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.

Imo you are useing an item that cost 15 points as far as marines go i dont see why you cant measure 6 then place after all targeters are only 1pt and it allows you to pre measure

So... by that logic if it was 5pts you couldn't measure off it?

This is relevant how exactly?

Honestly, I have never been to a tournament, including those ran by GW, that required you to drop first, then measure to a teleport homer. Every tournanmet in which I have played has allowed measuring from the homer, prior to placing the first model.

Also, of note, I have no vested interest in the outcome of this discussion, as I only take my Eldar to tournaments.

Edit: Also, I just checked the DA codex, and it does indeed say that DW Termies can "choose" to teleport within 6" of a homer, and thereby not scatter. You cannot "choose" to land within 6", if you do not measure it first

Well here in our place we measure the 6" first to see where we can legally place our models.... because as I understand the rules you pay for the locators cost it is not free.. by common sense I believe by using a locator or any similar wargear we measure from the locator and decide where within 6" of the locator do we deep strike... what is the point of paying for a locators cost if not used properly... really now.... (even if it is a 1pt cost locator we still pay pts for it) what is the use of a wargear that grants a benefit if you don't even get the benefit? That would be stupid really...

Maybe we should split the argument. As the Daemon codex icon says nothing about choosing, as I already pointed out earlier.

Maybe some icons/locators can pre-measure, and some cant?



Clay

TBH, you "choose" to land within 6" of a Homer by PLACING THE MODEL WITHIN 6" OF THE HOMER!

How hard can it be to just place the initial model within 6" of the Bloody thing?

That's where I disagree with you, Gwar. Choice always comes before action, unless your actions are involuntary.

I choose how far I want to move my models (through measuring), THEN I actually move them.. It is the same for DS. I choose to land within 6", then I place the models.

Read the actual paragraphs in the DA Dex about homers (pg. 27), and you will see that there is no RAW to back up the idea of "placing then measuring" (at least for DA). You will also see that "if you choose" to land within 6" of a homer "then you won't sactter".

Heck, even the entire RAI of those paragraphs can only lead one to the "place then measure" interpretation. For once, GW couldn't have made it much clearer!

The way I see it, it says you may choose to land within 6". I choose to do so by Placing the Model within 6". It's simple.

Of course, most people where I am Play it as "I am placing the model x inches from the Drop Pod" then measure that distance and place the model. I don't agree with it but until I get my arse to a tournament I'll not make a fuss, especially as I don;t play it that way.

Thunderjaw wrote:

Imo you are useing an item that cost 15 points as far as marines go i dont see why you cant measure 6 then place after all targeters are only 1pt and it allows you to pre measure

So... by that logic if it was 5pts you couldn't measure off it?

This is relevant how exactly?

No i am saying that if you pay for it 1 or 15 pts or what ever amount i dont see why you wouldnt get to pre measure just my opinion though

In the case of SM codex, the sentence structure for teleport homers refers to the choice to teleport onto a given spot. If that spot is within 6" of a homer, they wouldn't roll scatter. That means you do not pre-measure from the homer, you choose your deepstrike landing spot, then measure to the homer. You can't pull the word choose out of the sentence and its context; it changes the meaning. The meaning in the given sentence of choose refers to the choice to teleport onto the battlefield. It does not convey an ability to the teleport homer that guarantees you place your model within 6".

Exact SM and DA teleport homer rule for reference (the entry is identical in both codex): "If Terminators wish to teleport onto the battlefield via deep strike and choose to do so within 6" of a model carrying a teleport homer, they won't scatter."

Now, having said that, if the only way to know how something works comes down to understanding English sentence structure to this degree, I am not going to jump up and down about someone wanting to measure first. At worst I would be fine with dicing off to see how it gets played that game.

In the CD codex, it isn't even a question. It says "When a friendly unit deepstrikes within 6" of an icon of chaos it does not roll for scatter". Nothing about that sentence is conveying permission to specially place your deepstriking unit guarenteed within 6" of the icon. No pre-measuring for Daemons for sure is what it looks like to me.

Im leaning toward agreeing with you there. I think you have to read the item description, but it's not some generic "catch all", that works for every item. Some of them allow you to pre-measure, some of them do not.



Clay

I've always played it that you have to place the model & then measure to make sure it is within 6 inches.

Thunderjaw wrote:

Does anyone have an productive counter arguments to the drop, then measure stance?

It looks like no one does... at least not so far... It would be interesting to get some of the INAT FAQ folks to weigh in on this one though...

so... shameless bump...

I don't know why so many people always want to know what the INAT FAQ folks think about an issue. They are just gamers with educated opinions like the rest of us. Granted they put a LOT of effort into their FAQ, but that doesn't make them any better or smarter than anyone else here. In fact, many of their rulings are very controversial and flawed which results in their ad nauseum discussion here.

Neither side in this discussion seems to have airtight, concrete RAW quotes they can point to that definitively resolve the OP's question. I put in my $.02, as have others. I guess that is as far as I can see this one going. Over to the rest of you if you think you can come up with a BGB or Codex quote that definitively resolves this. I don't think it exists, but good luck searching for it.

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of whichever position you hold, 100% of all people that I have ever played with have always, always measured, then dropped. This includes tournament organizers, and unless I hear differently from some big tourney goers, I can only assume that's how it is in other areas as well.

If you are a 'drop, then measure' person, then I think you can certainly justify the position, but unless it's very convincing it's not going to override all of the inertia of everybody else's playstyle.

For that matter, I think the 'drop then measure' is prone to much more abuse as 6" is a very easy range to eyeball and large bases in big squads lets the majority of players gain anywhere from 2"-6" of non-scattering drop.

Parsimony and balance override any other readings.

I don't know why so many people always want to know what the INAT FAQ folks think about an issue. They are just gamers with educated opinions like the rest of us. Granted they put a LOT of effort into their FAQ, but that doesn't make them any better or smarter than anyone else here.

I don't think they are... what they are however is caretakers of an FAQ that's slowly becoming a "standard" in the gaming community... and every little thing that gets cleared up makes for a better game. I mean, it's not like GW is going to write an FAQ worth a damn. I've seen several gaming communities that a year ago laughed at the INAT FAQ and derided it slowly starting to see the value of it... while some things in it are controversial it does go a long way to providing a level playing field. Or at least the start of one...

For what it's worth, I agree that I don't think there's a definitive "BGB quote" to solve the issue. I used to do the measure then deploy thing, but now I'll be doing the deploy then measure method as I think it's more whats intended. At least until someone convinces me otherwise.

99% of the time it won't matter as you're generally fine DS'ing about 5 or less inches away... on occasion though, it just might...

sourclams wrote:Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of whichever position you hold, 100% of all people that I have ever played with have always, always measured, then dropped. This includes tournament organizers, and unless I hear differently from some big tourney goers, I can only assume that's how it is in other areas as well.

If you are a 'drop, then measure' person, then I think you can certainly justify the position, but unless it's very convincing it's not going to override all of the inertia of everybody else's playstyle.

For that matter, I think the 'drop then measure' is prone to much more abuse as 6" is a very easy range to eyeball and large bases in big squads lets the majority of players gain anywhere from 2"-6" of non-scattering drop.

Parsimony and balance override any other readings.

I agree whole heartedly with Clams (even though I mostly run Eldar).

I will also restate, that never, in any tournament, even those ran by GW themselves, have I seen teleport homers played as "drop, then measure". It has always been "measure, then drop".

I disagree with the way you see it Gwar (want to add that to your sig? )

If Gwar created a sig with everyone that disagrees with him it would not fit on the page, let alone the allocated space for a sig...


I would say that it is fine to measure, since it happens in the movement phase. If they were deepstriking in the Shooting phase it would be different. A shrewed gamer could just claim that he is measuring movement distance for the unit with the homer....

You assume that the side that is arguing for drop then measure, is also arguing for being able to maximize the 6 inches where you can drop. THis is not the case.


I think, you drop, then measure, but I think you put the 1st model down, and that MODEL must be within 6 inches so as not to scatter, then you surround the model. That is less of an advantage than measuring 6 inches, placeing the first model outside of that, then lapping around so that the last model skims the 6 inch line, so as to gain maximum advantage....



Clay

Primarch wrote:You assume that the side that is arguing for drop then measure, is also arguing for being able to maximize the 6 inches where you can drop. THis is not the case.


I think, you drop, then measure, but I think you put the 1st model down, and that MODEL must be within 6 inches so as not to scatter, then you surround the model. That is less of an advantage than measuring 6 inches, placeing the first model outside of that, then lapping around so that the last model skims the 6 inch line, so as to gain maximum advantage....



Clay

This is exactly what I mean, you place the first model, if that's within 6" then that model does not scatter.

What literal rules reading are you basing that assertion off of?

Apparently the same one you are basing your opinion off of. There isnt one.

I don't disagree that everyone plays it that way right now, even I have. But, that doesnt mean its right, or has been right from the beginning. If allowed to pre-measure the drop, then I would place the first model outside the 6 inch bubble, then make sure my outer ring touched the bubble and be perfectly legal as my unit would be ds'ng "within" 6 inches.


Thats part of why I dont think you can pre-measure some of this, I believe you estimate, and if you miss, then you miss, but its all off of that initial model. Is that not what you believe?



Clay

I don't have all the relevant codices in front of me right now so I'll refrain from posting a true opinion on the matter, but I will say that it seems entirely possible to have similar items from some codices behaving one way and others from another codex behaving another way. It wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last time.

I agree that the rules which use the word "choose" clearly indicate that the player gets to choose whether he is going to Deep Strike within 6" of the model with the item and if that choice is made a measurement would be required to fulfill that choice.

If the rule fails to use the terminology "choose" then I think you have to assume that you place the model and then measure to see if it is within 6" of the model with the item in order to qualify.


I know when I played Daemons for the first time at Adepticon this year I read the rules for the Icons in that codex and came to the natural conclusion that I had to 'guess' about whether I was placing the Deep Striking model within 6" of the Icon. But really that seemed completely fitting to me because the Daemon army is all about making crazy guesses so using the Icon this way certainly seemed to fit right in with that concept. I'm not saying I'm right for playing that way, I just wanted to point out that at least 'one' person read the rules and naturally decided to play it that way.


To the OP: I would highly suggest posting this into the 'FAQ submission thread' stickied at the top of this forum so I can remember to get this question included in the next version of the INAT FAQ.

Posted in the INAT Request Thread.

I agree with Clams and Yakface.

And as a side question, when deepstriking to you measure so that the whole base is within 6" or just the edge of the base like is done for transport disembarking?

All ranges are measured from the closest point of the base to the closest point of the base (or hull)

How do you agree with both Clams and Yakface? Seems like there is a point that they dont agree on....Just curious.



Clay

I have never been anywhere that people played you place the model then measure. The closest relevant thing I can come up with to base my opinion on is similar to what someone stated earlier. That is referencingteh rules of exiting a vehicle. You dont put your models down, measure, then scream "durn!!!I could have moved them up 1/2 an inch". Instead everyone measures where 2" before placing and while placing models to make sure they are getting the most out of their disembarkation. Remember however that this is my opinion.

bearing in mind I am of the "place then Measure Camp", I suppose one could declare "I am Placing my Model exactly 6" away from my drop pod at this angle from it" and then measure so you placed it in the correct position (similar to how people play Disembarking), but that's playing silly buggers in my opinion.

Also I like Pudding and the Sky is Querple.

What if the scatter brings you within the 6", do you stop measuring? Do you then get to place them where ever in the 6" radius?

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:What if the scatter brings you within the 6", do you stop measuring? Do you then get to place them where ever in the 6" radius?

No. If it is a "Choose" Homer, then you wont ever scatter, if its not a "choose" homer, then if your initial Placement was beyond 6", you get no benefit, even if you scatter towards it. (Then again, if you failed to Eyeball the initial placement, you are playing the wrong game tbfh)

1) Put your model down representing the unit which is coming in from deepstrike.

2) Determine if this unit marker is within 6" of of your special device.

3a) If the unit marker IS within 6" of the device, the unit's deepstrike is on target and is placed without scattering.
3b) If the unit marker is NOT within 6" of the device, the unit's deepstrike is off target and subject to scatter as normal.

I really don't see how this is hard to figure out UNLESS you are specifically looking to manipulate, misrepresent or expose an interpretation to chnage the common sense result to one for a specific purpose either to your benefit or the disadvantage of your opponent (same thing really).

I'm sorry if it sounds harsh but the rule really doesn't seem to be that vaguely written as to require excessive 'lawyering' to get something that works in game play from it.

Again, I'm not trying to knock anyone else here... it just seems like another case of way to much dissection and literalization going on.

/is 'literalization' even a word?