Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've had a person claim that a Drop Pod which scatters onto enemy models (A Trygon, too) would reduce scatter by the "minimum distance required to avoid the obstacle", which would place the Pod / Trygon within 1'' of the enemy model, rather than "on top of" the enemy model. Is this an accurate interpretation? If so, pretty much everyone I've ever met or played with has been playing Drop Pods wrong, and the only purpose of the Guidance System, then, would be to avoid impassible terrain. The question then becomes, why mention enemy models as something it would avoid, if you still suffer a mishap, especially considering enemy models count as impassible terrain. Wouldn't a source of mishaps be considered "an obstacle to be avoided"? Looking forward to everyone's thoughts.

Veldrith wrote:I've had a person claim that a Drop Pod which scatters onto enemy models (A Trygon, too) would reduce scatter by the "minimum distance required to avoid the obstacle", which would place the Pod / Trygon within 1'' of the enemy model, rather than "on top of" the enemy model. Is this an accurate interpretation? If so, pretty much everyone I've ever met or played with has been playing Drop Pods wrong, and the only purpose of the Guidance System, then, would be to avoid impassible terrain. The question then becomes, why mention enemy models as something it would avoid, if you still suffer a mishap, especially considering enemy models count as impassible terrain. Wouldn't a source of mishaps be considered "an obstacle to be avoided"? Looking forward to everyone's thoughts.

The minimum distance needed to avoid the enemy model is the distance that places it more than 1" from the enemy.

I agree completely, but this guy is arguing that you "avoided" the model when you don't land on it, but beside it. What, then, would happen if the Pod (hypothetically) scatters within 1'' of the enemy model, but not on it? Does it stop outside of the 1''? If so, can you justify it with RAW? I tried arguing the point for an hour, but couldn't make him see reason.

If you still mishap you didnt avoid the model. That is all that matters...

true, but you have to avoid the vehicle by 1 inch, so the ONLY way to roll on the misshap table while dropping pods is to go off the table. there is no other way with RAW.

No, there is another way - it's called aiming your initial point somewhere where the droppod will mishap on a "hit", and rolling a "hit"

It only *reduces* scatter, not makes you scatter.

you can't aim the drop pod on somewhere where it can't land. it specifically says so. So you can't aim it a vehicle.

gannam wrote:you can't aim the drop pod on somewhere where it can't land.it specifically says so.

No, it doesn't.

gannam wrote:you can't aim the drop pod on somewhere where it can't land. it specifically says so. So you can't aim it a vehicle.

Wrong, try again. Or, maybe, actually quote the rules. They follow DS, read DS rules, note what they say.

Doesn't Deep Striking disallow placing the model on things like enemy models, prior to attempting the Deep Strike? I mean, if this wasn't the case, then the Mawloc is allowed to "aim" for enemy models, right?

No.

Veldrith wrote:Doesn't Deep Striking disallow placing the model on things like enemy models, prior to attempting the Deep Strike? I mean, if this wasn't the case, then the Mawloc is allowed to "aim" for enemy models, right?

The mawloc is allowed to "aim" and it is, in fact, the whole bloody point.

No to what?

I've always wondered why GW didn't change drop pods so that models beneith it during landing were considered Tank Shocked...

But how can the Mawloc aim, if you aren't allowed to willfully attempt to deepstrike onto an enemy model? People always claim the Mawloc only places a template if it "scatters". Clearly, it's intended to eat stuff, but people always argue with me that RAW states you can only scatter onto targets, but not attempt to land on them as an initial destination..

Veldrith wrote:But how can the Mawloc aim, if you aren't allowed to willfully attempt to deepstrike onto an enemy model?

Because it can wilfully attempt to deep strike onto enemy models, and you have been able to with ANY model since 3rd ed. It just is a bad idea 99% of the time.

Doesn't the 1'' rule prevent you from "placing the model on the table in the position you wish it to land in"?

Veldrith wrote:Doesn't the 1'' rule prevent you from "placing the model on the table in the position you wish it to land in"?

No, because the 1" rule applies to movement. Placing the model there is not movement. If it was, you would take Dangerous Terrain tests for attempting to DS a vehicle into terrain, even if it scatters out of it and you would take DT tests for deploying in DT (which you don't).

Gwar! wrote:

gannam wrote:you can't aim the drop pod on somewhere where it can't land.it specifically says so.

No, it doesn't.

Well actually it essentially does. According to the 5th Ed. rulebook you choose your DS location by placing a model on the board and this rather suggests that you can't DS somewhere the Drop Pod can't land, on an enemy model for instance, because you can't physically place the model there.

Does make the Mawloc special attack a slight problem but then it does say in the rules that you use a large blast template to work out who gets eaten so maybe the assumption is you also use the template to choose the deployment location.

As for the Drop Pod guidance system, it says that you "reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle". If you are within 1 inch of an enemy model and rolling on the mishap table then you haven't avoided the obstacle(!). I'd stick with placing the Drop Pod just over 1 inch from the enemy model.

The Watcher in the Dark wrote:Well actually it essentially does. According to the 5th Ed. rulebook you choose your DS location by placing a model on the board and this rather suggests that you can't DS somewhere the Drop Pod can't land, on an enemy model for instance, because you can't physically place the model there.

And what does the rulebook say about placing models where it's not safe to place them? Wobbly model Syndrome.

Next!

Wobbly Model Syndrome refers to a place where you could balance a model but it might fall if the table is nudged. If you want to experiment with balancing Drop Pods on grots then fine but I wouldn't advise it.

Veldrith wrote:Doesn't the 1'' rule prevent you from "placing the model on the table in the position you wish it to land in"?

The 1 inch rule makes it impossible to DS within 1 inch of an enemy model, that's also the reason the mawloc can't intentionally come up under anything, and why pods can't ever mishap unless they actually go off table.

Is placing a pod within an inch of an enemy model a legal placement?

-NO

Is reducing a pods scatter to within an inch of a model a correct move.

-NO

The guy in the example was wrong, the model isn't "avoided" until the movement of the pod is not within an inch.

The 1'' rule only applies to movement, as Gwar says -- this is the only place in the book where it's mentioned. As for Wobbly Model Syndrome, it refers to "terrain which is dangerous for a model to be balanced". Enemy models, on the same page, are listed as impassable terrain. Balancing a tall, pretty model on some Space Marines could end up chipping my paint, so I'll place my Mawloc safely nearby, and use a die or a finger to mark where he actually is.

Thanks for clearing this up, Gwar.

Gwar thinks he has it cleared up and states it as if there wasn't just a week full of multiple threads with multiple posts arguing the Mawloc rules. The final solution reached by almost everyone in said threads was to roll off on it till GW released a FAQ to which I am sure Gwar will just then deny.

Stupid people argue about things they don't understand all the time. Makes sense to me, and that's all that matters. I don't make a habit of playing with people who can't read.

Veldrith wrote:The 1'' rule only applies to movement, as Gwar says --

And Deep Striking, as has been discussed in multiple threads, is movement.


Not everyone agrees, though, which is why this needs to be sorted out with your opponent until it is FAQ'd.

insaniak wrote:And Deep Striking, as has been discussed in multiple threads, is movement.

Actually, it's a form of Deployment.

Placement of the initial model is not movement. This is easily proven because the model placed does not have to take a Dangerous Terrain test if placed in difficult terrain unless, after the scatter, it still lands in that terrain. I'd also like to add that whether or not six hundred pages of debate rage over whether or not the sky is blue, it doesn't change the fact that everyone who claims it isn't is colorblind.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:And Deep Striking, as has been discussed in multiple threads, is movement.

Actually, it's a form of Deployment.

Hence:

insaniak wrote:Not everyone agrees, though, which is why this needs to be sorted out with your opponent until it is FAQ'd.

Boltguns have a range of 24'', and 12'' if you move. If my opponent thinks the gun shoots 24'' even if he moves, then he's wrong, because the book says so. Deep Strike does not appear under forms of movement, so it isn't, even if someone wants it to be.