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.

So, I have a unit deep striking, and they scatter close to some terrain. The first model to be placed is absolutely fine, but I cannot finish the first circle because of the intervening terrain. Do i start another circle, or does this count as a mishap? Here's the rule, and the arguments....


BRB p.95, col 1, para 3 - "Models must be placed in base contact with the original model in a circle around it. When the first circle is complete, a further circle should be placed with each model touching the circle inside it. Each circle should include as many models as will fit."

BRB p95, col 2, para 1 - "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land...in impassable terrain...something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the deep strike mishap table and apply the results."


Argument 1.
- The first quote clearly says you MUST complete a first (presumable full, round) circle before placing a second circle.
- Because of this terrain, you cannot complete the first circle and there are models which cannot be deployed.
- Therefore, roll on the mishap table.

Argument 2.
- The first quote clearly says that each circle must consist of "as many models as will fit"
- I can only fit SOME of the models into the first circle because of the terrain.
- Therefore, the first circle is judged to be 'complete' since it contains "as many models as will fit"
- Start a second circle with the remaining models - do not roll on the mishap table.


I reckon it should be argument 1, but this makes thing extremely difficult for large units, such as 10 terminators, 15 or 20 daemons or any unit in the Daemon codex with a larger base size (fiends etc...).

If it difficult terrain, just place the models as normal and roll dangerous terrain tests for them.

If it is Impassible terrain, then you roll on the mishap.

it doesn't make things difficult, it just makes it risky as you either need a large area of open ground, or you have risk ending up halfway inside a wall (Dangerous Terrain test) rather than lost in the warp forever (Destoyed)

Argument #2 is a fallacy because:

- I can only fit SOME of the models into the first circle because of the terrain.
- Therefore, the first circle is judged to be 'complete' since it contains "as many models as will fit"

If you haven't completed a circle with models then you haven't made a "circle".

There is a difference between making a 'circle' with as many models as will fit and *not* making a circle with as many models as will fit.

You may only actually start a 2nd circle if you COMPLETE a first circle. Partial-circles do not equal a circle.

yakface wrote:
Argument #2 is a fallacy because:

- I can only fit SOME of the models into the first circle because of the terrain.
- Therefore, the first circle is judged to be 'complete' since it contains "as many models as will fit"

If you haven't completed a circle with models then you haven't made a "circle".

There is a difference between making a 'circle' with as many models as will fit and *not* making a circle with as many models as will fit.

You may only actually start a 2nd circle if you COMPLETE a first circle. Partial-circles do not equal a circle

I agree entirely, but haven't voted for Argument #1 because it doesn't define what type of terrain. #1 is valid for Impassible terrain, but not Difficult.

Gwar! wrote:I agree entirely, but haven't voted for Argument #1 because it doesn't define what type of terrain. #1 is valid for Impassible terrain, but not Difficult.

I voted #1, as he specifically mentioned that the models can't be placed because of the terrain... which I took to mean that he was actually referring to Impassable Terrain in the given example.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I agree entirely, but haven't voted for Argument #1 because it doesn't define what type of terrain. #1 is valid for Impassible terrain, but not Difficult.

I voted #1, as he specifically mentioned that the models can't be placed because of the terrain... which I took to mean that he was actually referring to Impassable Terrain in the given example.

I agree with your logic; but based on his question, I think the more likely scenario is that he is under the impression that you can't DS into *any* terrain.

um, sorry

IMPASSABLE terrain....

my mistake

ArbitorIan wrote:um, sorry

IMPASSABLE terrain....

my mistake

In that case, you roll on the Deep Strike Mishap Table.

Insaniak: I was wrong.


Ian, how is this a question. the mishap rules specifically mention landing in impassable terrain.

yeah,

BRB p.95, col 1, para 3 - ... Each circle should include as many models as will fit.

I voted for option 2 because I don't understand why they included the phrase as many as will fit?
I can only think of being close to something (terrain/othermodels) but not actually being in it?
Otherwise what is there to stop you placing all your models in a complete circle? why include the 'as many as will fit'?
with Round bases you can always fit 6 around the first, and with square you can always fit 8 around it.


Say I've got 9 models
I place the first in open ground, near a peice of terrain (the memory card)
the next 5 fit around him, as many as will fit. the 7th guy can't fit due to terrain, BRB p.95, col 1, para 3 - ... Each circle should include as many models as will fit.

Now My first circle is complete. It includes as many models as will fit.

BRB p.95, col 1, para 3 - ...When the first circle is complete, a further circle should be placed with each model touching the circle inside it
So I should start a new circle and place the remaining 3 models in the next circle.


BRB p95, col 2, para 1 - ... If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land...in impassable terrain...something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the deep strike mishap table and apply the results."
Now none of my models have teleported into difficult terrain? so I don't need to roll on the deep strike mishap table?

This I believe is RAI.

Panic...

No, because you attempt to place the model into the Impassible terrain, and it triggers a deep strike mishap.

The clause of "as many as it will fit" means you have to bunch them all up, and cant try and spread them out with loose circles.

The wording for what causes a Mishap is very specific:

If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model or 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.

They cant be deployed because if you had made a circle, they would have landed in Impassible terrain.

Furthermore, you can Believe something is RaI all you want, but this Forum is for Rules as Written Discussions. If you want to make up a new rule, there is a forum for that. Putting in RaI arguments just muddies the waters and is confusing.

yeah,
I take your point. With you interpretation on the as many as will fit your probabily right.
Still seems a bit Harsh/Wrong to me that one model can't be placed so the whole squad suffers...

but this Forum is for Rules as Written Discussions.

I was under the impression that everyones opinion counts... and I'd like to think this forum wasn't being run by the RAW brigade!

Panic...

Panic wrote:Still seems a bit Harsh/Wrong to me that one model can't be placed so the whole squad suffers...

It may seem harsh, but it's what the rule calls for.

I would suspect it's a very deliberately harsh design choice, to help keep Deep Strike a bit less overwhelming.

@Panic: Well the thing is, this rule is clear. There isnt any basis in the rules for your interpritation. Your argument there is flawed, as I have pointed out.

Mostly I was pointing out that a number of threads lately have become bogged down in "This is what I think the Rule Intended" rather than what they say.

I admit I was a little harsh, and for that I apologise.

I know you think it is harsh, but it is there to Somewhat Balance the benefits of Deep Strike. If your Interpretation were correct, you could Deep Strike right into a mass of your enemy, and so long as the initial model didn't scatter onto the enemy, you would be fine, since you could claim that the models unable to be placed could just be put around the other side.

EDIT: Damn Ozzie Ninjas Everywhere

Yeah,
With the Vote 90%+ I'll be playing it as RAW option 1.
I'll just have to be more careful in my DS's.

Panic...

An incomplete circle isn't a circle - roll for Mishap!

Panic wrote:yeah,
I take your point. With you interpretation on the as many as will fit your probabily right.
Still seems a bit Harsh/Wrong to me that one model can't be placed so the whole squad suffers...

but this Forum is for Rules as Written Discussions.

I was under the impression that everyones opinion counts... and I'd like to think this forum wasn't being run by the RAW brigade!

Panic...

My thoughts exactly. I've missed the big banner at the top that says "RAW ONLY!". Change the name please, when that goes into effect, so I know to just avoid this area.) RAW is one way to look at things. Not always the only way, or the best way. RAI is the same, only a hell of lot fuzzier.

mikhaila wrote:

Panic wrote:yeah,
I take your point. With you interpretation on the as many as will fit your probabily right.
Still seems a bit Harsh/Wrong to me that one model can't be placed so the whole squad suffers...

but this Forum is for Rules as Written Discussions.

I was under the impression that everyones opinion counts... and I'd like to think this forum wasn't being run by the RAW brigade!

Panic...

My thoughts exactly. I've missed the big banner at the top that says "RAW ONLY!". Change the name please, when that goes into effect, so I know to just avoid this area.) RAW is one way to look at things. Not always the only way, or the best way. RAI is the same, only a hell of lot fuzzier.

No, I am afraid I am want to disagree with you there.

RaW is what the rules actually say. RaW may at some points be ambiguous (The Deff Rolla during Rams is a Perfect example) in which case, the only solution (as indicated by the Rules as Written surprisingly enough) is to Clarify with your opponent before the game or, should it come up mid game, roll off and discuss the situation after the game.

That is what RaW is.

RaI is a blanket term for "Oh well I don't like how this plays out, I am going to play it like this because its so much better and this is obviously they way they intended it to be because I have Alessio Cavatore locked in my basement and he said it was!" Be careful not to confuse the two.

first circle is not complete
you cannot add another model to complete it
you roll mishap

I don't see how on earth you can see those 5 models as a 'complete circle'. Take a look at the letters C and O, notice the difference??

The language about the circles being complete may be worded the way it is to allow for annoying situations where the deep striking unit has mixed base sizes. If you have a unit of small based figures and a few medium or large bases or calvary/bike bases, there are all sorts of annoying possibilities.

Just imagine a space marine librarian, some bikes, and a captain arriving back onto the table using Gate of Infinity. What's a full circle for that mess?

As long as we're concerning ourselves with DS and circles, I have a question about what constitutes a circle, when you don't have enough models to fully encircle the first model. Essentially, I'm DS'ing in units of 3 Flamers of Tzeentch. I get mixed answers from people as to how they need to be arranged. The first lands wherever he touches down, the second model is placed anywhere in base to base with the first. The question comes in here, does the third model have to be touching the second, or is anywhere in base to base with the original model good enough? I don't think it would be much of an issue if they weren't bringing templates of nastiness.

In the case of incomplete circles (say a unit of 2 or 3 Deep Striking) then the only restriction is you have to place the models in base contact with the previous circle, they don't have to be touching each other so to speak.

Because I am useless at explaining things, attached is a nice diagram, with a selection of legal deep strike formations, Blue is the initial Model, red is the 1st circle, and pink is the 2nd circle.

Thanks. I know it sounded inane, but I actually had people say things like "You make a circle by starting in one spot, and going around, not putting points in places around the middle. So your models get placed the same way."

Ok I have a question about this too. What happens if one of the models in my circle must be placed in difficult terrain but it can't be placed in that difficult terrain because it won't stand up there?

Imagine the GW barricade terrain pieces they sell or even a 5mm thick fence. The model lands on top of that fence or terrain piece and cannot be balanced on it. The terrain piece is not classified as impassable so do I have to roll on the mishap table? If I don't what should I do with the model? where should I place it?

If it's not impassable, then just the model has to take dangerous terrain. Place it as close to the place it would be, typically just the other side of the fence, so that you remember to take difficult terrain checks when moving the unit (assuming it survives the check).

The fence question actually raises another good point. For hill slopes, and most fences as well, invoking the wobbly model rule would seem to make obvious, but walls could be problematic.

If you've deep struck near a ruin, you can end up with annoying walls running through where some of the models should be. Assuming that the ruin's walls have been agreed to be difficult terrain, let's say that the wall runs straight down the middle of where two models should be. Is it better to say "These two guys are standing in the wall" and remember where they're supposed to be; or say "There's no room for these two models in that ring" and put them in the next ring?

Quick question, if only ONE unit ends up in dificult terrain, do you need to roll dangerous terrain tests for EVERY model?

I assume so, as the same with you get a mishap for the entire unit if only ONE ends up in impasible terrain, or outside the table edge.

On that same subject, is outside the table edge considered "impasible terrain" in regards to drop pods inertia guidance system? Or do you get a mishap if you scatter there, no matter drop pod or not?

No.

The number of models in difficult terrain = the number of dangerous terrain tests.

DebonaireToast has it right there. you only roll Dangerous terrain tests for the number of models that actually land in it.

Don't forget you roll dice for individual models, not the unit, so the if only one model has to take the test and fails, then that model is the one removed, even if there is another model with the same profile as it.

solkan wrote: Is it better to say "These two guys are standing in the wall" and remember where they're supposed to be; or say "There's no room for these two models in that ring" and put them in the next ring?

By the letter of the law you would invoke "Wobbly Model Syndrome" and just say "the 2 guys are there, and I'll put them back once I move the unit out the ruins"