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.

rigeld2 wrote:
So.. It follows none of the rules for movement, but its movement.
Cool story.

See, this is the problem. You consistently put words in my mouth and argue as if I say something I didn't say. I even think that's against the rules of this forum. Scatter is just a mechanic that directs where deep strike happens, like rolling the dice for run moves. Rolling the dice isn't running, but it determines how the run move happens. The same is true of deep strike. It's not "moving" from the position you wanted the model to deep strike, so there is no movement in between, but the model IS moving onto the map, to the location specified by the scatter dice.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This argument was actually started recently in a related thread that I started, positing that the rules for skimmers keep it from mishapping in certain circumstances. The primary argument against it(correct or otherwise) was that deep striking doesn't count as movement until after the deep strike has been completed, nullifying the movement rules when determining scatter. Basically, it was being pointed out that if you consider the movement rules as part of the justification for drop pods avoiding the 1" bubble, then that would invalidate half the people's arguments in the original thread, found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518371.page

I hope that link helps clarify why referring to ANY movement rules in this debate really doesn't clarify the original discussion, unless you're also arguing that skimmers don't mishap. It's a catch 22. People basically can't both include the movement rules when defending the IGS rule, then deny the movement rules when considering whether or not a skimmer mishaps.

Tell me again how you never claimed scattering was movement.

No, rolling the dice doesn't determine "how the run move happens" - it only determines distance.

The codex says this
"Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on
top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!)
then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in
order to avoid the obstacle."

Now lets look at it with the 2 examples listed (drop pods don't roll for mishap and the second it does)

no mishap: drop pod lands on a unit doesn't roll or mishap lands
does mishap:drop pod lands on unit as per rules it lands right next to the unit, then roll for mishap and ether the drop pod is placed back in reserve, gets placed somewhere else by the enemy or destroyed

basically the second example completely inactivates the drop pod ability and making it a useless rule

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This argument was actually started recently in a related thread that I started, positing that the rules for skimmers keep it from mishapping in certain circumstances. The primary argument against it(correct or otherwise) was that deep striking doesn't count as movement until after the deep strike has been completed, nullifying the movement rules when determining scatter. Basically, it was being pointed out that if you consider the movement rules as part of the justification for drop pods avoiding the 1" bubble, then that would invalidate half the people's arguments in the original thread, found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518371.page

I hope that link helps clarify why referring to ANY movement rules in this debate really doesn't clarify the original discussion, unless you're also arguing that skimmers don't mishap. It's a catch 22. People basically can't both include the movement rules when defending the IGS rule, then deny the movement rules when considering whether or not a skimmer mishaps.

Tell me again how you never claimed scattering was movement.

No, rolling the dice doesn't determine "how the run move happens" - it only determines distance.

I wasn't. My position has remained the same. DS is movement, and scatter is simply a mechanic of deep strike. The scatter itself is EXACTLY like rolling dice for any other thing in the game. It's just a dice roll that influences the Deep Strike, which is movement.

Gwan123 wrote:
The codex says this
"Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on
top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!)
then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in
order to avoid the obstacle."

Now lets look at it with the 2 examples listed (drop pods don't roll for mishap and the second it does)

no mishap: drop pod lands on a unit doesn't roll or mishap lands
does mishap:drop pod lands on unit as per rules it lands right next to the unit, then roll for mishap and ether the drop pod is placed back in reserve, gets placed somewhere else by the enemy or destroyed

basically the second example completely inactivates the drop pod ability and making it a useless rule

It is a more useful rule than the skimmer rule at present. Even with the IGS not protecting from mishap next to enemy units.

Skimmer rule moves a skimmer off of other models in 1 situation, having the ork grapple gun move it. That's it, tank shock moves other models out from under it, it can't choose to end it's move over other units, it can't randomly drift over other units, nothing. Just 1 situation. So a limited rule on the drop pod that is useful when landing on your own models, or in impassible terrain is already more effective.

As for intent, I believe that both skimmers and drop pods were meant to have protection from mishap on enemy units.

As played, most people say skimmers mishap, and drop pods don't.

As written, both mishap.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Skimmer rule moves a skimmer off of other models in 1 situation, having the ork grapple gun move it. That's it, tank shock moves other models out from under it, it can't choose to end it's move over other units, it can't randomly drift over other units, nothing. Just 1 situation.

That is not 100% true, there is more than one situation where the skimmer rule can come into play. The Blood Angel Magna Grapple can move a skimmer over a unit as well. Therefore the assessment that there is "Just 1 situation." is factually incorrect.

Oh, so two whole weapons in the entire game can move it. Yeah, that is so much more useful than not misshaping on your own units or impassible terrain. It is still not as useful as my interpretation of the IGS rule.

Is the Magna Grapple and the Ork Grappler pretty much the same thing? Which means all of 2 weapons can move my skimmer, which still leaves 1 way to do it, Enemy weapon special rule. If they are completely different what manner is it moved?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Oh, so two whole weapons in the entire game can move it. Yeah, that is so much more useful than not misshaping on your own units or impassible terrain. It is still not as useful as my interpretation of the IGS rule.

Is the Magna Grapple and the Ork Grappler pretty much the same thing? Which means all of 2 weapons can move my skimmer, which still leaves 1 way to do it, Enemy weapon special rule. If they are completely different what manner is it moved?

They are two totally different things.

The Magna grapple rolls to hit then rolls to pen at Str 8 and work out any damage results. Then you roll a die add the Str of 8 and if the total is higher than the AV the vehicle is moved closer to the BA Dred.

And a tank shock can absolutely do it - if you're over a unit and get immobilized, you float off.

rigeld2 wrote:
And a tank shock can absolutely do it - if you're over a unit and get immobilized, you float off.

Nope. The Tank Shock rule moves the unit out from under the tank, not to mention the non tank skimmers. The more Specific Tank Shock (Tank Only) rules take precedence over the Skimmer (General vehicle) rules.

Not to mention that the Drop Pod is at least half the cost of pretty much every the skimmer in the game.

I've not read every post by Betray, but in this thread I did say that scatter was movement in the same way that IGS re-positioning is movement. Many have argued that the IGS cannot place the model within one inch of an enemy model because this placement is a form of movement that you do not have permission to penetrate the one inch bubble around enemy models set up in the movement rules. This idea is flawed. The re-positioning of the drop pod is done by reducing the scatter distance. If the re-positioning is movement then so is the actual scatter. Its actually the same act. If scattering models can never end up within one inch of an enemy model then they can never end up on top of an enemy model. As we have multiple references to that exact possibility in both the codex and the BRB this belief the IGS re positioning is movement must be false. If it is false then the argument that the movement rules prohibit a drop pod from being re-positioned next to an enemy model is also false.

I have been trying to champion two arguments in this thread. One RAW and the other RAI. The RAI argument is the complicated one and it is dependent on the RAW argument.

RAW: The IGS will not reduce the scatter if the pod would end up less then an inch from an enemy model but not right on top of that model. This is black and white to me. The wording of the IGS rule is simple and clear as to when it reduces scatter. Landing near an enemy model is not mentioned at all.

RAI: The word 'obstacle' in the IGS rule must only refer to, in the case of en enemy model, the physical model itself and not any mishap that might be caused by that model. The reasoning here is that the pod will still mishap if lands close to an enemy model and GW probably did not intend for the pod to be in a better position if it had landed right on top of the enemy. It should make no difference. Some argue that reducing the scatter and still misshaping from the proximity to an enemy model 'make this rule useless'. This is not true. In the frame work of this discussion we have only talked about enemy models but this rule also handles impassible terrain and friendly models. In both those situations the rule performs quite well and no conflicts arise. The truth of the mater is that the IGS rule needs an errata. The wording of the rule seems to imply that the pod should never mishap from enemy models. This may have been GW's intent but that is a greater leap of logic then then believing their intent was not to put the DP in a better position then merely scattering close. If they intended the rule to prevent mishaps from enemy models all together then they need to errata the rule to 'trigger' in such a scenario. If they did intend to put the DP in a better position then the rule needs to be clear on what an obstacle is. If they intended it to work exactly as I described then they should replace "another model(friend or foe!)" with "a friendly model"

 megatrons2nd wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And a tank shock can absolutely do it - if you're over a unit and get immobilized, you float off.

Nope. The Tank Shock rule moves the unit out from under the tank, not to mention the non tank skimmers. The more Specific Tank Shock (Tank Only) rules take precedence over the Skimmer (General vehicle) rules.

Not to mention that the Drop Pod is at least half the cost of pretty much every the skimmer in the game.

If a skimmer tank tank shocks a unit that is behind an immobile vehicle, and the tank skimmer stops over the immobile vehicle then the rule will come into play.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And a tank shock can absolutely do it - if you're over a unit and get immobilized, you float off.

Nope. The Tank Shock rule moves the unit out from under the tank, not to mention the non tank skimmers. The more Specific Tank Shock (Tank Only) rules take precedence over the Skimmer (General vehicle) rules.

Not to mention that the Drop Pod is at least half the cost of pretty much every the skimmer in the game.

If a skimmer tank tank shocks a unit that is behind an immobile vehicle, and the tank skimmer stops over the immobile vehicle then the rule will come into play.

A matter of contention, as tank shocking disallows going over the vehicle, as it must stop 1" away from an intervening vehicle, or friendly unit. As this is still more specific it should stop the moment it reaches the 1" of the enemy vehicle, or be ramming. If you are one who contends that a skimmer may skip over some units please note that it is "units" that must be moved, so the enemy vehicle unit would also move out from under the tank shocking tank skimmer.

A Skimmer can ignore enemy units when moving. Tank Shock is a move.

 DeathReaper wrote:
A Skimmer can ignore enemy units when moving. Tank Shock is a move.

Tank shock is a special rule that includes moving.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A Skimmer can ignore enemy units when moving. Tank Shock is a move.

Tank shock is a special rule that includes moving.

"To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the spot to face the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move," P. 85

Emphasis mine.

"Tank Shock
When moving a Tank, the player can declare that it is going to attempt to Tank Shock instead of moving normally."

How do you underline? Any way the last part "instead of moving normally" is what I want to emphasize.

So the Tank shock move is a special move.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A Skimmer can ignore enemy units when moving. Tank Shock is a move.

Tank shock is a special rule that includes moving.

"To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the spot to face the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move," P. 85

Emphasis mine.

Page 83 "Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either."

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

Page 10 "A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the assault phase."

So following the rules for movement and Skimmers we place the skimmer 1" away from the enemy model. No conflict or grey area really.

Except for tank shock, which then moves models out from under the skimmer tank.

You underline by hitting the U key just under the subject of your reply.

Or you can type, eliminating the spaces of course, [ U ] to start the underline, and [ /u ] to stop the underline.

Wow when I type you it comes out as you.

U (a lowercase u) comes out as you

Okay, lets look at it this way. A 20 ton steel pear shaped thing is falling from space, leaving a trail of smoke behind it. It is going to land on you, but it's trusters kick in to move it just shy of smashing you into a pancake...do you stand there? And do you think landing on one IG or Eldar warrior will cause that 20 ton pear shaped ball of death from landing correctly?
Take it for how it is. The system kicks in to stop you from crashing, and moves you to just enough to avoid having some sort of mishap.

After some point I left the thread, thinking all necessary arguments were already made, and arguing further was pointless.
However, sheer amount of wrong understanding of rules on last few pages makes it necessary to correct it.
So. How Deep Strike rules and basic movement rules work.
Quite simply, really.
1) Deep Strike is a special kind of movement, that uses scatter to determine position in which model(s) is to be deployed
2) It does not override, in any way, basic rules of 1'' from enemy model being a forbidden zone
3) This can create a situation where you must place model in certain place (after determining its position via scatter roll and after applying all rules related to it, such as IGS) but you are forbidden from doing so by basic movement rules

In that situation there is one thing you cannot do - and it is deploy the model.

4) This special situation is described separately in the section Deep Strike Mishaps of the Deep Strike rule. It is spelled out. It goes like "if for some reason the model cannot be deployed" yadda yadda. In there we have precise instruction on what to do, that is, roll on mishap table and apply the result.

To reiterate.
Scatter is not movement, it is the mechanism of determining the final position of deep striking model(s). Deep Strike is movement.
If the model is not deployed on table, movement does not occur.
Deep Strike does not override restrictions laid out in basic movement rules in any way, but is written with following them to the letter in mind.

Hey guys, what's going on in here?

Huh? Oh.

Oh no.

No.

OK, really, IGS causes the drop pod to be moved to avoid an obstacle.

For normally deep striking units an obstacle is within 1" of an enemy model, landing this close will trigger a deep strike mishap.

QED, move the drop pod so it is 1" away from the enemy model.

Really guys.......

You skipped IGS trigger, but let's put this aside. Let's also put aside the whole substituting reduction of scatter distance to moving from illegal position (presumable in any way one wants).

For normally deep striking units an obstacle is within 1" of an enemy model, landing this close will trigger a deep strike mishap.

How do you define obstacle?
If it is something that causes Drop Pod to mishap, then why off-board is not an "obstacle that is to be avoided", according to FAQ?

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

The "obstacle" encompasses both impassible terrain and other models... In order to avoid the other models (friend or foe!), reduce scatter the minimum distance.. Which includes the 1" bubble... Otherwise you haven't avoided the obstacle have you?!

Yes you have. You just have not avoided the mishap, which is RAW.

By moving an additional 1" away you are adding a move that in every other case you do not do. You do not move outside 1" of friendly models, board edges, or impassible terrain. So there is no basis to add an additional 1" when avoiding enemy models.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Yes you have. You just have not avoided the mishap, which is RAW.

By moving an additional 1" away you are adding a move that in every other case you do not do. You do not move outside 1" of friendly models, board edges, or impassible terrain. So there is no basis to add an additional 1" when avoiding enemy models.

No you have not, as obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" From the Oxford dictionary. The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units.

RAW tells us to avoid the obstacle, if you do not avoid the obstacle when dealing with an enemy unit you have not followed the rules. this is RAW.

The basis is you need to avoid the obstacle, which you have not done unless you move an additional 1" away from an enemy unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Yes you have. You just have not avoided the mishap, which is RAW.

By moving an additional 1" away you are adding a move that in every other case you do not do. You do not move outside 1" of friendly models, board edges, or impassible terrain. So there is no basis to add an additional 1" when avoiding enemy models.

No you have not, as obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" From the Oxford dictionary. The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units.

RAW tells us to avoid the obstacle, if you do not avoid the obstacle when dealing with an enemy unit you have not followed the rules. this is RAW.

The basis is you need to avoid the obstacle, which you have not done unless you move an additional 1" away from an enemy unit.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.