap. Stop posting irrelevancies, and ignoring the actual rules pointed out to you 14 times now: the model is only a marker until after you check for mishap. It has to be, otherwise in a multi model unit you would be claiming, hilariously, that the unit is both on the table and not, in 2 parts. Oh, and if scatter were movement, NOONE COULD SCATTER-MISHAP, EVER. The movement rules prohibit any form of scattered mishap currently available (1", off board)
You have been proven incorrect at every turn. Maybe step back and realise you havent spotted something new?
100% agree. There doesn't seem to be any rules backup to show that scatter is movement. Scatter is just a method for determining the final position versus a chosen position. I don't have the rulebook in front of me right now, but I thought the wording about counting as movement had something about the shooting phase? Maybe someone can check that for me? I thought it said something like "counts as having moved in the preceding movement phase." Regardless of the wording, the only reason to say that something counts as having moved is if it didn't move but you want other rules (such as shooting) to think it did.
even if you were allowed to move the skimmer the minimum distance so no models are left underneath it, that minimum distance would still be within 1" which would be a mishap, but scattering isn't movement so thats still not a issue.
Is it not still the case that if there are two effects or things that are stated to occur at the same time, then the person who's turn it is decides what order to resolve those?
Is it not still the case that if there are two effects or things that are stated to occur at the same time, then the person who's turn it is decides what order to resolve those?
It is but irrelevant since the mishap trigger occurs before the skimmer rule trigger.
Is it not still the case that if there are two effects or things that are stated to occur at the same time, then the person who's turn it is decides what order to resolve those?
It is but irrelevant since the mishap trigger occurs before the skimmer rule trigger.
I'm not entirely convinced of that. The deepstrike mishap only occurs if there are any models in the deepstriking unit that can not be placed because either (1) off the table (2) they would have to be placed in impassable terrain (3) they would be closer than 1" of a enemy model (4) friendly models in the way.
You don't check for the mishap until the final position of the deepstriking unit is resolved (aka..scatter and then start placing other models in concentric circles around it the first model).
In the case of a deepstriking skimmer, the final position of the skimmer is not determined until after the skimmer rule is taken into account..then you would check for a mishap.
I think what it really comes down to here is whether or not the "move the skimmer the shortest distance so no models are underneath it" includes the 1" buffer for enemy models.
Is it not still the case that if there are two effects or things that are stated to occur at the same time, then the person who's turn it is decides what order to resolve those?
It is but irrelevant since the mishap trigger occurs before the skimmer rule trigger.
I'm not entirely convinced of that. The deepstrike mishap only occurs if there are any models in the deepstriking unit that can not be placed because either (1) off the table (2) they would have to be placed in impassable terrain (3) they would be closer than 1" of a enemy model (4) friendly models in the way.
You don't check for the mishap until the final position of the deepstriking unit is resolved (aka..scatter and then start placing other models in concentric circles around it the first model).
In the case of a deepstriking skimmer, the final position of the skimmer is not determined until after the skimmer rule is taken into account..then you would check for a mishap.
The skimmer rule doesn't take into effect until after the skimmer finishes moving. It hasn't finished moving until after it finishes resolving the 'Deep Strike' rule. Part of the 'Deep Strike' rule is the 'Mishap' rule. So 'Mishap' triggers before the skimmer finishes moving and therefore before the skimmer rule triggers.
I know it's hard to believe, but the skimmer rule is a nearly useless rule. It's an artifact from previous editions where it was possible to force a vehicle to move or pivot (such as the Eldar's Eldritch Storm). They left it in there because there's no harm in leaving it since it doesn't effect other rules.
This is exactly my point, it definitively states that the scatter is the FINAL position. No one is claiming the scatter is movement. No one has stated that stop arguing this strawman.
What is stated is that you place the model on the board, then roll to determine it's final position and it cannot move further. That final position would land it on top of models, skimmer kicks in
That's forcing it to end it's move, Final is END, therefore my point is it never get's there to begin with.
2nd
You do not physically place models on top of other models. This is what the Skimmer rule specifically and irrevocably prevents skimmers from doing.
That's the whole point of the rule.
Now please name me another situation where a Skimmer can end it's move forcibly on top of another model.
It would actually be relevant because the basic rules and almost all rules in the game prevent that from happening.
You cannot just by the basic rules place a model on top of another.
There's a few specific circumstances that allow you to "count" as moving through a model.
But yeah. You can't do it.
Except people literally believe you physically place the skimmer model on top of a model, then end your move, then move it back and that's just like dumb.
First, the idea of GW copy and pasting a rule through 3 editions without realizing they did so, is an assumption. And as an assumption, it is no more, or less, valid than assuming it is there intentionally. So that is a specious argument at best.
The fact of the matter is, it is in the rules, and must be considered (regardless of personal opinion regarding it's purpose)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have to agree with Hollis (at least in principle). The rules for skimmers says that they cannot end their movement over other models (friendly or enemy). It's pretty definitive, and nowhere does it say "except when deepstriking, skimmers cannot end their movement over other models".
it really comes down to whether or not the movement of the skimmer so that no models are underneath it includes the 1" boundary for enemy models.
If it does not, then the skimmer would end up less than 1" away..thus it would mishap anyways.
First, the idea of GW copy and pasting a rule through 3 editions without realizing they did so, is an assumption. And as an assumption, it is no more, or less, valid than assuming it is there intentionally. So that is a specious argument at best.
The fact of the matter is, it is in the rules, and must be considered (regardless of personal opinion regarding it's purpose)
Fair enough. But assuming that in order for a rule to exist then it must have a current in-game purpose in relation to the other rules is also an assumption and should not be used as a factor.
So finding an example of where the skimmer rule would be triggered is not relevant to the discussion. Deep Striking itself is not a movement. The vehicle is treated as having moved after it finishes arriving, but before that happens it must Mishap.
First, the idea of GW copy and pasting a rule through 3 editions without realizing they did so, is an assumption. And as an assumption, it is no more, or less, valid than assuming it is there intentionally. So that is a specious argument at best.
The fact of the matter is, it is in the rules, and must be considered (regardless of personal opinion regarding it's purpose)
Fair enough. But assuming that in order for a rule to exist then it must have a current in-game purpose in relation to the other rules is also an assumption and should not be used as a factor.
So finding an example of where the skimmer rule would be triggered is not relevant to the discussion. Deep Striking itself is not a movement. The vehicle is treated as having moved after it finishes arriving, but before that happens it must Mishap.
That's the thing though. Where in the rules does it state that deepstrike is not movement? There are references in the rules to units moving onto the board from reserves, and it clearly states that deepstriking vehicles count as having moved. So, for the purposes of subsequent rules interactions, the vehicle is treated as moving.
I have to agree with Hollis (at least in principle). The rules for skimmers says that they cannot end their movement over other models (friendly or enemy). It's pretty definitive, and nowhere does it say "except when deepstriking, skimmers cannot end their movement over other models".
From the rules for Mishap:
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.
Show where 'deployment' is equal to 'movement' or where the Skimmer rule applies to deployment. Deep Striking causes the vehicle to count as having moved, but as shown in the Mishap rule, Deep Striking itself is treated as a form of deployment.
I have to agree with Hollis (at least in principle). The rules for skimmers says that they cannot end their movement over other models (friendly or enemy). It's pretty definitive, and nowhere does it say "except when deepstriking, skimmers cannot end their movement over other models".
From the rules for Mishap:
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.
Show where 'deployment' is equal to 'movement' or where the Skimmer rule applies to deployment. Deep Striking causes the vehicle to count as having moved, but as shown in the Mishap rule, Deep Striking itself is treated as a form of deployment.
This is the strongest argument I've seen (and sort of answers my previous question). If deepstrike counts as a deployment instead of movement, then you are indeed correct.
I think I may have found an example. Though it's irrelevant to the current rule discussion, it may ease your mind if there's a purpose to the skimmer rule.
If a skimmer lands on top of a building (something only a skimmer can do I believe) while there are models inside the building and the building collapses... now we have a situation where a skimmer is forced on top of other models.
The unit inside the building is forced to disembark as per vehicle rules and so is no longer under the skimmer.
Skimmers do not follow alot of normal rules for placement we do know though, as they can be placed on top of impassable terrain as long as they fit and so do not mishap when they scatter onto it, unless they cant fit.
This leads me to believe the skimmer rule does in fact stop mishaps. This is however just HIWPI
Hollis what if it was a unit of 3 skimmers. the mishap happens before you place the 2nd and 3rd, what if there was space to place the first 1 but only enough space to place 1 of the 2 remaining ones in a concentric circle. Both times the mishap would happen before the end of its movement.
Are you saying that the order of events of the deepstrike changes if the unit size is different?
Skimmers do not follow alot of normal rules for placement we do know though, as they can be placed on top of impassable terrain as long as they fit and so do not mishap when they scatter onto it, unless they cant fit.
This leads me to believe the skimmer rule does in fact stop mishaps. This is however just HIWPI
I believe they don't mishap because there's a rule allowing skimmers to deploy onto impassable terrain and mishap only triggers if the unit can not be deployed where it scatters. However, the skimmer rule for being forced to move onto units only applies to movement.
To a certain degree, this whole discussion is something of a moot point. Let's face it, this is coming up in relation to dark eldar skimmers. In the cases where you would want the skimmer to land close enough to an enemy unit to flame (d-scythes) or melta (fusion guns), you're going to toss an HQ with a WWP into that vehicle to make sure it lands exactly where you want.
I've stated the rule but I can quote them again and hopefully those will follow my logic which is perfectly sound by the way. I am of the opinion that the skimmer rule happens before or at the same time at scatter.
Everything Italicized is verbatim from the rules Issue:
If a Deepstriking Skimmer would end it's final position over a unit would the Skimmer be placed at least 1inch away and avoid Mishap?
Rule
Skimmers may move through but may not end their movement over enemy models. Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either. If a situation forcibly would cause a skimmer to end it's move it is instead moved in such away as to place it so that this does not happen. If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it. The minimum distance required specifically means the least amount of movement required to ensure this not happen, per the rules a model may not end it's move with in 1 inch of a enemy model.A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase.The deep strike rules state that a model from the unit is placed on board, then you roll for scatter to see its final positioning. 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. The model may not move any further. In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further. A model or unit is considered to mishap when it is placed on top of a enemy or friendly unit or with in impassable terrain. 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.
Analysis
The initial placing a of a model for deep strike does not allow it to be placed on top of another model friendly or enemy. The final positioning of a model during deep strike would be a ending of it's movement during the movement phase as it cannot move any further. The Skimmer special rule does not allow a unit to have a ending movement on top of a enemy or friendly model. A mishap occurs when the final positioning of the model would deploy it on top of a model or with in 1 inch of a enemy unit. The final positioning of a deep striking skimmer would be reduced to the minimum required distance 1 inch in the case of a enemy unit or less than 1 inch when on a friendly unit.
Conclusion
Deep Striking Skimmers would be moved according to the skimmer special rule. The Mishap would not occur because it's deployment onto the field would be at least 1 inch away from a enemy unit.
Name a situation where a skimmer could be forced to move other than deep strike and that very specific instance
A Necron Overlord on barge losing an assault. He falls back, on his chariot which is a skimmer.
I am not trying to prove anything btw, I am just naming a situation were a skimmer is forced to move.
"A rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules." This is the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Chariot rules.
Example does not apply.
As to the counting as having moved in the previous movement phase. "Counts as" and "treat as" has already been determined to be equal to, see previous discussion on FnP and other special rules where the "treat as" saved is unequivocally used to be it is saved. Not to mention that it time travels backward to stop events that have already happened.
As such, deep strike is movement, and scatter is forcing it to end it's movement over said models. But then the Skimmer special rule moves it off of the models, thus not activating a mishap, as it's special rule would not allow it to end on another model.
I would scatter on top of enemy models, move the skimmer the minimum distance required to no longer be on top of those models and presumably end up right next to an enemy model, effectively within base to base contact. There is no implication that you move the extra inch away... the wording just says so you're no longer on top of the enemy models.
So, assuming the Skimmer rule works...
1. Place model
2. Scatter on top of enemy models
3. Move the minimum distance so you're no longer over an enemy model, effectively ending in bases to base contact.
4. Mishap due to being within one inch.
To avoid the mishap in this scenario, you need to demonstrate that "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" actually means "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it and then move another inch".
You want an example of a Skimemr being forced to end its move on top of another unit? OK.
I surround a full 30-boy mob of Orks with my Guardian blobs (yes I run Guardian blobs, shut up). I decide to to Tank Shock the Boyz, hoping they will be force to Fall Back and die due to No Retreat. Since I have a Falcon (skimmer), I can move over my Guardians and try to Shock the Boyz. Unfortunately I forgot the Nob at the "front" of the mob has a Power Klaw, and it immobilizes my Falcon while it is over my Guardians. The Falcon is now forced to end its move on top of my Guardians. Skimmer special rule kicks in, and my Falcon instead ends it move on the other side of the Guardians. The Boyz then multi-charge my Guardian blobs and wipes them all out in a Sweeping Advance. Stupid Orks...
Happyjew wrote: You want an example of a Skimemr being forced to end its move on top of another unit? OK.
I surround a full 30-boy mob of Orks with my Guardian blobs (yes I run Guardian blobs, shut up). I decide to to Tank Shock the Boyz, hoping they will be force to Fall Back and die due to No Retreat. Since I have a Falcon (skimmer), I can move over my Guardians and try to Shock the Boyz. Unfortunately I forgot the Nob at the "front" of the mob has a Power Klaw, and it immobilizes my Falcon while it is over my Guardians. The Falcon is now forced to end its move on top of my Guardians. Skimmer special rule kicks in, and my Falcon instead ends it move on the other side of the Guardians. The Boyz then multi-charge my Guardian blobs and wipes them all out in a Sweeping Advance. Stupid Orks...
Nope.
A Tank Shock is an exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through. Remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so the Tank’s movement will be stopped if any friendly models are in the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: So... assuming the Skimmer rule DOES kick in...
I would scatter on top of enemy models, move the skimmer the minimum distance required to no longer be on top of those models and presumably end up right next to an enemy model, effectively within base to base contact. There is no implication that you move the extra inch away... the wording just says so you're no longer on top of the enemy models.
So, assuming the Skimmer rule works...
1. Place model
2. Scatter on top of enemy models
3. Move the minimum distance so you're no longer over an enemy model, effectively ending in bases to base contact.
4. Mishap due to being within one inch.
To avoid the mishap in this scenario, you need to demonstrate that "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" actually means "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it and then move another inch".
Please read previous post, I already address this issue.
I'm not moving through the Guardians. I'm moving over them. As per the skimmer rules. You know, the one that says skimmers move over models and intervening terrain?
Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.
You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.
Happyjew wrote: You want an example of a Skimemr being forced to end its move on top of another unit? OK.
I surround a full 30-boy mob of Orks with my Guardian blobs (yes I run Guardian blobs, shut up). I decide to to Tank Shock the Boyz, hoping they will be force to Fall Back and die due to No Retreat. Since I have a Falcon (skimmer), I can move over my Guardians and try to Shock the Boyz. Unfortunately I forgot the Nob at the "front" of the mob has a Power Klaw, and it immobilizes my Falcon while it is over my Guardians. The Falcon is now forced to end its move on top of my Guardians. Skimmer special rule kicks in, and my Falcon instead ends it move on the other side of the Guardians. The Boyz then multi-charge my Guardian blobs and wipes them all out in a Sweeping Advance. Stupid Orks...
Nope.
A Tank Shock is an exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through. Remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so the Tank’s movement will be stopped if any friendly models are in the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: So... assuming the Skimmer rule DOES kick in...
I would scatter on top of enemy models, move the skimmer the minimum distance required to no longer be on top of those models and presumably end up right next to an enemy model, effectively within base to base contact. There is no implication that you move the extra inch away... the wording just says so you're no longer on top of the enemy models.
So, assuming the Skimmer rule works...
1. Place model
2. Scatter on top of enemy models
3. Move the minimum distance so you're no longer over an enemy model, effectively ending in bases to base contact.
4. Mishap due to being within one inch.
To avoid the mishap in this scenario, you need to demonstrate that "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" actually means "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it and then move another inch".
Please read previous post, I already address this issue.
"The minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" is the RAW. If a Skimmer has models underneath it, and move it the minimum distance + 1", then I haven't moved it the minimum distance. You seem to be reading "the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" as "the minimum distance so that it is at least 1" away from all enemy models". These are not the same thing. Please explain how you are moving the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath plus an extra inch.
Hollismason wrote: Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.
You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.
Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.
Happyjew wrote: You want an example of a Skimemr being forced to end its move on top of another unit? OK.
I surround a full 30-boy mob of Orks with my Guardian blobs (yes I run Guardian blobs, shut up). I decide to to Tank Shock the Boyz, hoping they will be force to Fall Back and die due to No Retreat. Since I have a Falcon (skimmer), I can move over my Guardians and try to Shock the Boyz. Unfortunately I forgot the Nob at the "front" of the mob has a Power Klaw, and it immobilizes my Falcon while it is over my Guardians. The Falcon is now forced to end its move on top of my Guardians. Skimmer special rule kicks in, and my Falcon instead ends it move on the other side of the Guardians. The Boyz then multi-charge my Guardian blobs and wipes them all out in a Sweeping Advance. Stupid Orks...
Nope.
A Tank Shock is an exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through. Remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so the Tank’s movement will be stopped if any friendly models are in the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: So... assuming the Skimmer rule DOES kick in...
I would scatter on top of enemy models, move the skimmer the minimum distance required to no longer be on top of those models and presumably end up right next to an enemy model, effectively within base to base contact. There is no implication that you move the extra inch away... the wording just says so you're no longer on top of the enemy models.
So, assuming the Skimmer rule works...
1. Place model
2. Scatter on top of enemy models
3. Move the minimum distance so you're no longer over an enemy model, effectively ending in bases to base contact.
4. Mishap due to being within one inch.
To avoid the mishap in this scenario, you need to demonstrate that "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" actually means "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it and then move another inch".
Please read previous post, I already address this issue.
"The minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" is the RAW. If a Skimmer has models underneath it, and move it the minimum distance + 1", then I haven't moved it the minimum distance. You seem to be reading "the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" as "the minimum distance so that it is at least 1" away from all enemy models". These are not the same thing. Please explain how you are moving the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath plus an extra inch.
I did. Read the fething giant post which is clearly laid out and has rules specific quotes. It's literally like on this very page. I'm not going to just endlessly keep quoting myself.
Hollismason wrote: Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.
You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.
Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.
Take it to another thread man, I just don't think it's a good example, first because it's electively deciding to do it and the skimmer rule is for FORCIBLY ending it's movement. Seriously, I don't mind arguing it but even if it was a example does it prove anything? Yes, it proves that if a circumstance any circumstance ends that skimmers move on top of someone else you have to move it.
I just don't think it's a good example. It's close but not quite. We want to get as close to the deepstrike scenario as possible.
Even if you did you still have this quasi issue of it stopping over another model and being placed before friendly unit, immobilized.
Your just ignoring the whole part about tank shock stopping if any of it's movement causing it to move into contact with a Friendly unit.
Happyjew wrote: You want an example of a Skimemr being forced to end its move on top of another unit? OK.
I surround a full 30-boy mob of Orks with my Guardian blobs (yes I run Guardian blobs, shut up). I decide to to Tank Shock the Boyz, hoping they will be force to Fall Back and die due to No Retreat. Since I have a Falcon (skimmer), I can move over my Guardians and try to Shock the Boyz. Unfortunately I forgot the Nob at the "front" of the mob has a Power Klaw, and it immobilizes my Falcon while it is over my Guardians. The Falcon is now forced to end its move on top of my Guardians. Skimmer special rule kicks in, and my Falcon instead ends it move on the other side of the Guardians. The Boyz then multi-charge my Guardian blobs and wipes them all out in a Sweeping Advance. Stupid Orks...
Nope.
A Tank Shock is an exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through. Remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so the Tank’s movement will be stopped if any friendly models are in the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: So... assuming the Skimmer rule DOES kick in...
I would scatter on top of enemy models, move the skimmer the minimum distance required to no longer be on top of those models and presumably end up right next to an enemy model, effectively within base to base contact. There is no implication that you move the extra inch away... the wording just says so you're no longer on top of the enemy models.
So, assuming the Skimmer rule works...
1. Place model
2. Scatter on top of enemy models
3. Move the minimum distance so you're no longer over an enemy model, effectively ending in bases to base contact.
4. Mishap due to being within one inch.
To avoid the mishap in this scenario, you need to demonstrate that "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" actually means "move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it and then move another inch".
Please read previous post, I already address this issue.
"The minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" is the RAW. If a Skimmer has models underneath it, and move it the minimum distance + 1", then I haven't moved it the minimum distance. You seem to be reading "the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" as "the minimum distance so that it is at least 1" away from all enemy models". These are not the same thing. Please explain how you are moving the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath plus an extra inch.
I did. Read the fething giant post which is clearly laid out and has rules specific quotes. It's literally like on this very page. I'm not going to just endlessly keep quoting myself.
Thanks for cursing. You wrote, and I quote, "The minimum distance required specifically means the least amount of movement required to ensure this not happen, per the rules a model may not end it's move with in 1 inch of a enemy model." I would like to know how you are interpreting "the minimimun distance so that no models are underneath" to mean the least amount of movement required to ensure this not happen.
If I'm moving towards a unit, sure, I have to stop such that I'm not within 1". If I'm on top of a unit and have to move the minimum distance so that I'm no longer on top of it, I would clearly end within 1". I'd be right next to it, but not on top of it.
I don't understand why the general rules regarding moving TOWARDS a unit have anything to do with this more advanced Skimmer rule of how to move OFF of a unit.
Ugh, read what I actually wrote I'm not going to quote it again. Or gak you quote it. Like I don't know why I am suppose to give you a lecture on how the english language functions.
Hollismason wrote: Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.
You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.
Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.
Except that tank shocking is instead of moving normally. ie the skimmer rule doesn't apply as tank shocking is it's own special form of movement.
That's why I said take it to another thread, it's actually a good point , but I don't think it's a good example for an analogy.If the Tank would move into contact with a friendly model, enemy vehicle, impassable terrain or a board edge, it immediately stops moving 1" away. Is another thing it states. The skimmer rules do state it's allowed to move through friendly units. Contact in that instance would mean physical of some type.
It's a good point to make but it also just reinforces the " anything that would lead this to happen this kicks in".
Hollismason wrote: Ugh, read what I actually wrote I'm not going to quote it again. Or gak you quote it. Like I don't know why I am suppose to give you a lecture on how the english language functions.
I've read exactly what you wrote. I agree that in general, a unit may not choose to end it's move within 1" on an enemy unit. However, if a Skimmer is forced to end it's move on top of an enemy unit, it would be moved the minimum distance so that no models are underneath it. If I'm 0.5" away from an enemy unit, are any models underneath it? If I'm 0.0" away from an enemy unit (i.e., base to base), are any models underneath it?
I'm not misreading or ignoring what you wrote. I'm challenging your logical leap that moves the Skimmer the minimum distance to fulfil the requirement, "no models are underneath it", and THEN adds an inch.
It's two things , for friendly units it is the absolute minimum, for Enemy units it is in fact 1 inch. Two different things it interacts two different ways depending on what the circumstance is. That is the required minimum for Enemy units and the Required Minimum for Friendlies.
Friendly - Minimum Distance is 0.1
Enemy - Minimum distance 1.0
A huge thing to note is that you don't mishap if you come with in 1 inch of a friendly model it's only enemy models.
This is verbatim from the rules
A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase.
I'm not misreading or ignoring what you wrote. I'm challenging your logical leap that moves the Skimmer the minimum distance to fulfil the requirement, "no models are underneath it", and THEN adds an inch.
It is the same leap of logic made for scattering off of enemy units for the inertial guidance rule.
Ok... here's my full take with specific rules citations. All rules are quoted from the small rulebook.
Page 13 - Basic versus Advanced section - "Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless stated otherwise." "Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon... ...or because they are not normal infantry models." "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
Page 18 - Models in the Way section - "A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault Phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time."
Page 89 - Moving Skimmers section - "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."
Point 1 - The rule on page 18 dictating that a model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model is clearly a basic rule. It applies to all models in the game.
Point 2 - The rule on page 89 dictating Skimmer movement is clearly an advanced rule. It applies only to Skimmer type models.
Point 3 - The Skimmer rule, which is the more advanced rule, tells us to move the model the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it. This would normally leave it immediately next to the enemy model.
Point 4 - The basic movement rule would normally prevent this from occurring, but thanks to the fact that advanced rules always override contradicting basic rules, the Skimmer follows the advanced rule and moves as the advanced rule on page 89 dictates... not as the more basic rule on page 18 would dictate.
I maintain that your best case scenario here is that you place the model, it scatters onto an enemy unit, you use the advanced rule (overriding normal movement rules) to move it the minimum distance such that you no longer have models underneath you, end the deep strike placement within 1" of an enemy unit and then immediately mishap.
Is you contention that the basic rule overrides the advanced rule as relates to how far you move the Skimmer?
I'm not misreading or ignoring what you wrote. I'm challenging your logical leap that moves the Skimmer the minimum distance to fulfil the requirement, "no models are underneath it", and THEN adds an inch.
It is the same leap of logic made for scattering off of enemy units for the inertial guidance rule.
...
You aren't scattering OFF of enemy units. Inertial Guidance reduces the scatter to prevent a mishap. This would clearly reduce the scatter to stay at least an inch away. Inertial Guidance is entirely irrelevant in this instance.
That's not a override the statement
minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.
Tell me now what is the minimum distance that you can place a model next to a enemy model.
What's the minimum distance it can be placed next to a friendly unit.
Nothing is overriding anything. The rule itself refers to the minimum distance which can be two diffirent numbers for different models. Which I've already stated and demonstrated.
You seem to think that the sentence just states, set the model so that it's not touching the models. This isn't what that means at all.
For example let's say we have WEAPON X, and when it his a vehicle that vehicle scatters 2D6 inches randomly.
You have a unit that is 10 inches away and you scatter onto it with a roll of 12.
Where do you place the model? All of this is a perfectly straight line.
The minimum distance would not in fact be on the other side of the model at 13 it would be before the unit at 8 inches.
Hollismason wrote: That's not a override the statement
minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.
Tell me now what is the minimum distance that you can place a model next to a enemy model.
What's the minimum distance it can be placed next to a friendly unit.
Nothing is overriding anything. The rule itself refers to the minimum distance which can be two diffirent numbers for different models. Which I've already stated and demonstrated.
You seem to think that the sentence just states, set the model so that it's not touching the models. This isn't what that means at all.
I actually think the sentence states "so that no models are left underneath it", which it actually does.
For example let's say we have WEAPON X, and when it his a vehicle that vehicle scatters 2D6 inches randomly.
You have a unit that is 10 inches away and you scatter onto it with a roll of 12.
Where do you place the model? All of this is a perfectly straight line.
The minimum distance would not in fact be on the other side of the model at 13 it would be before the unit at 8 inches.
Your example is a little confusing without an actual diagram.
If I end up on top of an enemy unit and I have to move 5 inches so that no models are left underneath it versus moving 6 inches so that no enemy unit is within 1"... which is the smaller number? Advanced rule says move 5". Basic rule says move 6". Advanced trumps basic. Move 5" and end your movement within 1" and therefore mishap.
Hollismason wrote: Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.
You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.
Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.
Except that tank shocking is instead of moving normally. ie the skimmer rule doesn't apply as tank shocking is it's own special form of movement.
Where does the skimmer rules say they only move over models and terrain when moving normally?
In picture 1, the Raider is forced to scatter on top of a poor Kroot Shaper.
In picture 2, the Raider has moved the minimum distance so that the Kroot Shaper is no longer underneath it. This would cause a mishap, but is dictated by the advanced rule.
In picture 3, the Raider has not moved the minimum distance so that the Kroot Shaper is no longer underneath it. The Raider has moved that distance plus an extra inch. This contradicts the direction given by the advanced rules. This would violate the advanced versus basic directive and so would be an illegal move.
Excepting that the rule literally states the minimum distance, and the minimum distance for enemy models is 1 inch.
What exactly do you think the statement of minimum distance is or references, because the only thing it can reference is the 1inch rule because no other figure is given.
You want it to say " So that it does not touch" it doesn't state that.
Hollismason wrote: Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.
You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.
Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.
Except that tank shocking is instead of moving normally. ie the skimmer rule doesn't apply as tank shocking is it's own special form of movement.
Where does the skimmer rules say they only move over models and terrain when moving normally?
It doesn't , which is why I think it's up for debate. I didn't like that example but it is a example, but then if you follow it through its still a reinforcement of the Skimmer's don't land on other models.
Hollismason wrote: Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.
You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.
Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.
Except that tank shocking is instead of moving normally. ie the skimmer rule doesn't apply as tank shocking is it's own special form of movement.
Where does the skimmer rules say they only move over models and terrain when moving normally?
It doesn't. The tank shock rule specifies that it is a different form of moving. ie not the way it typically moves. As the skimmer movement rules are it's typical way of moving, tank shock supersedes it.
Hollismason wrote: Excepting that the rule literally states the minimum distance, and the minimum distance for enemy models is 1 inch.
What exactly do you think the statement of minimum distance is or references, because the only thing it can reference is the 1inch rule because no other figure is given.
You want it to say " So that it does not touch" it doesn't state that.
I agree that it doesn't say "so that it does not touch". It says "so that no models are underneath it". I'm genuinely perplexed by how this is confusing. If I move SO THAT NO MODELS ARE UNDERNEATH IT and then MOVE ANOTHER INCH... have I moved the minimum distance SO THAT NO MODELS ARE UNDERNEATH IT? I mean, c'mon. This isn't a semantics issue. This isn't a subtle usage of the English language issue. This is a "you very much want to be right and that requires choosing a basic rule over an advanced rule" issue.
If it said "move the model the minimum distance to avoid a mishap", I would agree with you.
If it said "move the model the minimum distance such that it obeys the basic rule of never being within 1" of an enemy model", I would agree with you.
It says "move the model the minimum distance so that no models are underneath it". Minimum Distance is defined as the smallest distance you can move where you fulfill NO OTHER CRITERIA other than NO MODELS ARE UNDERNEATH IT. Moving it any farther CANNOT be a valid move because it chooses a basic rule of movement over a more advanced rule of Skimmer movement.
You aren't scattering OFF of enemy units. Inertial Guidance reduces the scatter to prevent a mishap. This would clearly reduce the scatter to stay at least an inch away. Inertial Guidance is entirely irrelevant in this instance.
Inertial Guidance specifies another model, and impassable terrain. No where in the rule does it say to avoid the mishap, or move 1" away from an enemy model.
As the rule does not prevent a mishap for being within 1" of an enemy model, and the rule does not include being within 1" of an enemy model in the scatter distance, it is a leap of logic that Inertial Guidance protects it from mishapping for being to close to an enemy model.
Cause seriously you are ignoring that entire sentence and just literally reading the entire sentence wrong. You're also ignoring the entire first part of that sentence dealing with movement.
Specifically,
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.
This here's what we call a complex sentence, now we can rewrite this sentence. How?
Move the skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it if a skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models. (I'm like 90% on that one maybe require a slight change in grammar)
Like seriously you are treating that whole statement as if it is parts independent of themselves when they are not.
This is you literally not understanding, that sentences can be complex.You're also mistaking the subject of that sentence and action.I can not explain it out for you any more that what I have.I've used IRAC and I've explained how sentences work. Yet your stubborn insistence that the English language literally bends to your will is ridiculous.
Take your ball and go home, I'm tired of having to explain very basic concepts and going through the trouble of succinctly laying out my arguments and progression of thought, while you keep asking why the sky is blue with no answer other than the one you have deemed correct being accepted.
I understand that sentences can be complex. I'm not an idiot. I think I might have picked that fact up while learning one of the four languages I speak or acquiring one of my multiple college degrees. Or maybe not. Maybe I just not talk good for understand words derp derp derp. (Insert sarcastic eye rolling emote here.)
You refuse to explain how moving the model FARTHER than is required to fulfill the ONLY stated obligation "so that no models are underneath it" qualifies as the minimum distance you could move it. You're moving it an extra inch. I could just as easily say "this is literally you not understanding that some numbers can be bigger than others and that minimum refers to the smallest number", but I assume you know that zero is smaller than one.
Also, not to be a jerk, but for someone who is lecturing me on language ability... your grammar and punctuation are atrocious. Pot, kettle, casting stones, etc.
Fine, then you accept that the correct way to read that sentence is the way that I diagrammed and that so that.. is a clause stating reason.
That's all it is. A clause stating the reason you are moving it the minimum distance, the minimum distance for moving when in regards to enemy models is 1 inch, no further no less.
The minimum distance for moving a model in regards to Friendly models can be less than 1 inch.
Your requirement is to move it the minimum distance because you don't want it to be on top of other models so that.. is not instruction, it is a clause stating the reason you are doing something.
I'm not here at home twiddling my moustache and laughing maniacally as I burn a grammar book. These are just the rules of grammar. I can't change them and you can't change them.
Hollismason wrote: Fine, then you accept that the correct way to read that sentence is the way that I diagrammed and that so that.. is a clause stating reason.
That's all it is. A clause stating the reason you are moving it the minimum distance, the minimum distance for moving when in regards to enemy models is 1 inch, no further no less.
The minimum distance for moving a model in regards to Friendly models can be less than 1 inch.
Your requirement is to move it the minimum distance because you don't want it to be on top of other models so that.. is not instruction, it is a clause stating the reason you are doing something.
I'm not here at home twiddling my moustache and laughing maniacally as I burn a grammar book. These are just the rules of grammar. I can't change them and you can't change them.
First off, I'm not sure that sentence diagramming is commonplace. Maybe it is nowadays, but the last time I can remember doing it was when I was in elementary school. I'll assume you're correct, and besides, I don't think we're disagreeing. I think you may just have a more specialized jargon when it comes to grammar.
However...
I think I see what you're getting at. Your stance is that you are simply being told to move the Skimmer "the minimum distance", with no explanation as to what that means (in the context of this rule only). And your further stance is that the reason you are moving it "the minimum distance" is for the reason "so that no models are underneath it". I think we're actually both on exactly the same page here. We both agree that "if X happens, perform action Y for reason Z".
I really think the dispute is coming down to what is meant by "the minimum distance".
In absolute numerical terms, the minimum distance would be however far is required to literally no longer be above a model. This would put the Skimmer right next to the enemy model and a mishap would occur.
If you require the basic rule be followed, then the minimum distance would be however far is required to literally no longer be above a model plus an inch. This would put the Skimmer an inch away from the enemy model and a mishap would not occur.
My belief, and correct me if I'm wrong is that this is the specific point we disagree on:
I believe that since following the basic rule would create a scenario with a larger minimum distance than if you just followed the advanced rule, it is a case of contradicting rules and the advanced rule should be followed. You believe that both should be followed even though it creates a minimum distance larger than my scenario.
Sounds correct?
Also, it would be much better if you really were stroking your mustache and laughing maniacally. If you're going to do a thing, go all out. I'm sitting in an armchair, with my cat perched on one arm. There might be a swimming pool with sharks. I don't want to confirm that.
I use sentence diagrams a lot in reading of older statutes and laws. They're more common than you think. It's not jargon, that's the grammatical definition and use of so that.. to show reasoning.
While we agree on the X Y Z of it your view creates a situation where the problem cannot be resolved as you are putting a unknown variable into the equation. As you say X is know , Y is unknown, Z is known. You've created a unresolvable action because you do have an unknown of Y.
My stance is this is not that instance of a special rule overriding a basic rule, but a special rule reinforcing an actual basic rule.
Everything reinforces the rule, don't place models on top of each other or within 1 inch if a enemy model unless it is the assault phase.
It's not a exception it's a reinforcement of that basic rule and to keep you from placing models on top of models.
If that is the case and that you state Y is undefined, then how do you resolve it?
Y is defined and in fact we have multiple instances of the rules stating " don't put models on other models". So the overwhelming evidence is that the rules other than on very specific special circumstances you are to stay 1 inch away from enemy models.
The first one is literally " This blows up" , it's not ending a move it scatters and then is removed from the board.
The 2nd one is not even .. I don't even. That's not what tank shock does to vehicles.
You get one more try and then the devil gets your soul.
Are you saying that scatter is not movement? It still has to resolve scattering before it explodes.
As for tank shock. "When moving a vehicle with the Tank type, the player can declare that it is going to attempt to tank Shock or Ram instead of moving normally." Tank shock is not a normal movement that, if used, forces the vehicle to move at least Combat Speed.
Also there is the example I posted about a skimmer being on top of a unit. I'll repost it here so you don't have to dig.
xxxxxxxxxx(skimmer)
[===]
[===](Building or terrain like a cliff edge)
[===]++++ (unit sitting on ground floor)
==============
If the skimmer moves to the top floor or edge of the cliff and over hangs it and there is an enemy unit at the bottom this is a situation where the skimmer rules can take effect.
The first one is literally " This blows up" , it's not ending a move it scatters and then is removed from the board.
The 2nd one is not even .. I don't even. That's not what tank shock does to vehicles.
You get one more try and then the devil gets your soul.
Are you saying that scatter is not movement? It still has to resolve scattering before it explodes.
As for tank shock. "When moving a vehicle with the Tank type, the player can declare that it is going to attempt to tank Shock or Ram instead of moving normally." Tank shock is not a normal movement that, if used, forces the vehicle to move at least Combat Speed.
Also there is the example I posted about a skimmer being on top of a unit. I'll repost it here so you don't have to dig.
xxxxxxxxxx(skimmer)
[===]
[===](Building or terrain like a cliff edge)
[===]++++ (unit sitting on ground floor)
==============
If the skimmer moves to the top floor or edge of the cliff and over hangs it and there is an enemy unit at the bottom this is a situation where the skimmer rules can take effect.
In certain circumstances scatter can be movement, I know of none.. except the Orks I think they have some weird things. Anyway regardless Deep STrike scatter itself is not movement. Also, a explodes result removes the vehicle.
Okay you can either tank shock or ram with a skimmer that is a tank. The skimmer rule has nothing to do with normal movement. It just states it can move through enemy models and friendly models. Again, the skimmer rule has nothing to do with "moving normally", it just says you can do that if it moves which is why I kind of am leaning right now to where you could actually fly over one of your units an tank shock someone on the other side kind of I'm at like 60%.
If you tank shock and you come with in 1 inch of a vehicle it stops. If you ram you follow the ram rules. I dunno what you are talking about or what point you are making about tank shock and ram.
The 2nd example with the building is that it's actually not ending it's move on top of a model it's ending its move on the top floor of the building. Distance is actually measured vertically in 40k, as long as its 1 inch away you're fine, I think you'd have to take a dangerous terrain check. So yeah that doesn't really work.
I haven't seen this quoted in this thread, and I think it may very well provide the most conclusive argument.
BRBpg 162, "Deep Strike" panel, third paragraph
"Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (pg 135) and then deploy them as follows:"
This clearly states that deepstrike is a deployment, not a movement. The skimmer rule only applies to movement. (this also puts to bed the discussion about tankshocking/ramming while deepstriking)
Waaaaghmaster wrote: I haven't seen this quoted in this thread, and I think it may very well provide the most conclusive argument.
BRBpg 162, "Deep Strike" panel, third paragraph
"Arriving by Deep Strike Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (pg 135) and then deploy them as follows:"
This clearly states that deepstrike is a deployment, not a movement. The skimmer rule only applies to movement. (this also puts to bed the discussion about tankshocking/ramming while deepstriking)
I have to agree with Hollis (at least in principle). The rules for skimmers says that they cannot end their movement over other models (friendly or enemy). It's pretty definitive, and nowhere does it say "except when deepstriking, skimmers cannot end their movement over other models".
From the rules for Mishap:
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.
Show where 'deployment' is equal to 'movement' or where the Skimmer rule applies to deployment. Deep Striking causes the vehicle to count as having moved, but as shown in the Mishap rule, Deep Striking itself is treated as a form of deployment.
Not the same quote, but similar enough. Though I'm fairly certain it was mentioned.
It's already addressed redressed dressed again went to sleep got up put on make up dressed one more time then taken out into a deep dark wood buried then dug up one more time to be flogged.
Issue
What does the word deploy or deployed mean?
Rule
The word deployed is defined by the Basic Rule Book as the areas they can be set up.
Analysis
The rule book clearly states the definition for deployed. The past tense of deploy.
Conclusion
Deploy means for a player to place or set up a model, deployed is the past tense of this. Deployment is the act of doing this. Deploy is not a action unto the model itself that a model does but instead a action that the model or units owner or player commits.
Waaaaghmaster wrote: I haven't seen this quoted in this thread, and I think it may very well provide the most conclusive argument.
BRBpg 162, "Deep Strike" panel, third paragraph
"Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (pg 135) and then deploy them as follows:"
This clearly states that deepstrike is a deployment, not a movement. The skimmer rule only applies to movement. (this also puts to bed the discussion about tankshocking/ramming while deepstriking)
BRBpg 135:
"When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving itonto the table as described below. [...] The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move."
I'd say that's more relevant to the discussion at hand, than the emphasis on "deploy".
When you scatter across dangerous terrain do you need to take a Dangerous Terrain test?
Deep strike is movement. Scatter is not. The simple fact that I have deep struck, which counts as having moved, means I have moved. Think of it as vertical movement. This form of movement has a random ending point.
Unless you want to revisit your assertion that Treat as saved is a save? Because treating something as something, and counting something as something are grammatically the same. And the Deep Strike rule is counted as moving.
Hollismason wrote: It's already addressed redressed dressed again went to sleep got up put on make up dressed one more time then taken out into a deep dark wood buried then dug up one more time to be flogged.
Issue
What does the word deploy or deployed mean?
Rule
The word deployed is defined by the Basic Rule Book as the areas they can be set up.
Analysis
The rule book clearly states the definition for deployed. The past tense of deploy.
Conclusion
Deploy means for a player to place or set up a model, deployed is the past tense of this. Deployment is the act of doing this. Deploy is not a action unto the model itself that a model does but instead a action that the model or units owner or player commits.
Can you provide a page quote for you definition of the word deployed? Deployed certainly doesn't mean "the areas where they can be set up". I expect you read this sentence on page 130 under the Deployment Zones header - "Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided." Deployed clearly replaces set up in this instance. I know we've gone over this a number of times, but it's still accurate to say that Deep Striking a model is a form of Deploying a model, or rather Setting Up a model on the battlefield. Nowhere is it defined as movement. In fact, the Deep Strike rules go on to say that it counts as movement in the following Shooting Phase. Why would you need to specify that it counts as movement in the Shooting Phase if it had actually moved?
To be honest, I think all the arguing semantics on how far off a unit a Skimmer would move is moot. I see no real evidence that either Deep Strike is movement or that it counts as movement in the Movement Phase. The Deep Strike rules specifically say that the models count as having moved in the following Shooting Phase. There is no "counts as movement" wording applying to the same Movement Phase.
Kriswall, part ofthe problem is the rules for Deep Strike also say that a Deep Striking unit can move no further, except to disembark. If it has not moved, then it cannot move no further. Or something like that. There's a reason I'm not an English Major.
Either way, if Deep Striking in and of itself is movement, then the Mishap occurs before the model finishes its move. Since the model is not done moving when it mishaps, anything that occurs when it finishes its move would not kick in until after the mishap.
Waaaaghmaster wrote: I haven't seen this quoted in this thread, and I think it may very well provide the most conclusive argument.
BRBpg 162, "Deep Strike" panel, third paragraph
"Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (pg 135) and then deploy them as follows:"
This clearly states that deepstrike is a deployment, not a movement. The skimmer rule only applies to movement. (this also puts to bed the discussion about tankshocking/ramming while deepstriking)
BRBpg 135:
"When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving itonto the table as described below. [...] The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move."
I'd say that's more relevant to the discussion at hand, than the emphasis on "deploy".
Your quote for the more general reserves rule says "pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below."
the more specific rule for arriving from deepstrike says "and then deploy them as follows:"
Both quotes are discussing the method of deployment. The general method associated with reserves involves a movement, the more specific rule for deepstrike does not. Specific overrides general.
Yeah that's not actually how that rule functions at all you are literally just making something up by saying general overrides specific, it is special rule vs. basic rules not specific rules vs. basic rules. This only happens by the way when when there is a conflict , there is no conflict with deep strike and the movement rule or deep strike being movement. As movement literaly states that there are other methods of movement other than basic.
Not a single person has argued that the scatter portion of deep strike is movement. Stop saying this it's not been discussed at all.
People are just rehashing argument's that have been covered already multiple times including consistently bringing up straw man arguments, the same question that's been answered ad nauseum. Deep strike is movement, move on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: Kriswall, part ofthe problem is the rules for Deep Strike also say that a Deep Striking unit can move no further, except to disembark. If it has not moved, then it cannot move no further. Or something like that. There's a reason I'm not an English Major.
Either way, if Deep Striking in and of itself is movement, then the Mishap occurs before the model finishes its move. Since the model is not done moving when it mishaps, anything that occurs when it finishes its move would not kick in until after the mishap.
Everything underlined is verbatim from the rules
Issue:
If a Deepstriking Skimmer would end it's final position over a unit would the Skimmer be placed at least 1inch away and avoid Mishap?
Rule
Skimmers may move through but may not end their movement over enemy models. Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either. If a situation forcibly would cause a skimmer to end it's move it is instead moved in such away as to place it so that this does not happen. If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it. The minimum distance required specifically means the least amount of movement required to ensure this not happen, per the rules a model may not end it's move with in 1 inch of a enemy model.A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase.The deep strike rules state that a model from the unit is placed on board, then you roll for scatter to see its final positioning. 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. The model may not move any further. In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further. A model or unit is considered to mishap when it is placed on top of a enemy or friendly unit or with in impassable terrain. 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.
Analysis
The initial placing a of a model for deep strike does not allow it to be placed on top of another model friendly or enemy. The final positioning of a model during deep strike would be a ending of it's movement during the movement phase as it cannot move any further. The Skimmer special rule does not allow a unit to have a ending movement on top of a enemy or friendly model. A mishap occurs when the final positioning of the model would deploy it on top of a model or with in 1 inch of a enemy unit. The final positioning of a deep striking skimmer would be reduced to the minimum required distance 1 inch in the case of a enemy unit or less than 1 inch when on a friendly unit.
Conclusion
Deep Striking Skimmers would be moved according to the skimmer special rule. The Mishap would not occur because it's deployment onto the field or movement would have to be at least 1 inch away from a enemy unit and because deep strike would create a situation where the skimmer would be forcibly ending their move over an enemy unit.
Hollismason wrote: It's already addressed redressed dressed again went to sleep got up put on make up dressed one more time then taken out into a deep dark wood buried then dug up one more time to be flogged.
Issue
What does the word deploy or deployed mean?
Rule
The word deployed is defined by the Basic Rule Book as the areas they can be set up.
Analysis
The rule book clearly states the definition for deployed. The past tense of deploy.
Conclusion
Deploy means for a player to place or set up a model, deployed is the past tense of this. Deployment is the act of doing this. Deploy is not a action unto the model itself that a model does but instead a action that the model or units owner or player commits.
Can you provide a page quote for you definition of the word deployed? Deployed certainly doesn't mean "the areas where they can be set up". I expect you read this sentence on page 130 under the Deployment Zones header - "Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided." Deployed clearly replaces set up in this instance. I know we've gone over this a number of times, but it's still accurate to say that Deep Striking a model is a form of Deploying a model, or rather Setting Up a model on the battlefield. Nowhere is it defined as movement. In fact, the Deep Strike rules go on to say that it counts as movement in the following Shooting Phase. Why would you need to specify that it counts as movement in the Shooting Phase if it had actually moved?
To be honest, I think all the arguing semantics on how far off a unit a Skimmer would move is moot. I see no real evidence that either Deep Strike is movement or that it counts as movement in the Movement Phase. The Deep Strike rules specifically say that the models count as having moved in the following Shooting Phase. There is no "counts as movement" wording applying to the same Movement Phase.
This isn't a argument of a semantics, Deep strike is actual movement. Movement is only given one example of in the basic rules, the basic rules themselves state there are other methods of movement. The very definition of the PHASE you are in is called the movement phase.
That sentence wouldn't match yours for me it's page 356
It's move is considered ended on final placement which is the end of it's move during the movement phase this is a situation where it would be forcibly ending it's move on top of another model. The skimmer rule does not say after it has ended it's move but in fact if it would .
The whole rule can be summarized to state:
If something would cause this to happen, don't do it.
Mishap is
If this happens, do this
Like that's as simple as I can make it.
I maintain that the Skimmer rule happens before Mishap would occur although there is argument that it happens at the same time, which in that case you'd just pick the skimmer rule as it's your turn and you get to decide the order of action. They are both rules that deal with ending a move over a model by the way.
The order you can choose things is another rule people are ignoring.
Hollismason wrote: It's move is considered ended on final placement which is the end of it's move during the movement phase this is a situation where it would be forcibly ending it's move on top of another model. The skimmer rule does not say after it has ended it's move but in fact if it would .
Ahh there is the problem. The rules do not say if the Skimmer would end its move over models, the rule says if the skimmer is forced to end its move over models..
When you add words like "would" it changes the meaning of the sentence.
Hollismason wrote: It's move is considered ended on final placement which is the end of it's move during the movement phase this is a situation where it would be forcibly ending it's move on top of another model. The skimmer rule does not say after it has ended it's move but in fact if it would .
Ahh there is the problem. The rules do not say if the Skimmer would end its move over models, the rule says if the skimmer is forced to end its move over models..
When you add words like "would" it changes the meaning of the sentence.
The rules verbatim state this. I don't know what the you are talking about.
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.
Don't argue grammar with me seriously just like don't you're not going to win. If literally means a condition that could or would happen.
Would this be a condition of ending it's move? Yes. Then don't do that.
You would be correct if it said WHEN . It doesn't.
You can argue that Mishap occurs at the same time though, but then the whole " I get to determine how this plays out because it's my turn" happens.
Now ask yourself this. Why is the rule written that way? Because the rules don't want to state a situation where you would physically place a model on top of another which is why both are written similarly, they want to both check if this could happen, because the rules don't want to state a situation where the actual physical course of action for the model is. Place the model on top of other models, then end its move, Now take the model off those models. Like this is the actual reasoning.
This is your way of saying it works , ignore deep strike or any other rules, we're just concerned with a situation.
This is how you say that works
1. I scatter my Wave Serpent for whatever ever reason, it moves 8 inches which is on top of your terminators.
2. I PHYSICALLY pick up my Wave Serpent and lay it on top of your terminators.
3. I end my move.
4. My move as ended
5. I move my Wave Serpent that is LAYING ON TOP OF your terminators back to where it would be the minimum distance of 1 inch away from a enemy model.
This is how it actually works
1. I scatter my wave serpent, the scatter is 8 inches and would place it's ending movement on top of a unit of terminators.
2. Since that move would be forcing it to end, it's moved the minimum distance so as to to not be on top of another model.
I feel like I am in a Joseph Heller novel at this point.
Then... wait, how did this go? I want to remember your exact words to me earlier in this thread. Oh, yeah. Take your ball and go home. If this is so painful for you, you don't have to participate. I enjoy a good debate. Debating with you is difficult because you keep pulling in things like IRAC, which are pretty much isolated to legal analysis. This isn't a legal debate. The rulebook isn't a legal document. GW clearly doesn't employ anyone with legal training to write rules. To be honest, I'm not even sure you're using IRAC correctly. I get the same feeling I do when a student learns one technique and tries to make it fit in every situation. I mean, you used IRAC to "prove" that the past tense of deploy is defined as the noun... "areas". Seriously? I may not have the overwhelming grammatical power that you obviously do, but my Websters dictionary disagrees with your definition.
FACT: Deep Striking is a form of deployment.
FACT: Deployment is not defined as a form of movement. It is a placement of models.
FACT: The Deep Strike rules say a model may move no further except to disembark. This implies that prior movement occurred, but does not require that prior movement occurred.
FACT: The Deep Strike rules only give permission to count the model as having moved during the Shooting Phase. This implies that the model did not actually move in the previous movement phase. If it had, there would be no need to include this call out.
FACT: Scatter is not defined as a form of movement.
FACT: The Deep Strike process has not concluded until Mishap is checked for. If I'm willing to agree that a Deep Strike process is movement, I'm now willing to agree that the model would be forced to end its movement over other models. I place the model where I want to go. I scatter on top of models. I roll for mishap. Depending on the result, I'm either destroyed, placed back into reserves or my opponent is allowed to place the model. In none of those three scenarios am I ending the Deep Strike process on top of another model. Again, in none of those three scenarios am I ENDING the Deep Strike process on top of another model.
If you say that Deep Strike is movement, you need to complete the Deep Strike process to get to the END of that movement. If Deep Striking is movement, and you haven't completed all the steps of the Deep Strike process, you haven't come to the end of that movement. Fulling completing a Deep Strike process can never END with a model over another model.
If you say that only the Scatter element is movement, you need to demonstrate in the rules that the model is physically starting out where you've placed it and then moving to the new position. You need to demonstrate that the rules do not tell you to place the model where you would like it to go and then roll scatter to determine the model's final position... which is exactly what the rules say. There is no mention of movement. This is a placement process. The initial placement is a placeholder. The model is not deployed until final position is determined.
What you cannot do is agree that Deep Strike is movement, but then decide that you can END that movement halfway through the Deep Strike process.
You're just being wilfully obtuse at this point as multiple people myself include have demonstrated that Deep Strike is in fact movement.I've literally explained it grammatically, through the rules themselves, through diagrams.You just don't get it because of refusal to do so because of your inability to admit that you are wrong.
So you are just repeating the same things over and over again where I am showing multiple ways and explanations on why you are in fact wrong as are others.
When you scatter across dangerous terrain do you need to take a Dangerous Terrain test?
Deep strike is movement. Scatter is not. The simple fact that I have deep struck, which counts as having moved, means I have moved. Think of it as vertical movement. This form of movement has a random ending point.
Unless you want to revisit your assertion that Treat as saved is a save? Because treating something as something, and counting something as something are grammatically the same. And the Deep Strike rule is counted as moving.
When you scatter across dangerous terrain do you need to take a Dangerous Terrain test?
Hello, I am a strawman argument. No one has stated this. Moving on.
So the scatter is not movement?
Then the Skimmer rule does not come into play, since you mishap before the DSing unit arrives.
"If any of the models in a Deep Striking unit cannot be deployed" (DS rules)
"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." (DS rules)
The final position of the deep strike is the end of it's movement it's definitively stated it may not move no further. You're literally checking to see where it actually moves to. The first initial placing is where you want it to move ( coincidently you can't place it on a unit).
Neither Mishap or the Skimmer rule allow a model to end it's move on top of another unit. Skimmer rule happens before mishap or at the same time as mishap. You could argue they happen at the same time. As the final placement would be a definitive end of it's move which would leave it on top of models which the skimmer rule would prevent but also it would cause the mishap to occur as well.
Hollismason wrote: The final position of the deep strike is the end of it's movement it's definitively stated it may not move no further. You're literally checking to see where it actually moves to. The first initial placing is where you want it to move ( coincidently you can't place it on a unit).
So you have a rule that says this I assume?
Because I can not find it.
"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" (DS Mishap Rules)
Pay close attention to what I underlined.
The unit has not arrived until you check for mishap, since you check for mishap if it would land... meaning it has not yet landed and is not yet considered movement.
Hollismason wrote: You're just being wilfully obtuse at this point as multiple people myself include have demonstrated that Deep Strike is in fact movement.I've literally explained it grammatically, through the rules themselves, through diagrams.You just don't get it because of refusal to do so because of your inability to admit that you are wrong.
So you are just repeating the same things over and over again where I am showing multiple ways and explanations on why you are in fact wrong as are others.
Ok, pretend I'm a five year old and explain it to me. We'll assume the Deep Strike process is movement. You are wanting to use something that triggers on the end of movement partway through the Deep Strike process. If the Deep Strike process is movement, you shouldn't be able to use something that triggers on the end of movement until you've completed the initial placement, subsequent scatter and mishap check/execution steps.
Your whole argument seems to balance on being able to say that Deep Strike is movement, but that Deep Strike ends (triggering the Skimmer rule check) BEFORE you check for a Mishap. Your argument seems to be not that Deep Strike is movement, but that the Scatter step of the Deep Strike process is movement. I see no rules as written evidence to count the Scatter step alone as movement.
The skimmer rule would still apply to that, neither of those rules activate after the end of a move but before it.
They both though do not want you to end your movement on something.
It's pretty simple that's why I asked illustrate another example, but we can make it up.
Something causes a skimmer to move randomly just hits it and it randomly moves.
This is your sequence of events that you think occurs
1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.
This is how it actually works
1. The model scatters and that movement places it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model.
It's actually how mishap works as well. It checks first, you don't place a model on top of another model, then go wait it mishapped, then remove the model from the table.
The only thing that is occuring with both of those is that you are checking to see if the model would end it's movement over another model.
Can you please stop bringing up scatter is movement?
Can you please actual read what I wrote? Is that to much to ask, I mean I'm going through the trouble of responding to you could you do me the one thing that is required for a conversation to happen but listen to the other person and respond to what I am actually writing?
Or are you unable to do this?
I always like the example of if the start of a statement is your shoulder and the end of the statement is your hand, most people get to the elbow when listening to someone. You're not actually comprehending or responding to things I am stating.
I can only assume you are not actually reading what I wrote, but instead responding with what ever you think you should say.
Hollismason wrote: The skimmer rule would still apply to that, neither of those rules activate after the end of a move but before it.
They both though do not want you to end your movement on someone.
Oh, see, this is something I can easily disprove.
Mishap 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 model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong."
The mishap doesn't trigger off ending movement. It trigger off a unit not being able to be deployed, with several reasons for that listed.
Again, check for mishap is part of Deep Strike. Check for mishap doesn't care about the end of movement. It cares only about inability to deploy.
I fully and willingly admit that at the end of a Deep Strike process the Skimmer rule would come into play. Unfortunately, there are only four outcomes to a standard Deep Strike process for something like a Raider...
1. Successful deployment through either no scatter or scatter to a safe location.
2. Mishap with the unit destroyed.
3. Mishap with the unit placed back in reserves.
4. Mishap with the unit deployed by your opponent in a safe location.
There is no "5. Deployment on top of an enemy unit". It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Deep Strike process to END on top of an enemy unit.
Can you please actual read what I wrote? Is that to much to ask, I mean I'm going through the trouble of responding to you could you do me the one thing that is required for a conversation to happen but listen to the other person?
I don't actually think the scatter portion is movement. You seem to as you're triggering the Skimmer rule after the scatter has completed, but before the Deep Strike process has completed.
Unless you can cite permission to count scatter as movement, or cite permission to count a Deep Strike process as ended BEFORE mishap is checked for, you are not covering my points above.
I've literally stated multiple times what my viewpoint is. You seem to not be able to actually comprehend what I am stating.
Here is as simple as I can make it.
The Skimmer rule does not trigger after something has ended it's move. It stops it from ever happening. It also does not care if there is a Mishap rule. It only cares if there is a situation where something would forcibly end a skimmers movement over another model and it prevents this from ever happening. The final placement after scatter would be the ending movement of a skimmer, if models are there, the skimmer rule moves it the minimum distance required to avoid this from ever possibly happening.
If you do not think it happens that way then please give me your sequence of events of what happens when a skimmer is forced to end it's move on top of another model. Like in steps, I've already actually done this but why not you do it. Ignore deep strike whatever else. Let's just say it scatters randomly out of the sky , something picks it up and drops it randomly. How does this sequence of events look phsyically on the field.
Hollismason wrote: I've literally stated multiple times what my viewpoint is. You seem to not be able to actually comprehend what I am stating.
Here is as simple as I can make it.
The Skimmer rule does not trigger after something has ended it's move. It stops it from ever happening. It also does not care if there is a Mishap rule. It only cares if there is a situation where something would forcibly end a skimmers movement over another model and it prevents this from ever happening. The final placement after scatter would be the ending movement of a skimmer, if models are there, the skimmer rule moves it the minimum distance required to avoid this from ever possibly happening.
If you do not think it happens that way then please give me your sequence of events of what happens when a skimmer is forced to end it's move on top of another model. Like in steps, I've already actually done this but why not you do it. Ignore deep strike whatever else. Let's just say it scatters randomly out of the sky , something picks it up and drops it randomly. How does this sequence of events look phsyically on the field.
Sure thing. In your mythical scenario (which sure looks like a Deep Strike process without the mishap section) the Skimmer rule would come into play exactly as you've said. Fortunately, the Deep Strike process ALREADY has a method for ensuring no model ever ends its movement on top of another model. It's called a mishap. A Deep Strike process NEVER ENDS with a model on top of another model.
I've agreed that the process works exactly as you say in a non Deep Strike scenario.
Now, you run me through a Deep Strike process flow where at the END of the Deep Strike process the deep striking model IS FORCED to end on top of another model.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to be destroyed.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to go back into reserves.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to deploy somewhere my opponent chooses.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it is never FORCED to end the Deep Strike on top of another model.
Since it destroys your side of the argument, no I will keep bringing it up till you address it. You wont be able to though, since no rules side with your position here.
Can you please actual read what I wrote? Is that to much to ask, I mean I'm going through the trouble of responding to you could you do me the one thing that is required for a conversation to happen but listen to the other person and respond to what I am actually writing?
I read what you wrote, the rules disagree with it.
Or are you unable to do this?
I have, and have debunked your position.
I always like the example of if the start of a statement is your shoulder and the end of the statement is your hand, most people get to the elbow when listening to someone. You're not actually comprehending or responding to things I am stating.
I can only assume you are not actually reading what I wrote, but instead responding with what ever you think you should say.
I have read what you wrote, and have debunked your position.
No you've just repeatedly stated that I state Scatter is movement, when I've repeatedly stated otherwise. That scatter is simply the method we use to determine the final place of where it is moving.
Nor does it destroy my argument , Nor have you refuted it. You've just constantly repeated your statement. You just saying something over and over again isn't a argument it's just you repeating yourself.
Again, explain in step by step terms how to resolve the skimmer rule if something would occur to forcibly move it.
Hollismason wrote: I've literally stated multiple times what my viewpoint is. You seem to not be able to actually comprehend what I am stating.
Here is as simple as I can make it.
The Skimmer rule does not trigger after something has ended it's move. It stops it from ever happening. It also does not care if there is a Mishap rule. It only cares if there is a situation where something would forcibly end a skimmers movement over another model and it prevents this from ever happening. The final placement after scatter would be the ending movement of a skimmer, if models are there, the skimmer rule moves it the minimum distance required to avoid this from ever possibly happening.
If you do not think it happens that way then please give me your sequence of events of what happens when a skimmer is forced to end it's move on top of another model. Like in steps, I've already actually done this but why not you do it. Ignore deep strike whatever else. Let's just say it scatters randomly out of the sky , something picks it up and drops it randomly. How does this sequence of events look phsyically on the field.
Sure thing. In your mythical scenario (which sure looks like a Deep Strike process without the mishap section) the Skimmer rule would come into play exactly as you've said. Fortunately, the Deep Strike process ALREADY has a method for ensuring no model ever ends its movement on top of another model. It's called a mishap. A Deep Strike process NEVER ENDS with a model on top of another model.
I've agreed that the process works exactly as you say in a non Deep Strike scenario.
Now, you run me through a Deep Strike process flow where at the END of the Deep Strike process the deep striking model IS FORCED to end on top of another model.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to be destroyed.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to go back into reserves.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to deploy somewhere my opponent chooses.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it is never FORCED to end the Deep Strike on top of another model.
Again you are ignoring everything I have written.
This is a simply yes or no which of these methods is the method by which the skimmer rule works that's all you have to answer.
This one
1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.
Or this one
1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model
"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" (DS Mishap Rules)
Pay close attention to what I underlined.
The unit has not arrived until you check for mishap, since you check for mishap if it would land... meaning it has not yet landed and is not yet considered movement.
Again you are fundamentally not understanding how the skimmer rule works.
Again Answer this question which of these methods does the skimmer rule work?
1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.
Or this one
1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model
Skimmer rule kicks in partway through the deep strike process when a model's final position is determined (determined, not moved).
I'm confused by this second part because despite the final position being determined, the model is never actually deployed on top of any models, so how could the Skimmer rule possibly come into play? A mishap occurs once the model's final position is determined to fulfill one of several listed criteria.
"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" (DS Mishap Rules)
Pay close attention to what I underlined.
The unit has not arrived until you check for mishap, since you check for mishap if it would land... meaning it has not yet landed and is not yet considered movement.
I'm not sure there is any point arguing with Hollismason. He isn't willing to address specific counter arguments. It's the sign of a weak argument.
The one that makes the most sense is that the skimmer rule talks about being "forced" to end its move over friendly of enemy models, but deep strike doesn't force you to end your move over friendly or enemy models.
But GW are so fast and loose with their wordings that I have no idea what the intended ruling might have been if there was any intention what so ever... so whatever... play it how you like I suppose. In my experience, trying to argue the finer points of wording is hard enough on the internet, it's damned near impossible in person.
Hollismason wrote: Again you are fundamentally not understanding how the skimmer rule works.
Again Answer this question which of these methods does the skimmer rule work?
1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.
Or this one
1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model
Neither
1 is incorrect because you seem to think scatter is movement when you say "The model scatters and that move ment..." the scatter is not movement as you have said, so why are you now saying it is?
I literally live in the same city as you, would you like to meet up somewhere and physically show me how you think it works, some place preferably in public.
Cause at this point I think you're just purposefully being ignorant of what I've said.
Or why not just write out like I did the steps to resolving the skimmers rules or how it would work. Just write it out. Let's see you do that. Cause the way I wrote it doesn't have anything to do with scatter at all. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Just do that.
A simple statement, I've more than went beyond measure for explaining myself , yet you have yet to explain how you think it actually works, the skimmer rule. How that rule would function physically in the game.
Hollismason wrote: Again you are fundamentally not understanding how the skimmer rule works.
Again Answer this question which of these methods does the skimmer rule work?
1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.
Or this one
1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model
Neither
1 is incorrect because you seem to think scatter is movement when you say "The model scatters and that move ment..." the scatter is not movement as you have said, so why are you now saying it is?
2 is incorrect for the same reason.
I know I'm coming late to the discussion so maybe I've missed the point, but I don't think you are understanding his argument... the arrival of the model is movement. It's not so much that the desired DS location to scatter location is movement, but rather the fact the model arrives is the movement. However it's never explicitly stated as such either way. It is explicitly stated "Deep Striking units may not move any further" and "count as having moved in the previous Movement phase" directly imply that the arrival of the unit is movement, but it's never specified which part of the arrival is the movement.
So I don't think the "deep strike is not moving" argument is worth anything much.
The arguments that seem meaningful are...
1. Mishaps stop the model from arriving... so if the model doesn't arrive how can it have moved, if it hasn't moved then it can't be ending it's move on top of models.
2. The skimmer rules refer to being "forced"... deep striking doesn't force you to end your move on models, it offers the alternative of mishap, if you aren't "forced" then the skimmer rule doesn't come in to effect.
The impassable terrain, looking purely at the wording, is a separate issue. At first read it would seem that skimmers can DS on to impassable terrain depending on how you read the rule.
Skimmer rule kicks in partway through the deep strike process when a model's final position is determined (determined, not moved).
I'm confused by this second part because despite the final position being determined, the model is never actually deployed on top of any models, so how could the Skimmer rule possibly come into play? A mishap occurs once the model's final position is determined to fulfill one of several listed criteria.
"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" (DS Mishap Rules)
Pay close attention to what I underlined.
The unit has not arrived until you check for mishap, since you check for mishap if it would land... meaning it has not yet landed and is not yet considered movement.
I'm not sure there is any point arguing with Hollismason. He isn't willing to address specific counter arguments. It's the sign of a weak argument.
Scatter only serves the purpose to show where the model would be moving to and ending it's move. Here it is in steps.
1. I select a unit from reserves to move onto the board and deploy it as per the deep strike rule.
2. To literally do this you are suppose to set the models offboard.
3. Deep Strike states place a model onto the board
4. Roll for scatter to see where it actually moves to. The place you intended it to move to or elsewhere.
5. If the scatter would place it in such that it would end its move DEEP STRIKE ( which is a type of movement) over a model the skimmer rule would not allow this, the mishap rule would also not allow this.
6. The skimmer rule states place the model the minimum distance needed, 1 inch in the case of enemy models, Deep Strike Mishap even makes the point that it is only when with in 1 inch of Enemy Models that you mishap BTW.
7. It's actual placement would put it the minimum distance away , which directionly would place it inch away.
That's it that's the order.
Both the Skimmer rule and Mishap do not require you to physically place the model on other models. The Skimmer rule does not say AFTER it ends its move.
Again, write out the way I wrote out the specific way you think the skimmer rule functions in a scenario. That's it. Just write that out
Hollismason wrote: Again you are fundamentally not understanding how the skimmer rule works.
Again Answer this question which of these methods does the skimmer rule work?
1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.
Or this one
1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model
Neither
1 is incorrect because you seem to think scatter is movement when you say "The model scatters and that move ment..." the scatter is not movement as you have said, so why are you now saying it is?
2 is incorrect for the same reason.
I know I'm coming late to the discussion so maybe I've missed the point, but I don't think you are understanding his argument... the arrival of the model is movement. It's not so much that the desired DS location to scatter location is movement, but rather the fact the model arrives is the movement. However it's never explicitly stated as such either way. It is explicitly stated "Deep Striking units may not move any further" and "count as having moved in the previous Movement phase" directly imply that the arrival of the unit is movement, but it's never specified which part of the arrival is the movement.
So I don't think the "deep strike is not moving" argument is worth anything much.
The arguments that seem meaningful are...
1. Mishaps stop the model from arriving... so if the model doesn't arrive how can it have moved, if it hasn't moved then it can't be ending it's move on top of models.
2. The skimmer rules refer to being "forced"... deep striking doesn't force you to end your move on models, it offers the alternative of mishap, if you aren't "forced" then the skimmer rule doesn't come in to effect.
The impassable terrain, looking purely at the wording, is a separate issue. At first read it would seem that skimmers can DS on to impassable terrain depending on how you read the rule.
The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.
The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.
The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.
They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.
The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.
Hollismason wrote: I literally live in the same city as you, would you like to meet up somewhere and physically show me how you think it works, some place preferably in public.
Cause at this point I think you're just purposefully being ignorant of what I've said.
Or why not just write out like I did the steps to resolving the skimmers rules or how it would work. Just write it out. Let's see you do that. Cause the way I wrote it doesn't have anything to do with scatter at all. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Just do that.
A simple statement, I've more than went beyond measure for explaining myself , yet you have yet to explain how you think it actually works, the skimmer rule. How that rule would function physically in the game.
Step 1. Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves.
Step 2. Place the model anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive.
Step 3. Roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.
Step 4. Assuming the final position meets none of the criteria of a mishap, deploy the model.
Step 5. If the model cannot be deployed due, among other things, to being on top of an enemy model, roll on the Deep Strike Mishap Table. This step is important. I want to point out the the model does not actually deploy, instead experiencing a mishap.
Step 6. Perform the resulting selection from the Mishap Table.
As of Step 6, the Deep Strike process is complete. At no step is the model forced to end the Deep Strike over an enemy model. It might be forced to roll on and obey the result of the mishap table, but it is never forced to end a deep strike over another model.
Step 7. If the model is a Skimmer and because Deep Striking counts as movement (still potentially up for debate), test to see whether it was forced to end it's movement over an existing model. If it did, move it as specified in the Skimmer rules. I contend that as there is no legal scenario where a model ENDS a Deep Strike process over enemy models, there is no legal scenario where the Skimmer rules would come into play during a Deep Strike.
Hollismason wrote: The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.
The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.
The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.
They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.
The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.
I honestly don't think the rule writers ever even considered that the rules would interact hence why they aren't worded well to fit in with each other.
Yes, the skimmer rule is "always on", but it is only relevant when the skimmer is "forced to end its move"... deep striking on to units is not forcing you to end your move over friendly or enemy models, so I'd argue the skimmer rule is not relevant.
The rules clash, yes, I don't think they were ever intended to interact, but given the wording we have, given that deep strike doesn't force you to end your move over models, I don't see how the skimmer rule would be relevant.
Hollismason wrote: The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.
The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.
The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.
They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.
The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.
So, again, you contend that the model is moving from the point you would like it to deploy to the point the scatter dice indicate despite NEVER actually DEPLOYING to the board? Seriously, you're just picking and choosing the bits of Deep Strike you want to obey.
Let's take a non skimmer. Let's take a Blood Angels Land Raider. It has Deep Strike.
Paint a picture with words. Give me a start to finish scenario where the Land Raider would fully complete the Deep Strike and end up on top of another model. Fill in the below...
Step 1. Model is in reserves.
Step 2. Deep Strike commences
Step 3 to whatever ... (you fill in these steps, remembering that mishap check must be included in between deep strike begins and ends)
Second to Last Step. Deep Strike Ends
Last Step. Land Raider has been forced to deploy onto another unit.
Hollismason wrote: The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.
The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.
The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.
They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.
The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.
I honestly don't think the rule writers ever even considered that the rules would interact hence why they aren't worded well to fit in with each other.
Yes, the skimmer rule is "always on", but it is only relevant when the skimmer is "forced to end its move"... deep striking on to units is not forcing you to end your move over friendly or enemy models, so I'd argue the skimmer rule is not relevant.
The rules clash, yes, I don't think they were ever intended to interact, but given the wording we have, given that deep strike doesn't force you to end your move over models, I don't see how the skimmer rule would be relevant.
I don't even think the rules clash. I think the Skimmer rule simply never comes into play because Deep Strike never allows a model to end a Deep Strike on top of another unit.
Kriswall wrote: I don't even think the rules clash. I think the Skimmer rule simply never comes into play because Deep Strike never allows a model to end a Deep Strike on top of another unit.
The reason I feel they clash is because the mishap occurs if the unit "cannot be deployed", the wording of the next half of the sentence is "because blah" when I think it should be "such as blah" or "for example if blah". Logically a skimmer COULD deploy on to impassable terrain because it can move on to impassable terrain and could, if necessary, deploy after scattering on to other units ... but the deep strike rule just puts a blanket ban on deployment if X, Y, and Z occurs with no acknowledgement that some units (skimmers) might actually be able to deploy in those circumstances.
Of course that's debatable... it's just how I feel from reading the rules, that the two rules were written without consideration of each other.
I tend to think the "forced to end their move" thing was written for a hypothetical rule that never came in to being where something would stop a model in its tracks during its movement phase or maybe some sort of planned system for movement that the player doesn't control (and so could unintentionally drop you on top of another unit).
Hollismason wrote: The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.
The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.
The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.
They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.
The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.
So, again, you contend that the model is moving from the point you would like it to deploy to the point the scatter dice indicate despite NEVER actually DEPLOYING to the board? Seriously, you're just picking and choosing the bits of Deep Strike you want to obey.
Just write out how you think the skimmer rule works.
Let's take a non skimmer. Let's take a Blood Angels Land Raider. It has Deep Strike.
Paint a picture with words. Give me a start to finish scenario where the Land Raider would fully complete the Deep Strike and end up on top of another model. Fill in the below...
Step 1. Model is in reserves.
Step 2. Deep Strike commences
Step 3 to whatever ... (you fill in these steps, remembering that mishap check must be included in between deep strike begins and ends)
Second to Last Step. Deep Strike Ends
Last Step. Land Raider has been forced to deploy onto another unit.
It's pretty simple write out how you think you actually use the skimmer rule. Like physically do you think you physically place a model on top of another model. Stop. Then move the model. According to the Skimmer rules.
Or are you just unable to do this, because refusal just proves my point that this is not how the Skimmer rule works and in fact works as a check system to make sure it's movement would never let it end over a model.
Hollismason wrote: The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.
The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.
The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.
They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.
The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.
So, again, you contend that the model is moving from the point you would like it to deploy to the point the scatter dice indicate despite NEVER actually DEPLOYING to the board? Seriously, you're just picking and choosing the bits of Deep Strike you want to obey.
Just write out how you think the skimmer rule works.
Let's take a non skimmer. Let's take a Blood Angels Land Raider. It has Deep Strike.
Paint a picture with words. Give me a start to finish scenario where the Land Raider would fully complete the Deep Strike and end up on top of another model. Fill in the below...
Step 1. Model is in reserves.
Step 2. Deep Strike commences
Step 3 to whatever ... (you fill in these steps, remembering that mishap check must be included in between deep strike begins and ends)
Second to Last Step. Deep Strike Ends
Last Step. Land Raider has been forced to deploy onto another unit.
It's pretty simple write out how you think you actually use the skimmer rule. Like physically do you think you physically place a model on top of another model. Stop. Then move the model. According to the Skimmer rules.
Or are you just unable to do this, because refusal just proves my point that this is not how the Skimmer rule works and in fact works as a check system to make sure it's movement would never let it end over a model.
The Skimmer rule isn't in question here. I 100% agree that Skimmers "slide" off of models when they are forced to end their movement on top of them. The Skimmer rule is fething simple and straightforward. "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models..." THIS CONDITION IS NEVER MET DURING A DEEP STRIKE. The Skimmer rule simply doesn't apply in this situation.
Until you are willing to explain, in detail, using actual rules quotes how a model WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DEPLOYED TO THE TABLE has ended it move over an enemy model, I'll just assume you know you're wrong, but are unwilling to admit it.
If you can cite a rule that allows me to consider a deep strike complete BEFORE I check for and execute a mishap, then I'll concede and proclaim you Grand Wizard of Dogmatic Bickering. Until then, you lose by default because you're not willing to address a valid debate point.
I've demonstrated it not only with rules quotes others have as well. It's simple Deep Strike is movement, the final position that you would place the model is the end of it's move. Skimmer rules kick in.
I've quoted requoted , rewritten and rewritten.
Now is your turn is to tell me how the Skimmer rule works in a move that would forcibly end it's move over a model.
That's it that's all you have to do. I've endlessly played quote monkey with the rules, you have consistently just requoted yourself over and over again. Now is your turn to put up , explain to me with rules quotations why deploying from deep strike is not movement when all references surrounding it indicate that it is a type of move.
Now, show me where in the rules the Skimmer rules could be applied and how you would physically apply them. If not stop repeating yourself and I'll consider the question over.
That's it all you have to do is demonstrate that deep strike is not movment as well a show me how you would enact the skimmer rule in any other situation that would cause the model to be forcibly moved.
The preponderence of evidence points to Deep Strike being a type of move, the skimmer rules do not allow you to physically place another model on top of another, then end the move, then move the model.
That's literally what you are saying occurs.
I've consistently maintained that these rules are parallel to each other and function perfectly fine together.
Hollismason wrote: I've demonstrated it not only with rules quotes others have as well. It's simple Deep Strike is movement, the final position that you would place the model is the end of it's move. Skimmer rules kick in.
I've quoted requoted , rewritten and rewritten.
Now is your turn is to tell me how the Skimmer rule works in a move that would forcibly end it's move over a model.
We agree on how the Skimmer rule works in a scenario where it is forced to end it's movement over a model.
That's it that's all you have to do. I've endlessly played quote monkey with the rules, you have consistently just requoted yourself over and over again. Now is your turn to put up , explain to me with rules quotations why deploying from deep strike is not movement when all references surrounding it indicate that it is a type of move.
I agree that a Deep Strike procedure counts as movement.
Now, show me where in the rules the Skimmer rules could be applied and how you would physically apply them. If not stop repeating yourself and I'll consider the question over.
I honestly can't think of a single scenario where a Skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of another model. I know that if a Skimmer is on the upper floor of a building and there are models underneath it, it would be considered to be on top of a model. For the life of me, I can't think of anything that would FORCE it to be in that position. The player would presumably put it there by choice, so the rule wouldn't apply. As has been said in this thread, this Skimmer rule is likely a copy and paste leftover from a previous addition where it was possible to force a vehicle to end its move over another model.
That's it all you have to do is demonstrate that deep strike is not movment as well a show me how you would enact the skimmer rule in any other situation that would cause the model to be forcibly moved.
The preponderence of evidence points to Deep Strike being a type of move,
Agreed.
the skimmer rules do not allow you to physically place another model on top of another, then end the move, then move the model.
Agreed.
That's literally what you are saying occurs.
I either haven't been clear, or you aren't understanding. My contention is that Deep Striking never results in a model being moved on top of another model. You can't consider the Deep Strike to have ended until you roll for a mishap, as that is a part of the Deep Strike. Are you contending that Deep Strike is a form of movement, or are you contending that the scatter step of Deep Strike is a form of movement? Seriously. I'd like an answer to this question.
If you contend that Deep Strike is a form of movement, you have to complete the process before it has ended. The full Deep Strike process can't end with a model on top of another model.
If you contend that the scatter step is a form of movement, you need to demonstrate that using the rules. The general consensus seems to be that the scatter step merely determines the model's actual deployment location, but does not constitute a move from the chosen spot to the scattered spot.
I've consistently maintained that these rules are parallel to each other and function perfectly fine together.
They certainly don't contradict each other. Deploying via Deep Strike simply never results in a scenario where a model is deployed on top of another model.
Now your turn...
All you need to do to convince me is provide me with a scenario where you Deep Strike a non-Skimmer and it completes the Deep Strike deployed on top of another model... as in, at the end of the movement phase, it is sitting on top of another model. Alternatively, you can provide me with your reason for considering the Deep Strike to have ended before you check and roll for a mishap.
My contention is that if you consider Deep Strike movement, you have to consider the whole process to be movement. You can't consider the process up to where the scatter is rolled only. That seems to be what you're doing.
Hollismason wrote: I've demonstrated it not only with rules quotes others have as well. It's simple Deep Strike is movement, the final position that you would place the model is the end of it's move. Skimmer rules kick in.
I've quoted requoted , rewritten and rewritten.
Now is your turn is to tell me how the Skimmer rule works in a move that would forcibly end it's move over a model.
We agree on how the Skimmer rule works in a scenario where it is forced to end it's movement over a model.
That's it that's all you have to do. I've endlessly played quote monkey with the rules, you have consistently just requoted yourself over and over again. Now is your turn to put up , explain to me with rules quotations why deploying from deep strike is not movement when all references surrounding it indicate that it is a type of move.
I agree that a Deep Strike procedure counts as movement.
Now, show me where in the rules the Skimmer rules could be applied and how you would physically apply them. If not stop repeating yourself and I'll consider the question over.
I honestly can't think of a single scenario where a Skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of another model. I know that if a Skimmer is on the upper floor of a building and there are models underneath it, it would be considered to be on top of a model. For the life of me, I can't think of anything that would FORCE it to be in that position. The player would presumably put it there by choice, so the rule wouldn't apply. As has been said in this thread, this Skimmer rule is likely a copy and paste leftover from a previous addition where it was possible to force a vehicle to end its move over another model.
That's it all you have to do is demonstrate that deep strike is not movment as well a show me how you would enact the skimmer rule in any other situation that would cause the model to be forcibly moved.
The preponderence of evidence points to Deep Strike being a type of move,
Agreed.
the skimmer rules do not allow you to physically place another model on top of another, then end the move, then move the model.
Agreed.
That's literally what you are saying occurs.
I either haven't been clear, or you aren't understanding. My contention is that Deep Striking never results in a model being moved on top of another model. You can't consider the Deep Strike to have ended until you roll for a mishap, as that is a part of the Deep Strike. Are you contending that Deep Strike is a form of movement, or are you contending that the scatter step of Deep Strike is a form of movement? Seriously. I'd like an answer to this question.
If you contend that Deep Strike is a form of movement, you have to complete the process before it has ended. The full Deep Strike process can't end with a model on top of another model.
If you contend that the scatter step is a form of movement, you need to demonstrate that using the rules. The general consensus seems to be that the scatter step merely determines the model's actual deployment location, but does not constitute a move from the chosen spot to the scattered spot.
I've consistently maintained that these rules are parallel to each other and function perfectly fine together.
They certainly don't contradict each other. Deploying via Deep Strike simply never results in a scenario where a model is deployed on top of another model.
Now your turn...
All you need to do to convince me is provide me with a scenario where you Deep Strike a non-Skimmer and it completes the Deep Strike deployed on top of another model... as in, at the end of the movement phase, it is sitting on top of another model. Alternatively, you can provide me with your reason for considering the Deep Strike to have ended before you check and roll for a mishap.
My contention is that if you consider Deep Strike movement, you have to consider the whole process to be movement. You can't consider the process up to where the scatter is rolled only. That seems to be what you're doing.
No we don't actually agree as you've not stated which version you use or how it works.
The only thing that scatter is is the final positioning of the model and where it is going to move to. That's it. It's not complicated it's quasi random movement.
I've already said provide me with a scenario and how a skimmer would function within the rules and the order that it would t ake place in.
No one has argued regarding regular vehicles deep striking that are not skimmers, so we can dismiss that strawman.
You do not have to complete the movement or end it for rules to apply especially if the rule is a check to make sure that situation never happens.
Skimmers have a rule to ensure they will never be able to end their move over another model, this is preventative.
Mishap has a rule that is reactionary.
This is not difficult to understand, one happens when something happens, one happens when something could happen to prevent it from happening.
These are both rules that occur either at the same time or the skimmer rules happen before mishap.
You literally go to place the model for Deep Strike. Here's a interesting scenario it is actually possible for a skimmer to scatter land and mishap which is something you haven't brought up and I have already stated, if the scatter places it with in one inch but not on top of a model, it'd mishap, if it was a enemy model. Not if it was a friendly model.
What is so difficult to understand about that.
Please show me your rules that state that the Skimmer rule is not preventative as well as the rule quotes stating that Deep Strike is not in fact movment. Thanks, I've proven my side of the argument you have not listed a single scenario, a single rules quote other than contextual.
Kriswall wrote: I honestly can't think of a single scenario where a Skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of another model. I know that if a Skimmer is on the upper floor of a building and there are models underneath it, it would be considered to be on top of a model. For the life of me, I can't think of anything that would FORCE it to be in that position.
When skimmers move they move over models. If I bubble wrap an enemy unit, I can bunny hop over my guys to try and tank shock the enemy unit. If the enemy immobilises my skimmer, it would be forced to land on my guys and would slide back off.
Note that the skimmers moving over models is always in effect, regardless of how the skimmer moves, unless the movement specifically says otherwise.
Yeah, that's the only scenario I can think of is the tank shock over something. The rule is there to specifically prevent the Skimmer from ever ending a move on top of a model.
It's important to also understand the reason behind certain rules. Why would this rule be in effect ? Because Games Work Shop does not want to ever create a situation where the rules would cause a model to damage itself physically or another model physically ( A good example of this is when they talk about being "half on half off" items")
The mishap rule is meant to prevent this as well but with a consequence.
I give up. You refuse to answer any of my questions. I've agreed that in all non deep strike instances the skimmer rule takes effect and slide the skimmer.
You can't show me a single instance of deep strike forcing a model to end its move on top of another model. Let's take the skimmer issue out of it. Show me any other model ending a deep strike on top of a model. You can't. You refuse to address this. I'm assuming you refuse to address it because the inability to show one example of a non skimmer vehicle deep striking and ending the deep strike on top of a model kills your argument.
As written, there is enough for this to be ruled either way.
I believe that it is intended to save the skimmer from misshaping. My reasoning for this belief is that they removed the deep strike protection from the Monoliths.
Hollismason, would I be correct in saying that part of your argument is that all rules must have a reason for being written. Since (presumably) the only time a skimmer would end its move on another unit is when deep striking, the rule must apply to that.
If I'm wrong, I apologize, I'm just trying to understand your full argument.
I think there are actually rules to prevent situations that could occur from every occuring, specifically any situation where a model could be physically damaged.
This is why you check it's possible ending movement before you ever place it. It's also why it says FORCIBLY, because it already states you can not voluntarily place a skimmer to end it's move over a model.
The basic premise is that both the skimmer rule is a preventative measure from ever letting this happen.
The Mishap rule is the same way.
It is actually possible as I've stated to have a Skimmer deep strike and Mishap though. If it doesn't scatter on top of an enemy model but instead with in one inch it's rule wouldn't kick in to move it. It only cares if it would end it's move on top of a model.
You do not for mishap place a model onto the field where it would be lay it on top of a model, then seeing that this would happen, remove it do to mishap.
You do not for Skimmer ever actually move the model onto top of the model if it was ending its move there, you check to see if this would happen, if it would you move it the minimum distance required so that it is not on top of a model. For friendly models, it is less than one inch. For enemy models this is one inch.
Mishap is done the same way, however you'll notice that it also has a basic rule reinforcement with the with in the 1 inch of a enemy, you can be within 1 inch of a friendly model.
Both rules are designed basically the same way, to prevent placing a model on top of another model , then move it off once you have done this. The rules also specifically want to prevent this from happening so in any situation where this could happen it's a specific order of events.
Is there a reason you won't give me an in game example of a non skimmer ending a deep strike process on top of a model? If the skimmer rule kicks in when this happens, surely it can also happen to a non skimmer.
Because it's not a issue that's debated. I've never stated that Deep Striking vehicles in general would not be affected by mishap. This also affects Monoliths not just Dark Eldar.
Name a situation where the skimmer rule would kick in and how it would function in the game. Your argument for why the mishap rule would take place is the same argument for why the skimmer rule would. Replace all of your Mishap wording with Skimmer rule, you have the same argument.
I happen to feel it happens before but it can happen at the same time, which in that case you'd obviously just pick the skimmer rule.
It even gives you a direction on where to place them as technically the deep strike model is placed "offboard if possible" , it also states that you PIVOT a model before it actually finally lands which is a noticable rule that keeps being overlooked. On the initial placement you have to decide which direction. If it scatters your not allowed to Pivot it any further.
Hollis- happy has, at least five times now. That, like the fact the unit doesn't arrive until after you check for mishap, is something you consistently ignore it seems.
The units move cannot end until after you check for mishap. Mishap means the skimmer can NEVER end its movement over another unit.
That's not actually what the skimmer rule states. It's why Happy's example is one in favor of it.
Why?
Because in that scenario the model is not physically placed on top of any other model. You just check to see if it would be.
The Skimmer rule only cares if there is a situation where it could be placed on top of another model if that could occur the skimmer rule prevents that from ever happening, just like the mishap rule.
The same argument you are making for Mishap, is the same argument for the skimmer rule. That's why I find this conversation so mindboggling.
Except the skimmer rule requires the models mi vent to end. The mishap rule occurs before the unit is ever deployed. It cannot have moved until after you check for mishap
Why you can't see that is what's so mind boggling.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Except the skimmer rule requires the models mi vent to end. The mishap rule occurs before the unit is ever deployed. It cannot have moved until after you check for mishap
Why you can't see that is what's so mind boggling.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Hollis- happy has, at least five times now. That, like the fact the unit doesn't arrive until after you check for mishap, is something you consistently ignore it seems.
The units move cannot end until after you check for mishap. Mishap means the skimmer can NEVER end its movement over another unit.
The unit's move doesn't have to definitively end for either of them to occur that's the whole point!
By your logic this is what happens if a model would forcibly end it's move over another model and it was a skimmer.
1. The Skimmer moves over a model and it's move is forced to end.
2. You physically place the skimmer on top of a model.
3. Now it's movement has ended
4. The Skimmer rule has kicked in.
5. Move the skimmer back away from the model the minimum distance required.
Yeah, you don't do that. You don't do that for Mishap and You don't do that for the Skimmer rule.
What everyone argueing for this seems to miss is that you must be Forced to end your movement there.
Forced, as in, literally no other option but to place the unit there. The existance of the mishap table means you are never technically "forced" to put it there. Mishap gives you another option. The end result of a Deep Strike never places you on models.
Hollismason wrote: That's not actually what the skimmer rule states. It's why Happy's example is one in favor of it.
Why?
Because in that scenario the model is not physically placed on top of any other model. You just check to see if it would be.
The Skimmer rule only cares if there is a situation where it could be placed on top of another model if that could occur the skimmer rule prevents that from ever happening, just like the mishap rule.
The same argument you are making for Mishap, is the same argument for the skimmer rule. That's why I find this conversation so mindboggling.
The Skimmer rule doesn't care at all if it COULD be. It cares if it is FORCED to be. Please explain how the Deep Strike rule FORCES a model to move onto another model. You can't give a SINGLE example of this EVER happening, because Deep Strike NEVER ends with a model on top of another model.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Hollis- happy has, at least five times now. That, like the fact the unit doesn't arrive until after you check for mishap, is something you consistently ignore it seems.
The units move cannot end until after you check for mishap. Mishap means the skimmer can NEVER end its movement over another unit.
The unit's move doesn't have to definitively end for either of them to occur that's the whole point!
By your logic this is what happens if a model would forcibly end it's move over another model and it was a skimmer.
1. The Skimmer moves over a model and it's move is forced to end.
2. You physically place the skimmer on top of a model.
3. Now it's movement has ended
4. The Skimmer rule has kicked in.
5. Move the skimmer back away from the model the minimum distance required.
Yeah, you don't do that. You don't do that for Mishap and You don't do that for the Skimmer rule.
You don't do that for mishap? Then what do you do? That's right, you roll on the mishap table IMMEDIATELY upon determining that the FINAL PLACEMENT POSITION satisfies one of the four mishap criteria. The model never hits the table and therefore can never be said to end its move on top of models. By your own admission, deep strike doesn't actually ever want you to physically put the model on top of another model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Malkov wrote: What everyone argueing for this seems to miss is that you must be Forced to end your movement there.
Forced, as in, literally no other option but to place the unit there. The existance of the mishap table means you are never technically "forced" to put it there. Mishap gives you another option. The end result of a Deep Strike never places you on models.
THIS. A thousand times this. Holly's entire argument is predicated on ignoring that the mishap table is a required and possible method for making sure a model never deep strikes on top of another model. There is no forcing it to occur. If anything, actually following the Deep Strike rules FORCES it NOT to occur.
This is also why Holly can't cite one instance of a non Skimmer Deep Striking and ending the Deep Strike on top of a model. It can't ever happen. If he could cite one instance, I would happily concede to him.
I've literally stated it multiple times, it either happens before, or it happens at the same time as the Mishap. Both of these instances happen at the same time or one happens before the other. Any argument you make for the Mishap happening before the SKimmer rule is the same argument that can be made for the Skimmer rule to happen before the Mishap rule.
You cannot make a argument that it does not because as soon as you go to place the unit to to end its move it would be ending its move on top of a model, via the Skimmer rule and the mishap rule this doesn't happen.
I don't have to give you gak, I've pointed this out repeatedly and listed why I don't need to cite any thing to do with things that are not skimmers, because that is not what we are discussing it's like if you brought up that you didn't have a goldfish it'd be talking about gak that didn't matter. It be like me demanding a citation on badmitton.
Show me how the Skimmer rule interacts in your own words. Like list out the steps and the situation where something would be forcibly doing that please provide a visual in video format along with two witness and 2 second languages, along with an ADL translator, and I will concede my point. See how stupid that sounds when you say things like that, it's just dumb.
This is something you do not fundamentally grasp, both of these rules are parallel to one another. The skimmer rule is ensuring that the placing or ending move of a skimmer never happens over a model, the deep strike mishap is ensuring this as well.
The unit's move doesn't have to definitively end for either of them to occur that's the whole point!
By your logic this is what happens if a model would forcibly end it's move over another model and it was a skimmer.
1. The Skimmer moves over a model and it's move is forced to end.
2. You physically place the skimmer on top of a model.
3. Now it's movement has ended
4. The Skimmer rule has kicked in.
5. Move the skimmer back away from the model the minimum distance required.
Yeah, you don't do that. You don't do that for Mishap and You don't do that for the Skimmer rule.
You don't do that for mishap? Then what do you do? That's right, you roll on the mishap table IMMEDIATELY upon determining that the FINAL PLACEMENT POSITION satisfies one of the four mishap criteria. The model never hits the table and therefore can never be said to end its move on top of models. By your own admission, deep strike doesn't actually ever want you to physically put the model on top of another model.
.
I can guarrentee you 100% that is not how the order for mishap occurs or the action you take.
That's literally not the order of mishap, you check with the model to see if it would be placed over a ending unit, the same way you would with Skimmer, neither of them instruct you to physically place the model, then resolve. Both of them prevent this from happening. Both of them are designed that way in order to specifically not place models on other models, mishap goes further into explanation and makes it clear that you cannot be with in 1 inch of a enemy unit, per the reinforcement of the basic rule .
I've also already stated that Skimmers can actually mishap, on deep strike, if they would land with in 1 inch of an enemy but not on top, the skimmer rule wouldn't active
Hollismason wrote: I've literally stated it multiple times, it either happens before, or it happens at the same time as the Mishap. Both of these instances happen at the same time or one happens before the other. Any argument you make for the Mishap happening before the SKimmer rule is the same argument that can be made for the Skimmer rule to happen before the Mishap rule.
You cannot make a argument that it does not because as soon as you go to place the unit to to end its move it would be ending its move on top of a model, via the Skimmer rule and the mishap rule this doesn't happen.
I don't have to give you gak, I've pointed this out repeatedly and listed why I don't need to cite any thing to do with things that are not skimmers, because that is not what we are discussing it's like if you brought up that you didn't have a goldfish it'd be talking about gak that didn't matter. It be like me demanding a citation on badmitton.
Show me how the Skimmer rule interacts in your own words. Like list out the steps and the situation where something would be forcibly doing that please provide a visual in video format along with two witness and 2 second languages, along with an ADL translator, and I will concede my point. See how stupid that sounds when you say things like that, it's just dumb.
This is something you do not fundamentally grasp, both of these rules are parallel to one another. The skimmer rule is ensuring that the placing or ending move of a skimmer never happens over a model, the deep strike mishap is ensuring this as well.
The unit's move doesn't have to definitively end for either of them to occur that's the whole point!
By your logic this is what happens if a model would forcibly end it's move over another model and it was a skimmer.
1. The Skimmer moves over a model and it's move is forced to end.
2. You physically place the skimmer on top of a model.
3. Now it's movement has ended
4. The Skimmer rule has kicked in.
5. Move the skimmer back away from the model the minimum distance required.
Yeah, you don't do that. You don't do that for Mishap and You don't do that for the Skimmer rule.
You don't do that for mishap? Then what do you do? That's right, you roll on the mishap table IMMEDIATELY upon determining that the FINAL PLACEMENT POSITION satisfies one of the four mishap criteria. The model never hits the table and therefore can never be said to end its move on top of models. By your own admission, deep strike doesn't actually ever want you to physically put the model on top of another model.
.
I can guarrentee you 100% that is not how the order for mishap occurs or the action you take.
That's literally not the order of mishap, you check with the model to see if it would be placed over a ending unit, the same way you would with Skimmer, neither of them instruct you to physically place the model, then resolve. Both of them prevent this from happening. Both of them are designed that way in order to specifically not place models on other models, mishap goes further into explanation and makes it clear that you cannot be with in 1 inch of a enemy unit, per the reinforcement of the basic rule .
I've also already stated that Skimmers can actually mishap, on deep strike, if they would land with in 1 inch of an enemy but not on top, the skimmer rule wouldn't active
You refuse to provide a defense to legitimate arguments and keep raising the straw man of asking me to explain something I've agreed to several times.
You have yet to explain how a model is FORCED to end its movement over a model when the deep strike rule not only provides an alternative, thus eliminating any question of forcing, but has no mechanism to ever allow a model to end its movement over another model.
You obviously think scatter is movement even though the deep strike rule makes it clear that if the model scatters onto an enemy model its disposition is determined by the mishap table. You obviously think the mishap isn't a part of the deep strike process despite being included in the deep strike rule.
I assume you're just terrible at understanding rules. In other threads today you've asked rudimentary rules questions that are not even remotely confusing. I am forced to conclude that you either don't read the rules or read them but don't understand them.
The only way I think you can say the skimmer rule stops mishaps is if you ignore the actual wording and instead just assume that RAI was that the skimmer rule was meant to overrule the mishaps but was worded incorrectly. Reading through the rules it seems clear to me...
1. Arriving via deepstrike is "moving".
2. If you scatter off the table, in impassable terrain or on top of units then you mishap... the deep striker is never deployed. I think it's hard to argue that a model that never arrived is "moving".
3. The skimmer rule explicitly states "if the a skimmer is forced to end its move". That is the ONLY time the rule would ever activate. In the situation where you are forced to end your move over another model. Deep striking does not do that.
There's really not much more to the argument than those points as far as RAW is concerned. If you think skimmers should not mishap, you need to refute points #2 and #3.
Hollismason wrote: . Any argument you make for the Mishap happening before the SKimmer rule is the same argument that can be made for the Skimmer rule to happen before the Mishap rule.
This is not true.
A mishap happens if the deep striker would land on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in before you actually place the model, if doing so would put it on top of another model.
(... ...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...)
The skimmer rule happens if the skimmer does end its movement on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in after the skimmer has finished its movement, if doing so results in it being on top of another model.
(...If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models...)
Mishap therefore happens first, because an effect that kicks in when you would do something is going to apply before an effect that kicks in when you do something.
Hollismason wrote: . Any argument you make for the Mishap happening before the SKimmer rule is the same argument that can be made for the Skimmer rule to happen before the Mishap rule.
This is not true.
A mishap happens if the deep striker would land on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in before you actually place the model, if doing so would put it on top of another model.
(... ...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...)
The skimmer rule happens if the skimmer does end its movement on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in after the skimmer has finished its movement, if doing so results in it being on top of another model.
(...If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models...)
Mishap therefore happens first, because an effect that kicks in when you would do something is going to apply before an effect that kicks in when you do something.
The skimmer rule happens if the skimmer would end its move on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in before the skimmer has finished its movement, if doing so results in it being on top of another model.
(If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models...)
This is true.
A mishap happens if the deep striker would be placed on top of another model. Ergo, when you go to set the model up, if doing so would put it on top of another model.
(... ...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...)
Skimmers rule would therefore happen when you go to place it's final move, because an effect that kicks in when you would prevent you from doing something is going to apply before an effect that kicks in when you do something.
Why is that true?
If is the beginning of the sentence. It doesn't say when. If the sentence said when, then you'd be correct but it doesn't. It's just grammar. So someone says to you " If you see a ball coming at you , you should duck, so that the ball doesn't hit you". When do you duck? This is why they use the word IF and not WHEN.
If this would happen, then do this instead.
You physically place the model on the board scatter it then to determine that that is it's final movement position. If this final movement position would be over another model. That's still a end of its movement, which the Skimmer rule does not allow.
This doesn't mean you place the model on top of another model , then end it's movement, then move the model back.So what you are saying is if you had a skimmer and it ended it's move somehow over another model, you would physically place that skimmer on top of another model to finish its move and then move it off.
Also, that argument most certainly can be the same argument.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The only way I think you can say the skimmer rule stops mishaps is if you ignore the actual wording and instead just assume that RAI was that the skimmer rule was meant to overrule the mishaps but was worded incorrectly. Reading through the rules it seems clear to me...
1. Arriving via deepstrike is "moving".
2. If you scatter off the table, in impassable terrain or on top of units then you mishap... the deep striker is never deployed. I think it's hard to argue that a model that never arrived is "moving".
3. The skimmer rule explicitly states "if the a skimmer is forced to end its move". That is the ONLY time the rule would ever activate. In the situation where you are forced to end your move over another model. Deep striking does not do that.
There's really not much more to the argument than those points as far as RAW is concerned. If you think skimmers should not mishap, you need to refute points #2 and #3.
Agreed, and I think this is a good way of summarizing it. The same thing happens when deepstriking anything but a drop pod, right? Seems clear, and the skimmer movement exemption doesn't apply in this case, for the reasons stated above (and elsewhere in the thread, of course, but I like this way of breaking it down point-by-point).
Okay so you all feel that the actual way to use the skimmer rule is that you would physically place the model on another model. Then it's move would end, then you would move it back.
Is that correct?
If not please explain the steps required to use the Skimmer rule with in the game.
You are all supposing that Skimmer rule happens after movement has ended , but it in fact like deep strikes mishap checks to make sure the movement would not end with the skimmer being on top of another model, similar to the same way mishap works.
It's why you can actually mishap a skimmer because the skimmer rule only cares if something would occur, do X instead. When you go to place the model it's ending it's move right there. You can't place it because of the Skimmer rule, you cannot place it because of the mishap rule.
You do not, place a model on top of another model then move that model off of it.
These rules both serve the same function to stop a model from ending it's move on top of another model.
Hollismason wrote: The skimmer rule happens if the skimmer would end its move on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in before the skimmer has finished its movement, if doing so results in it being on top of another model.
You keep changing "is" to "would be" when trying to explain how the skimmer rule works. The skimmer rule does not ever use the words "would be".
"...is forced to..." and "...would be forced to..." are two completely different concepts. The rule covers one, you insist on the other.
people literally think that you take a model put it on top of another model and then in order to end it's move you leave it there, then end its move then move the model back.
Like if I was playing Insaniak, I'd be able to place a tank on top of his models physically leave it there then move it back.
Neither of those rules allow that and that is not how they function.
The skimmer rule does not care about the mishap. It only cares if something would happen.The mishap rule doesn't care about the skimmer rule.
Both of these rules function independently of each other.
Happyjew wrote: Hollismason. You really need to stop saying "would happen", when the rule does not say "would".
It states if at the beginning of the sentence, I can't explain that any futher unless we want to all sit around and have a basic grammatical English discussion.
If this would occur, do this instead.
Is as simple as I can make it and then we get into a actual semantic argument.
My statement is really simple, both these rules check to make sure the ending of a move would be placing the model on something else physically and prevent this. They both apply one doesn't occur before the other, although as I've stated you'd have to pick, so one has to occur before the other, but the argument that mishap happens before the skimmer check or the skimmer check happens before the mishap check is the same argument.
What does not 100% happen in either of those situations is
Place the model physically on top of another model, end it's move , then remove the model either due to Mishap or the movement requirement for Skimmers.
If you think you physically have to place a model on top of another model, something that is inherently against every rule then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
This 100% does not happen.
It doesn't happen because of Wobbly model, it doesn't happen because the rules specifically go out of their way to remove any situation where you could possibly place a model on top of another model, because the game has rules specifically designed to prevent DAMAGE actual physical damage to models. They're all through out the book.
This is what people are stating when they say that the skimmer rule happens after movement has ended. That you physically place a model on top of another model, then end it's move when that sentence is not structured like that, and there are multiple rules that prevent you from doing that.
This is why I am adamant about it, because the people arguing against it are breaking a fundamental rule of the entire fething game and that's to not break your models or your opponents models.
It's not even what a reasonable person would do, a reasonable person would not place models on top of other models especially if they could break someone elses model.
The other side of this argument , is a irrational irresponsible argument.
Hollismason wrote: people literally think that you take a model put it on top of another model and then in order to end it's move you leave it there, then end its move then move the model back.
Like if I was playing Insaniak, I'd be able to place a tank on top of his models physically leave it there then move it back.
Neither of those rules allow that and that is not how they function.
The skimmer rule does not care about the mishap. It only cares if something would happen.The mishap rule doesn't care about the skimmer rule.
Both of these rules function independently of each other.
Nobody actually thinks this happens. You're ignoring rules and you're not addressing the actual concern here. Deep Strike never, ever forces a model to end a Deep Strike on top of another model. The Skimmer rule requires the move be ended.
Answer this question and you'll see how you're incorrect.
1. I follow the deep strike process up until scatter.
2. I roll scatter and find the final placement position is above an enemy model.
Do the Deep Strike rules FORCE the model to end its move there? Seriously, you can't address this question.
To answer, of course not. The Deep Strike rules actually require you to roll on the mishap table to see what happens. You are unable to demonstrate that fully following the Deep Strike rules results in a situation where a model is forced to move on top of another model.
I assume you have some sort of mental block and just can't understand that the mishap process is a part of the Deep Strike process.
You keep asking for a step by step. Here goes.
1. I roll for reserves as normal and get to bring in a Raider.
2. I physically set the Raider down on the table where I would like it to go.
3. I roll for scatter to determine the final position of the Raider. This happens to be on top of an enemy unit. I do not physically move the model at this point. There is no need to because...
4. As I'm still completing a Deep Strike process, I realize that the model can't be DEPLOYED because it would be on top of an enemy unit, so I roll on the Mishap Table.
5a. I get a 1 or 2. Woe is me, my model is destroyed.
5b. I get a 3 or 4. Woe is me, my model is returned to reserves.
5c. I get a 5 or 6. Woe is me, my model is placed instead by my opponent. He can't willingly place the model on top of another model, so it must be placed in a legal position.
6. My Deep Strike process is now complete.
You'll note that the Skimmer rule never comes into play because Deep Strike never ends with a model on top of another model. This is not an issue of us not understanding the Skimmer rule. This is an issue of you not following the Deep Strike rule completely. You're effectively following it until the scatter stage, at which point you are given two options... roll on the mishap table or evoke the Skimmer rule. The Skimmer rule requires a forced end of movement, or in other words, that you have no other option but to move the Skimmer onto another model. This requirement fails in this case as you have the alternate option of rolling mishap.
And seriously, you can win this debate right now by demonstrating one full Deep Strike process that ends with a model being forced to deploy on top of another model. If it happens with Skimmers as you say, it should be able to happen with something like a Blood Angels Land Raider. If a Skimmer can end a Deep Strike over a model, then using your own reasonable person standard, it would be reasonable to assume that a Land Raider can also. Show me how this happens.
Yes they would force the model to end it's move on top of another model, Mishap and Skimmer both happen. Again you're stating that mishap occurs before. It doesn't they both check at the same time.
What's so hard to understand? That's the whole point. You're argument for whatever reason is based on nothing but opinion that it happens before the skimmer rule.
Hollismason wrote: This is what people are stating when they say that the skimmer rule happens after movement has ended.
Well that's not what people (at least not me) are saying.
I'm not saying you physically place the model over other models... that would be stupid.
Deepstrike scattering on to another model is not "ending it's move" over those models. You never place it over those models. You roll on the mishap table as soon as you see that it would scatter on to other models, it's never placed there, it's never "forced to end its move" over other models.
"forced to end its move" does not mean the rule activates after all other things, it means if there is some sequence of events that leads to the model ending its move over other models and that cannot be avoid (forced) then the skimmer rule kicks in. It doesn't mean you physically place the skimmer and then decide it's over models, it's as soon as you identify a situation which would force it to end its move over other models... deep striking is not that situation.
The skimmer rule, as it is written, is for some hypothetical situation where you go to move your skimmer and for some reason it stops over another unit, you think "oh, well, I have no other means to move, so therefore I am forced to end my move over other models, no wait, skimmer rules tells me if I am forced to end my move over other models I just shift it, problem solved". Deep striking is not that situation.
You absolutely go to place the model. That's literally what it is saying.
You can't place it there because the skimmer rule is in effect and that would be ending it's move over a model.
You can't place it there because the mishap rule doesn't allow you to.
Again, there's no way to argue that either of these happen before the other but one has to.
The skimmer rule doesn't care if the move is ended.
This is just basic sentence structure
Skimmer rule
If X , Do Y
Mishap
If X , Do Y
They're the same functionally in the sequence of events. You also physically go to place the model with mishap btw , the same way you would go to check for the skimmer rule.
Like seriously you physically put the model on the board, then scatter to determine it's final positon then go to move the model where it would be. If you can't do this it would mishap, it would also trigger the skimmer rule at the same time as the mishap.
Hollismason wrote: Yes they would force the model to end it's move on top of another model, Mishap and Skimmer both happen. Again you're stating that mishap occurs before. It doesn't they both check at the same time.
What's so hard to understand? That's the whole point. You're argument for whatever reason is based on nothing but opinion that it happens before the skimmer rule.
Ok, fine. Devil's Advocate. They happen at the same time. You are given Option A to prevent deploying on top of another model and you are given Option B to prevent deploying on top of another model. The existence of Option B would preclude you from being FORCED to choose Option A.
If you say that they both happen and trigger at the exact same time and that the final placement is the trigger, then by your own logic wouldn't you use the Skimmer Rule to move the Skimmer and then roll for a mishap? After all, both rules triggered off ending the scatter over enemy models.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say they happen at the same time without resolving both.
It doesn't care if the move is ended... but it DOES care if the move would be forced to end... which deep striking does not do so the rule never comes in to effect.
It doesn't care if the move is ended... but it DOES care if the move would be forced to end... which deep striking does not do so the rule never comes in to effect.
It absolutely is forcing it to end it's move. Hence the words FINAL.
It doesn't care if the move is ended... but it DOES care if the move would be forced to end... which deep striking does not do so the rule never comes in to effect.
It absolutely is forcing it to end it's move. Hence the words FINAL.
Again, remove the Skimmer rule. Show me a Deep Strike scenario with literally ANY MODEL that ends the Deep Strike on top of another model. Show me a scenario where Deep Strike FORCES you to deploy on top of another model.
Hollismason wrote: Yes they would force the model to end it's move on top of another model, Mishap and Skimmer both happen. Again you're stating that mishap occurs before. It doesn't they both check at the same time.
What's so hard to understand? That's the whole point. You're argument for whatever reason is based on nothing but opinion that it happens before the skimmer rule.
Ok, fine. Devil's Advocate. They happen at the same time. You are given Option A to prevent deploying on top of another model and you are given Option B to prevent deploying on top of another model. The existence of Option B would preclude you from being FORCED to choose Option A.
If you say that they both happen and trigger at the exact same time and that the final placement is the trigger, then by your own logic wouldn't you use the Skimmer Rule to move the Skimmer and then roll for a mishap? After all, both rules triggered off ending the scatter over enemy models.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say they happen at the same time without resolving both.
You get to pick the sequencing or order when a situation occurs and it's your turn. You'd pick the skimmer rule, it'd have to be placed 1 inch away from an enemy model or the minimum for a friendly.
The mishap would not occur.
Also, I'm not saying that it's impossible to mishap a skimmer, a skimmer can mishap , just in the specific instance where it'd end its movement over another model it would not.
OH! Dire Deep Strike Gods! Are you forcing me to end this Deep Strike over an enemy model?!?!?
Oh, dear little model, a thousand times no. I am asking you to roll on the mishap table, but I would never force you to end a Deep Strike over an enemy model. People put a lot of time an effort into these models and we want to keep them seperated.
It doesn't care if the move is ended... but it DOES care if the move would be forced to end... which deep striking does not do so the rule never comes in to effect.
It absolutely is forcing it to end it's move. Hence the words FINAL.
Again, remove the Skimmer rule. Show me a Deep Strike scenario with literally ANY MODEL that ends the Deep Strike on top of another model. Show me a scenario where Deep Strike FORCES you to deploy on top of another model.
I don't have a goldfish, oh I though we were talking about gak that don't matter.
Hollismason wrote: Yes they would force the model to end it's move on top of another model, Mishap and Skimmer both happen. Again you're stating that mishap occurs before. It doesn't they both check at the same time.
What's so hard to understand? That's the whole point. You're argument for whatever reason is based on nothing but opinion that it happens before the skimmer rule.
Ok, fine. Devil's Advocate. They happen at the same time. You are given Option A to prevent deploying on top of another model and you are given Option B to prevent deploying on top of another model. The existence of Option B would preclude you from being FORCED to choose Option A.
If you say that they both happen and trigger at the exact same time and that the final placement is the trigger, then by your own logic wouldn't you use the Skimmer Rule to move the Skimmer and then roll for a mishap? After all, both rules triggered off ending the scatter over enemy models.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say they happen at the same time without resolving both.
You get to pick the sequencing or order when a situation occurs and it's your turn. You'd pick the skimmer rule, it'd have to be placed 1 inch away from an enemy model or the minimum for a friendly.
The mishap would not occur.
Also, I'm not saying that it's impossible to mishap a skimmer, a skimmer can mishap , just in the specific instance where it'd end its movement over another model it would not.
Show me a scenario where literally any non Skimmer ends a Deep Strike on top of another model. If Deep Strike forces a Deep Striking unit to end its move on top of another model, this should be a trivial request.
Kriswall wrote: Rolls Scatter. (moves on top of enemy model)
OH! Dire Deep Strike Gods! Are you forcing me to end this Deep Strike over an enemy model?!?!?
Oh, dear little model, a thousand times no. I am asking you to roll on the mishap table, but I would never force you to end a Deep Strike over an enemy model. People put a lot of time an effort into these models and we want to keep them seperated.
Yeah the mishap and skimmer rule both stop that from happening.
It doesn't care if the move is ended... but it DOES care if the move would be forced to end... which deep striking does not do so the rule never comes in to effect.
It absolutely is forcing it to end it's move. Hence the words FINAL.
Again, remove the Skimmer rule. Show me a Deep Strike scenario with literally ANY MODEL that ends the Deep Strike on top of another model. Show me a scenario where Deep Strike FORCES you to deploy on top of another model.
I don't have a goldfish, oh I though we were talking about gak that don't matter.
We're talking about the fact that the Deep Strike rule never forces you to end a Deep Strike over another model. The fact that you can't provide a single example seriously damages your position.
Kriswall wrote: Rolls Scatter. (moves on top of enemy model)
OH! Dire Deep Strike Gods! Are you forcing me to end this Deep Strike over an enemy model?!?!?
Oh, dear little model, a thousand times no. I am asking you to roll on the mishap table, but I would never force you to end a Deep Strike over an enemy model. People put a lot of time an effort into these models and we want to keep them seperated.
Yeah the mishap and skimmer rule both stop that from happening.
There is no mishap rule. There is a Deep Strike rule. Is your contention that you only have to follow half of the Deep Strike rule?
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's also noteworthy that basically noone is agreeing with you. That should tell you something.
Hollismason wrote: Yes they would force the model to end it's move on top of another model, Mishap and Skimmer both happen. Again you're stating that mishap occurs before. It doesn't they both check at the same time.
What's so hard to understand? That's the whole point. You're argument for whatever reason is based on nothing but opinion that it happens before the skimmer rule.
Ok, fine. Devil's Advocate. They happen at the same time. You are given Option A to prevent deploying on top of another model and you are given Option B to prevent deploying on top of another model. The existence of Option B would preclude you from being FORCED to choose Option A.
If you say that they both happen and trigger at the exact same time and that the final placement is the trigger, then by your own logic wouldn't you use the Skimmer Rule to move the Skimmer and then roll for a mishap? After all, both rules triggered off ending the scatter over enemy models.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say they happen at the same time without resolving both.
You get to pick the sequencing or order when a situation occurs and it's your turn. You'd pick the skimmer rule, it'd have to be placed 1 inch away from an enemy model or the minimum for a friendly.
The mishap would not occur.
Also, I'm not saying that it's impossible to mishap a skimmer, a skimmer can mishap , just in the specific instance where it'd end its movement over another model it would not.
Show me a scenario where literally any non Skimmer ends a Deep Strike on top of another model. If Deep Strike forces a Deep Striking unit to end its move on top of another model, this should be a trivial request.
Here is the exact answer you are seeking
*
* Get it, because he's a Straw Man (also I'm totally Dorothy)
Hollismason wrote: Yes they would force the model to end it's move on top of another model, Mishap and Skimmer both happen. Again you're stating that mishap occurs before. It doesn't they both check at the same time.
What's so hard to understand? That's the whole point. You're argument for whatever reason is based on nothing but opinion that it happens before the skimmer rule.
Ok, fine. Devil's Advocate. They happen at the same time. You are given Option A to prevent deploying on top of another model and you are given Option B to prevent deploying on top of another model. The existence of Option B would preclude you from being FORCED to choose Option A.
If you say that they both happen and trigger at the exact same time and that the final placement is the trigger, then by your own logic wouldn't you use the Skimmer Rule to move the Skimmer and then roll for a mishap? After all, both rules triggered off ending the scatter over enemy models.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say they happen at the same time without resolving both.
You get to pick the sequencing or order when a situation occurs and it's your turn. You'd pick the skimmer rule, it'd have to be placed 1 inch away from an enemy model or the minimum for a friendly.
The mishap would not occur.
Also, I'm not saying that it's impossible to mishap a skimmer, a skimmer can mishap , just in the specific instance where it'd end its movement over another model it would not.
Show me a scenario where literally any non Skimmer ends a Deep Strike on top of another model. If Deep Strike forces a Deep Striking unit to end its move on top of another model, this should be a trivial request.
Asking for a single example of something you contend happens but that everyone else says can never happen as a result of using the Deep Strike rule is a Straw Man argument?
I'm asking for one simple example that would prove your point for you. I'm giving you your path to victory. Show me that in the absence of any other rules that Deep Strike can force a model to deploy on top of another model. This is the trigger for the Skimmer rule, so for you to be correct, there has to be an example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's also specifically not a Straw Man, because if you can't prove that Deep Strike would FORCE a vehicle to deploy on top of another model, then you by default can't demonstrate that Deep Strike would force a Skimmer to deploy on top of another model.
Kriswall, your argument assumes that mishap checks before the skimmer rule. At the exact point where the skimmer scatters over enemy models, it has no other option. It is only after the mishap check that it is given permission to mishap. Because the mishap and skimmer rules have the SAME TRIGGER, they trigger at the SAME TIME. If two rules trigger at the same time, the controlling player decides the order, and untill we choose to check for mishap, the skimmer is indeed forced to move there.
extremefreak17 wrote: Kriswall, your argument assumes that mishap checks before the skimmer rule. At the exact point where the skimmer scatters over enemy models, it has no other option. It is only after the mishap check that it is given permission to mishap. Because the mishap and skimmer rules have the SAME TRIGGER, they trigger at the SAME TIME. If two rules trigger at the same time, the controlling player decides the order, and untill we choose to check for mishap, the skimmer is indeed forced to move there.
Incorrect. The model does have other options as provided in the rules for Deep Strike. They are to be detroyed, to be delayed or to be misplaced.
If a Skimmer can be forced to end a Deep Strike over another model, then a non Skimmer should also be able to end a Deep Strike over another model.
You either have to provide that example, provide rules backup allowing you to ignore the mishap portion of the Deep Strike rule or provide rules backup stating that the scatter is movement and not the overall Deep Strike process.
Neither of these three things has been provided.
At the end of the day, nobody has been able to give one single example of a Deep Strike process ending with a model over another model.
Deep Strike can end in the following ways...
1. With the model where you want it.
2. With the model close to where you want it, but still in a "safe" spot.
3. With the model destroyed.
4. With the model back in reserves.
5. With the model where your opponent wants it.
Show me that there is a number 6 option "with the model over another model" and I'll immediately believe you. My stance is that you can't demonstrate this and that this lack proves that Deep Strike never forces a model to end the Deep Strike on top of another model.
Hollismason wrote: Yes they would force the model to end it's move on top of another model, Mishap and Skimmer both happen. Again you're stating that mishap occurs before. It doesn't they both check at the same time.
What's so hard to understand? That's the whole point. You're argument for whatever reason is based on nothing but opinion that it happens before the skimmer rule.
Ok, fine. Devil's Advocate. They happen at the same time. You are given Option A to prevent deploying on top of another model and you are given Option B to prevent deploying on top of another model. The existence of Option B would preclude you from being FORCED to choose Option A.
If you say that they both happen and trigger at the exact same time and that the final placement is the trigger, then by your own logic wouldn't you use the Skimmer Rule to move the Skimmer and then roll for a mishap? After all, both rules triggered off ending the scatter over enemy models.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say they happen at the same time without resolving both.
You get to pick the sequencing or order when a situation occurs and it's your turn. You'd pick the skimmer rule, it'd have to be placed 1 inch away from an enemy model or the minimum for a friendly.
The mishap would not occur.
Also, I'm not saying that it's impossible to mishap a skimmer, a skimmer can mishap , just in the specific instance where it'd end its movement over another model it would not.
Show me a scenario where literally any non Skimmer ends a Deep Strike on top of another model. If Deep Strike forces a Deep Striking unit to end its move on top of another model, this should be a trivial request.
Asking for a single example of something you contend happens but that everyone else says can never happen as a result of using the Deep Strike rule is a Straw Man argument?
I'm asking for one simple example that would prove your point for you. I'm giving you your path to victory. Show me that in the absence of any other rules that Deep Strike can force a model to deploy on top of another model. This is the trigger for the Skimmer rule, so for you to be correct, there has to be an example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's also specifically not a Straw Man, because if you can't prove that Deep Strike would FORCE a vehicle to deploy on top of another model, then you by default can't demonstrate that Deep Strike would force a Skimmer to deploy on top of another model.
You have consistently stated that I state this, when in fact I've only ever stated that this would only ever occur with a vehicle that has a skimmer rule.
That's the literal definition of strawman, making argument that I stated something when I did not.
You are evading the issue. You can't demonstrate that Deep Strike ever results in a model being forced (i.e. having no other options but) to end it's Deep Strike on top of another model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Two models Deep Strike in exactly the same fashion, get exactly the same scatter results, both scatter on top of an enemy unit.
For you to be correct, the Skimmer would slide off and the non-Skimmer would have to physically be placed on top of the other models. After all, if the Skimmer would be forced then the non-Skimmer would also be forced and have no other option.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If the non-Skimmer isn't actually forced to end the move on another model, then the Skimmer isn't either.
Just show me ONE example of a non-Skimmer ending a deep strike over another model.
The skimmer wouldn't have to because of the Skimmer rule, the other model does not have the skimmer rule.
What's so hard to understand about that?
I mean seriously, that's the definition of a straw man, I'm not answering it because we know what happens to vehicles that do not have the skimmer rule.
extremefreak17 wrote: Kriswall, your argument assumes that mishap checks before the skimmer rule. At the exact point where the skimmer scatters over enemy models, it has no other option. It is only after the mishap check that it is given permission to mishap. Because the mishap and skimmer rules have the SAME TRIGGER, they trigger at the SAME TIME. If two rules trigger at the same time, the controlling player decides the order, and untill we choose to check for mishap, the skimmer is indeed forced to move there.
The don't have the same trigger at all. Deep Strike isn't movement, and doesn't happen in the movement phase. Once Deep Strike triggers it must be completed all of the way through mishap before returning to the normal flow of the game, which is only important for special abilities and psychic powers that allow deep striking in any other phase than "The Start of Your Turn".
Reported for personal attacks. Thanks for the implication that my mind and body are broken.
Now, since I assume you are unable to provide any rules evidence that Deep Strike can force any model to deploy on top of another model, your position is untenable.
I understand that you REALLY, REALLY want the scatter portion, which is used to determine the final incoming position of a model, to be the end of the Deep Strike process. It isn't. There is no evidence that it is. Mishap is a part of the Deep Strike process and until the Mishap has occurred, the Deep Strike hasn't ended. Skimmer sliding triggers off the end of movement.
extremefreak17 wrote: Kriswall, your argument assumes that mishap checks before the skimmer rule. At the exact point where the skimmer scatters over enemy models, it has no other option. It is only after the mishap check that it is given permission to mishap. Because the mishap and skimmer rules have the SAME TRIGGER, they trigger at the SAME TIME. If two rules trigger at the same time, the controlling player decides the order, and untill we choose to check for mishap, the skimmer is indeed forced to move there.
The don't have the same trigger at all. Deep Strike isn't movement, and doesn't happen in the movement phase. Once Deep Strike triggers it must be completed all of the way through mishap before returning to the normal flow of the game, which is only important for special abilities and psychic powers that allow deep striking in any other phase than "The Start of Your Turn".
Holly doesn't understand that the Deep Strike rule has to fully execute and that Deep Strike never concludes with a model over another model.
Kriswall wrote: Reported for personal attacks. Thanks for the implication that my mind and body are broken.
Now, since I assume you are unable to provide any rules evidence that Deep Strike can force any model to deploy on top of another model, your position is untenable.
I understand that you REALLY, REALLY want the scatter portion, which is used to determine the final incoming position of a model, to be the end of the Deep Strike process. It isn't. There is no evidence that it is. Mishap is a part of the Deep Strike process and until the Mishap has occurred, the Deep Strike hasn't ended. Skimmer sliding triggers off the end of movement.
Deep Strike does not have to end for the Skimmer rule to occur. If this were true the situation you state does not happen, placing a model ontop of another model could occur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Reported for personal attacks. Thanks for the implication that my mind and body are broken.
Now, since I assume you are unable to provide any rules evidence that Deep Strike can force any model to deploy on top of another model, your position is untenable.
I understand that you REALLY, REALLY want the scatter portion, which is used to determine the final incoming position of a model, to be the end of the Deep Strike process. It isn't. There is no evidence that it is. Mishap is a part of the Deep Strike process and until the Mishap has occurred, the Deep Strike hasn't ended. Skimmer sliding triggers off the end of movement.
extremefreak17 wrote: Kriswall, your argument assumes that mishap checks before the skimmer rule. At the exact point where the skimmer scatters over enemy models, it has no other option. It is only after the mishap check that it is given permission to mishap. Because the mishap and skimmer rules have the SAME TRIGGER, they trigger at the SAME TIME. If two rules trigger at the same time, the controlling player decides the order, and untill we choose to check for mishap, the skimmer is indeed forced to move there.
The don't have the same trigger at all. Deep Strike isn't movement, and doesn't happen in the movement phase. Once Deep Strike triggers it must be completed all of the way through mishap before returning to the normal flow of the game, which is only important for special abilities and psychic powers that allow deep striking in any other phase than "The Start of Your Turn".
Holly doesn't understand that the Deep Strike rule has to fully execute and that Deep Strike never concludes with a model over another model.
Deep strike has occured once you go to place the model for it's final position.
Kriswall wrote: Reported for personal attacks. Thanks for the implication that my mind and body are broken.
Now, since I assume you are unable to provide any rules evidence that Deep Strike can force any model to deploy on top of another model, your position is untenable.
I understand that you REALLY, REALLY want the scatter portion, which is used to determine the final incoming position of a model, to be the end of the Deep Strike process. It isn't. There is no evidence that it is. Mishap is a part of the Deep Strike process and until the Mishap has occurred, the Deep Strike hasn't ended. Skimmer sliding triggers off the end of movement.
Deep Strike does not have to end for the Skimmer rule to occur. If this were true the situation you state does not happen, placing a model ontop of another model could occur.
You obviously haven't read the rules. Deep Strike never asks you to put a model on top of another model. It INSTEAD asks you to roll a mishap.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Reported for personal attacks. Thanks for the implication that my mind and body are broken.
Now, since I assume you are unable to provide any rules evidence that Deep Strike can force any model to deploy on top of another model, your position is untenable.
I understand that you REALLY, REALLY want the scatter portion, which is used to determine the final incoming position of a model, to be the end of the Deep Strike process. It isn't. There is no evidence that it is. Mishap is a part of the Deep Strike process and until the Mishap has occurred, the Deep Strike hasn't ended. Skimmer sliding triggers off the end of movement.
extremefreak17 wrote: Kriswall, your argument assumes that mishap checks before the skimmer rule. At the exact point where the skimmer scatters over enemy models, it has no other option. It is only after the mishap check that it is given permission to mishap. Because the mishap and skimmer rules have the SAME TRIGGER, they trigger at the SAME TIME. If two rules trigger at the same time, the controlling player decides the order, and untill we choose to check for mishap, the skimmer is indeed forced to move there.
The don't have the same trigger at all. Deep Strike isn't movement, and doesn't happen in the movement phase. Once Deep Strike triggers it must be completed all of the way through mishap before returning to the normal flow of the game, which is only important for special abilities and psychic powers that allow deep striking in any other phase than "The Start of Your Turn".
Holly doesn't understand that the Deep Strike rule has to fully execute and that Deep Strike never concludes with a model over another model.
Deep strike has occured once you go to place the model for it's final position. This is when the skimmer rule and mishap occur.
So wait, if Deep Strike is completed when I roll for the final position, how does a mishap occur? Deep Strike is complete, so per your logic, there would be no need to finish reading and following the rule. Seriously, in your mind, does a mishap occur during a Deep Strike or after? If after, which rule do I need to follow for mishap? I might have an out of date rulebook. Mishap is covered under Deep Strike in my copy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and I also reported you for posting copywritten materials.
Incorrect.The model does have other options as provided in the rules for Deep Strike. They are to be detroyed, to be delayed or to be misplaced.
This only comes into effect AFTER we check for mishap. If there is no mishap, there is no other option. Because we can choose to ennact the skimmer rule BEFORE the mishap, which is brfore we have any other options, then it works just fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I also reported you for posting copywritten materials.
Seriously? What the feth is this? What does this accomplish? Please take this gak to another website please.
This thread has gotten way too personal. Please only attack the argument, not the poster. Further posts that are not dealing only with the rules in question will result in warnings and/or suspensions if appropriate.
Please also only hit the yellow triangle and do not respond to attacks in-thread (even to say that you've hit the yellow triangle, if possible, as it can further derail the thread).
Thanks, and any questions, just PM me or any other moderator.
extremefreak17 wrote: Kriswall, your argument assumes that mishap checks before the skimmer rule. At the exact point where the skimmer scatters over enemy models, it has no other option. It is only after the mishap check that it is given permission to mishap. Because the mishap and skimmer rules have the SAME TRIGGER, they trigger at the SAME TIME. If two rules trigger at the same time, the controlling player decides the order, and untill we choose to check for mishap, the skimmer is indeed forced to move there.
The don't have the same trigger at all. Deep Strike isn't movement, and doesn't happen in the movement phase. Once Deep Strike triggers it must be completed all of the way through mishap before returning to the normal flow of the game, which is only important for special abilities and psychic powers that allow deep striking in any other phase than "The Start of Your Turn".
RED: Deep Strike is movement , and this has been shown in this thread many times already. I invite you to read the whole thing from page 1. Hell, I'll even give you several rules quotes if you want, just let me know.
ORANGE: This is just flat out wrong, and has zero rules support. If this were true, a Drop Pod's Internal Guidence rule would only come into play AFTER mishap. Please dont make things up.
