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 really asking for a debate on how the SM Drop Pod rule works, but I am asking how people have played it before the Tyranid codex came out. If you want to debate the rule go ahead, I can learn a few things here.

So say a Space Marine Drop Pod deepstrikes 1\2" away from an enemy model, and not on top of him, did you guys just move the drop pod away the 1" or did the DP mishap? That is the way I thought it was done, but now in other forums people are arguing over the Tyrgron rule even though the wording is exactly the same as the SM DP rule.

So as I said, how did you guys and galls played if a SM DP landed less than 1" away from an enemy model. Did you just move the DP away 1" or did it mishap?

Davor wrote:I am not really asking for a debate on how the SM Drop Pod rule works, but I am asking how people have played it before the Tyranid codex came out. If you want to debate the rule go ahead, I can learn a few things here.

So say a Space Marine Drop Pod deepstrikes 1\2" away from an enemy model, and not on top of him, did you guys just move the drop pod away the 1" or did the DP mishap? That is the way I thought it was done, but now in other forums people are arguing over the Tyrgron rule even though the wording is exactly the same as the SM DP rule.

So as I said, how did you guys and galls played if a SM DP landed less than 1" away from an enemy model. Did you just move the DP away 1" or did it mishap?

It mishaped, because it didn't scatter, so there was no way to reduce the scatter, so it landed in a place where it triggers a mishap.

What I am really looking for is, how did people play this rule for the last 2 1\2 years as well. So how did you play it Gwar?

Davor wrote:What I am really looking for is, how did people play this rule for the last 2 1\2 years as well. So how did you play it Gwar?

By the rules

So you telling me Qwar that is point A was where you intended the DP to go but it scattered 5" to point B and it was 1/2" away from an enemy model that the DP mishapped then?

Davor wrote:So you telling me Qwar that is point A was where you intended the DP to go but it scattered 5" to point B and it was 1/2" away from an enemy model that the DP mishapped then?

???

No, I placed the Drop Pod more than 1" away from an enemy model, it scattered so it ended up closer than 1", so I reduce the scatter until it avoids it, by being more than 1" away.

Davor wrote:So you telling me Qwar that is point A was where you intended the DP to go but it scattered 5" to point B and it was 1/2" away from an enemy model that the DP mishapped then?

that is neither what the OP asked nor what Gwar! answered.

If you place the pod 1/2" away then, on a hit it will mishap. ALways has done, always will do.

If you place it more than 1" away and you scatter to within 1", it will reduce the scatter so you are outisde the 1". Always has done

A Drop Pod would mishap in the example you gave, because it reduces scatter to avoid doing so.

As Gwar said, if the Drop Pod doesn't scatter, it can't reduce the distance scattered to avoid a mishap.

So how did everyone play it since the SM codex was released?

Davor wrote:So how did everyone play it since the SM codex was released?

By the rules hopefully.

Davor wrote:So how did everyone play it since the SM codex was released?

The exact way that people are explaining it and the rule is written.

If you DS the pod somewhere safe, it basically always lands safely (either by hitting, or reducing the scatter).
If you DS the pod somewhere unsafe, it can mishap (either by hitting, or not scattering far enough away).

Gorka - not *entirely* true - it can still mishap by scattering off the table. This does NOT kick in the intertial guidance as the edge of the table is *not* impassable terrain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Gorka - not *entirely* true - it can still mishap by scattering off the table. This does NOT kick in the intertial guidance as the edge of the table is *not* impassable terrain.

Yeah, I quickly qualified my statement with that 'basically'
It's a rare exception, and not really part of the 'DS right onto models and don't mishap' misreading issue.

The only way the DP can hit the mishap table from enemy models is if your initial target for placement would be in a spot to trigger this. If you always try to place it somewhere it could safely land you will never have to worry about mishap from enemy models.

Since we are discussing DP though if a DP lands in difficult terrain and rolls a 1 for the dangerous terrain test does it suffer a weapon destroyed or would it jst still be a standard immobilized since its the only auto immobilized vehicle I know of?

rocklord2004 wrote:The only way the DP can hit the mishap table from enemy models is if your initial target for placement would be in a spot to trigger this. If you always try to place it somewhere it could safely land you will never have to worry about mishap from enemy models.

Since we are discussing DP though if a DP lands in difficult terrain and rolls a 1 for the dangerous terrain test does it suffer a weapon destroyed or would it jst still be a standard immobilized since its the only auto immobilized vehicle I know of?

Yes, it's a weapon destroyed result. Immobilized results on an immobilized vehicle are always weapon destroyed as long as it still has weapons. The circumstances of the immobilization are irrelevant.

It mishaped.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Gorka - not *entirely* true - it can still mishap by scattering off the table. This does NOT kick in the intertial guidance as the edge of the table is *not* impassable terrain.

It's funny to mention this, I had a SW player DS his pod, and it almost DS off the table and non of us knew at the time what would happen. He made it by a fraction of an inch so we all laughed about it.

So the correct way of playing is if I choose to DS my DP in spot B, and I scatter west into spot C wich is 1\4" away from an enemy model, I move it back in the direction of the scatter east 1" away. Is this correct?

Yes, along the exact path of its scatter, and it would only be 3/4 of an inch correction.

Davor wrote:So how did everyone play it since the SM codex was released?

You just place your pod down more than an inch away. Done. Roll for scatter, play pinball, stop an inch away. There's no logical reason to target your pod onto/or in base contact with an enemy unit or impasible terrain. I've never had a problem understanding this one...

If someone intentionally places the drop pod less than 1 inch from a unit and it does not scatter, it is a mishap, however, this ought never to happen because people ought to be smart enough to realize that you don't place your drop pod in such a place that it will mishap if it does not scatter...

People who make this mistake ought to learn the hard way by rolling a 1 on the mishap table, maybe he wont do it a second time.

If you place a drop pod 4 and 1/2 inches away from a unit and it scatters 4 inches towards the unit, then "Inertial Guidance System" kicks in and auto corrects; i.e. no mishap.

If you intend the drop pod to land on impassible terrain or on top of another unit, then you risk rolling a hit on the scatter die and risk a mishap roll.

Thank you guys for your explanations. I was just curious as to how this rule was played.

I'm actually surprised noone tried to bring in the 'I can reduce the scatter to negative numbers' argument that I saw a guy at my FLGS try to pull once.

Gorkamorka wrote:I'm actually surprised noone tried to bring in the 'I can reduce the scatter to negative numbers' argument that I saw a guy at my FLGS try to pull once.

This is just... sad...

Gorkamorka wrote:I'm actually surprised noone tried to bring in the 'I can reduce the scatter to negative numbers' argument that I saw a guy at my FLGS try to pull once.

Sure you can, I'll prove it by dividing by zero

Sirslamb wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:I'm actually surprised noone tried to bring in the 'I can reduce the scatter to negative numbers' argument that I saw a guy at my FLGS try to pull once.

Sure you can, I'll prove it by dividing by zero

I'll see your divide by zero and raise you a 3 sided square!

I think we're done here...