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 someone approched me with this question and now I find it disturbing.

I only did a quick search for this answer so if it has already been discussed please feel free to link me to the correct forum/topic.

What happens when you deep strike in your pod and it scatters less than an 1" away from an enemy model?

keep in mind the RAW on the guidance system says it kicks in IF it finishes its scatter ON TOP of models it does not say anything about what my reference says.

Do we then go to the mishap table or do we go with RAI?

orunlu wrote:So someone approched me with this question and now I find it disturbing.

I only did a quick search for this answer so if it has already been discussed please feel free to link me to the correct forum/topic.

What happens when you deep strike in your pod and it scatters less than an 1" away from an enemy model?

keep in mind the RAW on the guidance system says it kicks in IF it finishes its scatter ON TOP of models it does not say anything about what my reference says.

Do we then go to the mishap table or do we go with RAI?

Yes. Scattering so that you land less than 1" from an enemy model, but not on top of it, will trigger a Deep Strike Mishap.

Quick question to you Mathew Ward (I Assume you are since you know the RaI), why did you forget to make Blood Angels Demolisher Cannons Blast?

The point of the above is that you don't know RaI unless you are Mathew Ward.

RaW, you will mishap as the Guidance system doesn't kick in. Since there has been no Errata to suggest otherwise, we must also assume that this is the Rule as Intended. If it was not, they would have Errata'd it.

Trick for new Players:

Dont deepstrike Drop Pods onto enemies or dangerous / impassable terrain.

-Post Removed-

ahh well I learned a thing. Thanks much.

Gwar! wrote:Since there has been no Errata to suggest otherwise, we must also assume that this is the Rule as Intended.

...or simply that it hasn't been errata'd yet.

Seriously, Gwar, how many times do we need to go over this?

RAW: Mishap
RAI: move it out of the way

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Since there has been no Errata to suggest otherwise, we must also assume that this is the Rule as Intended.

...or simply that it hasn't been errata'd yet.

Seriously, Gwar, how many times do we need to go over this?

I do not agree with you.

GW have released a SM errata, and have ample time to update it. The fact they have not errata'd it shows that the RaW is the RaI. If I can make a 14 page FAQ in my spare time before a codex is even out, they can do it too. To suggest that because GW are "slow" with errata means you can know the RaI is, IMO, arrogant and insane.

So, again, I do not agree with your viewpoint, and we can go over it as many times as you wish, as you have not come close to convincing me otherwise, and I am sure I have not been able to convince you of my position.

i'd say sod it you can use your guidence system as to me it sounds daft it works when it hits a model but doesn't when it comes within an inch

They can, but they don't.

Anybody who has been playing GW games for longer than 5 minutes should be fully aware of their hit-and-miss approach to errata and FAQ's. The fact that something has not been covered yet does not mean that it won't be, or that the guy who writes the FAQ's is even aware yet that it's an issue.

Seriously, Gwar, this insistence that 'it hasn't been errata'd so it must be intentional' is illogical, and inconsistent with GW's approach to FAQ's. You've been told why on multiple occasions. So please stop presenting it as fact.

insaniak wrote:They can, but they don't.

Anybody who has been playing GW games for longer than 5 minutes should be fully aware of their hit-and-miss approach to errata and FAQ's. The fact that something has not been covered yet does not mean that it won't be, or that the guy who writes the FAQ's is even aware yet that it's an issue.

Seriously, Gwar, this insistence that 'it hasn't been errata'd so it must be intentional' is illogical, and inconsistent with GW's approach to FAQ's. You've been told why on multiple occasions. So please stop presenting it as fact.

Please point out where I have said "This is indisputable fact and anyone saying otherwise is wrong."

You claim to know GW's approach to FAQs, which unless you actually do write GW's FAQs, you cannot actually know.

But of course we have been down this road before and I shall bow out of this thread before the Banhammer strikes again.