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 am not a SM player so I am not sure how to resolve this particular issue, I checked the forum but I did not see this particular question answered.

We read through the Inertial Guidance entry but did not see anything to suggest one way or another so here is the scenario.

A drop pod is placed 3" in front of a Vindicator with its back to the board edge. The pod scatters towards the board edge and the center of the pod is over the tank but the pod footprint is partially off the board. What happens?

One argument was that the center is over the tank so it is placed 1" from the front of the tank it first scattered over, disregarding the fact it would have mishapped off the board.

The other argument is in order for the Inertial Guidance to take effect it would have needed to have a valid placement completely on the board in the first place and then would be adjusted.

As a piggyback question - the scatter was directly over the tank, would it have mattered if it was off the board instead and therefore part of the pod "contacts" the tank if it could have been placed, but naturally it is not even a valid placement in the first place.

Off the board is the way to get mishaps on a drop pod -- even partially.

Now if it is over the tank, without being off the board, it would be placed legally on the board.

As I read it.

As a clarification it was centered on the tank but only 0.5" away from the board edge which meant holding a pod over the tank caused about 40% off it to be off the board.

Depends how RAW you want to be. When the pod scatters and lands on the Vindi the interial guidance system kicks in and moves you to the closest edge of the vindicator, note not an 1" away, just enough to stop hitting that model. Then you land an inch away form a model and mishap, oops. Assuming you do get to move and inch away from the unit you land on however you land on the unit move to the closest edge towards where you tried to land (not necessarily the front) and land there even if you would have mishapped had the unit not been there. If you manage to get in the weird situation that the shortest path off the unit makes you land on the table edge then you mishap.

Aramoro


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With regards your clarification it doesn't matter where it could have landed, only where it does land, if it's 90% off the table but 10% touching a unit then you move it with the Inertial Guidance System off the unit to somewhere around it.

I have never met anyone who read that within an inch of an enemy model was not an obstacle, and thus not avoided by the drop pod.

Nobody would because it's a stupid interpretation of the rules. But if you wanted to you could, as it only says you move the pod the minimum possible to avoid landing on another model, not near.

Aramoro

In order for the Inertial Guidance rule to apply in the case of impassible terrain, that rule has to take priority over the mishap rule. Since it takes priority in that case, why do you think it wouldn't take priority in the case that both the impassible terrain and the board edge are touched?

Note that Inertial Guidance only reduces the scatter distance, so it will do nothing at all in cases such as placing the drop pod in impassible terrain and rolling a 'hit'. If you've reduced the scatter and the model is still in a position to trigger a mishap, then the mishap occurs.

As soon as a you determine that a part of the pod is off the table, you roll on the mishap table. Doesn't matter if you would have been able to adjust your landing, off the table is a mishap. The center of the model really doesn't matter whatsoever in deepstriking, what matters is the 1" rule, which is measured from the model's base/hull.

You don't adjust your pod's landing when you "contact" other models, you can even land on the other side of them. What matters is can you place your pod down on the table where it has scattered, if it's 1" within any models (friend or foe), you reduce the scatter in the direction of your original deep striking spot (where you wanted it to land before rolling for scatter).

That's how I've interpreted and played the rules. Haven't seen or heard anyone play it differently.

You only mishap after you adjust your scatter with the IGS. You roll on the mishap table after you land in a bad situation, you havn't landed until you've used the IGS.

Aramoro

solkan wrote:Note that Inertial Guidance only reduces the scatter distance, so it will do nothing at all in cases such as placing the drop pod in impassible terrain and rolling a 'hit'. If you've reduced the scatter and the model is still in a position to trigger a mishap, then the mishap occurs.

That is hilareous -- Thank you for that. It is correct enough, but no less funny.

I guess you could choose to drop your pod within 1" of another model, roll a hit, not be able to reduce your scatter and mishap instantly.

Reading through I see two intepretations.

1 - Place the pod, roll to scatter. If scatter places you over the enemy model with the landing pod, adjust using the IGS rules to reduce the scatter, then check for mishaps.

2 - Place the pod, roll to scatter. If scatter places any edge of the pod over a board edge it mishaps regardless of if IGS would move it for being over an enemy model.

1 is correct. 2 is not correct as the pod hasn't landed until the IGS has taken effect.

Well I'm only saying how I play. None of my opponents have ever complained or had a different opinion. I don't argue the added advantage of being able to adjust scatter before landing off the table (if still in part touching another model) and my opponents don't claim that scattering is not a move and therefore doesn't give me the benefit of being able to stay 1" away from models in order to not mishap every single time I land on top of something. If you still mishap after using inertial guidance system, apart from being able to stay clear of impassable terrain, why have they added any text whatsoever about other models?

The only way to mishap after using the IGS (assuming you can reduce your scatter enough) to move off models is if after you move you still land off the board.

The bit about always mishapping if you land on models was disingenuous, ignore it as its a facetious reading of the rules. I was perhaps unfairly assuming people on the boards would be able to see that.

Aramoro

Sorry Aramoro, half the time I can't figure out if people are arguing a rule just because it says so in the rules or if they genuinely play that way. I'm still new to YMTC so getting my bearings.

Johnno wrote:As soon as a you determine that a part of the pod is off the table, you roll on the mishap table.

I would disagree with this. The Pod's actual placement is what will determine a mishap or not. Before moving for the IGS, you haven't yet determined that final placement.


You will also find that some players argue that models can be partially off the table with no ill effect, since the rules only refer to being off table, not partially off.

insaniak wrote:I would disagree with this. The Pod's actual placement is what will determine a mishap or not. Before moving for the IGS, you haven't yet determined that final placement.

You will also find that some players argue that models can be partially off the table with no ill effect, since the rules only refer to being off table, not partially off.

Yeah, after following this discussion and rereading the rules until blue in the face, I'm starting to sway. That is, regarding how the guidance system works. I'm going to pick some brains regarding this at my local gaming club, as I mentioned it's how I've played and I've had no objections or correction, yet. I wouldn't personally ever try to claim not mishapping because half of my pod was off the table. Play the rules against others as you would want them played against yourself sounds about right.

Johnno wrote:I wouldn't personally ever try to claim not mishapping because half of my pod was off the table. Play the rules against others as you would want them played against yourself sounds about right.

Actually, while I generally wouldn't play that way myself, I have no problem with vehicles hanging partially off the table.

It's come up recently in regards to Baneblades moving on from reserve and Valkyries deep striking near the table edge. Baneblades are the bigger issue of the two, since they can't physically move fast enough to get the entire model onto the table.

insaniak wrote:It's come up recently in regards to Baneblades moving on from reserve and Valkyries deep striking near the table edge. Baneblades are the bigger issue of the two, since they can't physically move fast enough to get the entire model onto the table.

Baneblades only move 6", or are they wider than 12" ? I haven't actually seen one up close.

edit: spellin'

They only move 6".

You will also find that some players argue that models can be partially off the table with no ill effect, since the rules only refer to being off table, not partially off.

It'd be nice to get some official clarification on this, because I've found it to be amazing just how often a Drop Pod finds a way to have a quarter inch of it hanging over the edge of the table.

They also flare out a bit, so you can have the "base" of it fully on the table, but the "vanes" might hang over the edge. And forget about the infinite problems created by the stupid doors.

In any case, the only location that matters for mishap is post-scatter. This is where the model ACTUALLY lands. It doesn't land, then stagger around for a while. The initial placement is just marking where it's hoping to go, it's not actually there.

This makes fluff sense as well.

So, you resolve the results of the scatter, using IGS to shorten it, or not, and then you check if it's mishapped.

Baneblades are superheavy though, right? And can't be used in normal games? I don't know the apocalypse rules, but if my opponent wanted to play a normal game with one, we'd have to settle for pitched battle or spearhead.

Johnno wrote:Baneblades are superheavy though, right? And can't be used in normal games?

Pretty much.

I don't know the apocalypse rules, but if my opponent wanted to play a normal game with one, we'd have to settle for pitched battle or spearhead.

How would that help? He can still put it in Reserve...

insaniak wrote:How would that help? He can still put it in Reserve...

He could, but I wouldn't allow him to deploy it from reserve in that case. Which is why I ruled out Dawn of War, where it would have to be in reserve. If he chooses to place it in reserve, knowing he won't be able to deploy it, that's his problem. Just because the rules give you permission to do something, doesn't mean you should.

I do not have one to measure, and cannot easily find if this was previously answered, but I keep wondering when this comes up regarding Baneblades moving onto the table -- Do they fit if they turn sideways?

Nope. They are still wider than 6".

I haven't seen any rule forbidding you from hanging off the table as you move on, as you are not moving off the table but on.

Posting the same question in two forums ftw!

There is no issue with moving on - the requirement to "move on" is entirely fulfilled by moving either partially or fully on - as the statement is not qualified.

Tanks hanging off the edge is entirely allowable int he rules. Also, before anyone chimes in - this is NOT reciprocated - falling back models only have to touch the back edge to be removed.