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.

Well I guess all the confusion in this thread has proven the OP's point.

mytimeprez wrote:BT codex states, "you may place the drop pod anywhere on the table as long as it is not in impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model."

I was just looking at that, too!

So that would mean that BT drop pods CANNOT mishap, correct?

w00t I feel like we should get a cookie...

On the topic of trygon mishap.

The book suggest to place a model on the table first and roll for scatter. Is the scatter movement start measuring from the center point of the model's base?

The model base of the trygon is oval shape. After the scatter move, the longer side is within 1" of enemy model. If I turn it 90 degrees using the shorter side to face the enemy model, the trygon is outside of that 1" zone. Is it legit to do that?

New Player wrote:On the topic of trygon mishap.

The book suggest to place a model on the table first and roll for scatter. Is the scatter movement start measuring from the center point of the model's base?

The model base of the trygon is oval shape. After the scatter move, the longer side is within 1" of enemy model. If I turn it 90 degrees using the shorter side to face the enemy model, the trygon is outside of that 1" zone. Is it legit to do that?

There's no permission to change the facing of the initial model. There's permission to change facing while a unit is moving, but the scattering of deep strike is not that type of movement.

RiTides wrote:So that would mean that BT drop pods CANNOT mishap, correct?

They can still scatter off the table, which would cause a mishap.

Just confirm....is there rule stating if the table edge counts as impassable terrain or that somethgin for the players to decide on the day?

There is no rule stating that the table edge is impassable terrain.

The closest you get is the Rulebook FAQ, which mentions that you can't voluntarily move off the edge of the table.

So if your Drop Pod scatters off the table, the scatter reduction doesn't kick in.

Ok, so to close, this is the deal:


Place DP ON unit/impass. terrain - Roll HIT = MISHAP
Place DP within 1" of unit/impass. terrain - Roll hit = MISHAP

Place DP NEAR unit/impass. terrain - scatter within 1" = Reduce scatter to min safe distance

Place DP near table edge - Scatter off table = MISHAP


all other terrain features the DP takes tests as needed.

mytimeprez wrote:BT codex states, "you may place the drop pod anywhere on the table as long as it is not in impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model."

It also states that "Roll a Scatter dice [...]. If this movement would take it into impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model, reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them." Thus, the Black Templars can't EVER mishap from hitting enemy units, the only thing I can think of that would mishap them is if they scattered outside the battlefield.

Unless you placed the Dp ON the unit in question or within 1" of it to start with. In that case, even if you reduce the scatter to 0" you are still within 1" and will mishap.

Praxiss wrote:Unless you placed the Dp ON the unit in question or within 1" of it to start with. In that case, even if you reduce the scatter to 0" you are still within 1" and will mishap.

Which, as Walrus pointed out, is prohibited in the BT codex. So, unless you ignore rules, such a scenario can never ever happen.

ah, sorry, i missed that bit and have never read the BT codex.

Praxiss wrote:Place DP ON unit/impass. terrain - Roll HIT = MISHAP

Correct.

Place DP within 1" of unit/impass. terrain - Roll hit = MISHAP

Correct for units, not for terrain, you can land safely within 1" of the impassable terrain, just not on it.

Place DP NEAR unit/impass. terrain - scatter within 1" = Reduce scatter to min safe distance

If you scatter entirely on to either, you reduce till you can safely deep strike, if you are within 1" of impassable terrain, you will simply land there safely.

Place DP near table edge - Scatter off table = MISHAP

Correct.

BRB p14
Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception(like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it.

Essentially this is the RAW that stops players from placing The Mawloc, Drop Pod, Spore, etc. on top of other models, but not the Monolith(which is a skimmer) to start the DS move. So essentially his first assumption in the DS rules is incorrect. I would say that in addition to DS being a special movement type you couldn't begin your movement within 1" of an enemy model because of the following:

BRB p11
Models in the Way
A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.

p13 BRB
Impassable Terrain cannot be moved across or into

By the above definition the 1" area around a model because it cannot be moved into or across is "impassable terrain", unless assaulting.

p95 BRB
If any of the models (or a single model in our case) cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.

It should be noted that grammatically the sentence structure uses commas to distinguish the criteria for the mishap, not the "or" conjunction.
If any of the models (or a single model in our case) cannot be deployed because:

they would land off the table,

in impassable terrain,

on top of a friendly model,

or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model,

something has gone wrong.

This is clearly an implication that the act of landing within 1" of an enemy model in the Rule set is the same as landing on top of it.

paidinfull wrote:Essentially this is the RAW that stops players from placing The Mawloc, Drop Pod, Spore, etc. on top of other models, but not the Monolith(which is a skimmer) to start the DS move. So essentially his first assumption in the DS rules is incorrect. I would say that in addition to DS being a special movement type you couldn't begin your movement within 1" of an enemy model because of the following:

Wouldn't treating Deep Strike as a movement, mean that you can never satisfy the mishap rules because you are moving, and thus ending in any of those positions would mean in performing your scatter movement, you broke the basic movement rules?

Drunkspleen wrote:Wouldn't treating Deep Strike as a movement, mean that you can never satisfy the mishap rules because you are moving, and thus ending in any of those positions would mean in performing your scatter movement, you broke the basic movement rules?

BRB p95
In the Movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any further.
How can something "move any further" if it never moved to begin with? The phrase would read "these units may not move" if it actually meant what you misinterpreted it to mean.

Deep Strike is special type of movement that has additional rules to supplement the basic rules, Mishap for example.

So where's my cookie?

Thanks for the assist insaniak, I should have seen that (about scattering off the table)

Guys do not GET these mixed up.

The mawloc IS infact allowed to arrive on top of units or rather surface from directly below them. We've all seen Sci-Fi movies with giant worm like monsters burrowing from underneath this makes perfect sense.

And the mawloc's rules supports that he can surface from below enemy models as his rules CLEARLY are also intended to do so and in the aftermath pushes them out of the way to make his arrival legal, very similar to the Monolith.

What I wanted to bring into question is the Trygon who's rule is identical to the Drop Pod.

Trygon is not the same as a Mawloc so leave the Mawloc out of this.

And I am glad that many more of you now see my point with Trygons and Drop Pods not being able to place themselves within 1" and think they can arrive all willy nilly without mishapping. That's what mawloc's and monliths are for.

Akaiyou wrote:Guys do not GET these mixed up.

The mawloc IS infact allowed to arrive on top of units or rather surface from directly below them. We've all seen Sci-Fi movies with giant worm like monsters burrowing from underneath this makes perfect sense.

We're talking RAW here bud... You completely didn't read the quotes I've posted.
Models may not be placed into impassable terrain unless they have a special rule that provides them an exception.
The Deep Strike rule does not provide an exception permitting a model to be placed in impassable terrain.
You will also note that no where does it say in Terror from the Deep that the Mawloc may enter terrain. It only has a clause that handles the event that it does Deep Strike onto an enemy model, "If it Deep Strikes". This is the RAW, might not be the intent but it's 100% the RAW. See the rules for Skimmer to provide an example of an exception for entering impassable terrain.

Akaiyou wrote:
And the mawloc's rules supports that he can surface from below enemy models as his rules CLEARLY are also intended to do so and in the aftermath pushes them out of the way to make his arrival legal, very similar to the Monolith.

What I wanted to bring into question is the Trygon who's rule is identical to the Drop Pod.

Trygon is not the same as a Mawloc so leave the Mawloc out of this.

And I am glad that many more of you now see my point with Trygons and Drop Pods not being able to place themselves within 1" and think they can arrive all willy nilly without mishapping. That's what mawloc's and monliths are for.

You're completely wrong by RAW, muchacho.
Models may not begin their DS move in impassable terrain. Placing the model on top of another model is placing that model in impassable terrain.
Regardless of how you've played it... the way I wrote it is the correct process for DS. Drop Pods can not mishap by scattering within 1" of an enemy model as the Mishap rules handle it identically as if they were to land on it.


If your argument is "anywhere on the table" please consider that a model may move in "any direction" and yet even with that RAW a model may not move in a direction that would take it into impassable terrain. "Anywhere on the table" is not an "exception".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

paidinfull wrote:BRB p14
Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception(like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it.

Essentially this is the RAW that stops players from placing The Mawloc, Drop Pod, Spore, etc. on top of other models, but not the Monolith(which is a skimmer) to start the DS move. So essentially his first assumption in the DS rules is incorrect. I would say that in addition to DS being a special movement type you couldn't begin your movement within 1" of an enemy model because of the following:

BRB p11
Models in the Way
A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the Assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.

p13 BRB
Impassable Terrain cannot be moved across or into

By the above definition the 1" area around a model because it cannot be moved into or across is "impassable terrain", unless assaulting.

p95 BRB
If any of the models (or a single model in our case) cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.

It should be noted that grammatically the sentence structure uses commas to distinguish the criteria for the mishap, not the "or" conjunction.
If any of the models (or a single model in our case) cannot be deployed because:

they would land off the table,

in impassable terrain,

on top of a friendly model,

or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model,

something has gone wrong.

This is clearly an implication that the act of landing within 1" of an enemy model in the Rule set is the same as landing on top of it.

paidinfull wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Wouldn't treating Deep Strike as a movement, mean that you can never satisfy the mishap rules because you are moving, and thus ending in any of those positions would mean in performing your scatter movement, you broke the basic movement rules?

BRB p95
In the Movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any further.
How can something "move any further" if it never moved to begin with? The phrase would read "these units may not move" if it actually meant what you misinterpreted it to mean.

Deep Strike is special type of movement that has additional rules to supplement the basic rules, Mishap for example.

A good job of sidestepping the question which is:

Why are you treating something that says "Place one model from the unit" as movement, but then treating something that says "roll 2d6 to see how many inches the model moves" as not movement?

I don't even really care if you want to claim that you can't deep strike onto impassable terrain or an enemy unit. But if you are going to claim it's because deep striking is movement, I would expect some consistency.

Drunkspleen wrote:A good job of sidestepping the question which is:

Why are you treating something that says "Place one model from the unit" as movement, but then treating something that says "roll 2d6 to see how many inches the model moves" as not movement?

I don't even really care if you want to claim that you can't deep strike onto impassable terrain or an enemy unit. But if you are going to claim it's because deep striking is movement, I would expect some consistency.

Did I ever say that the act of placing a model was considered movement? No, I simply quoted to you quotes from the rules that clearly specify models may not be "placed" in impassable terrain.

Now, if your real question is "Is Deep Strike Movement"...
BRB p95
If a scatter occurs, roll 2D6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position
In the Movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any further.
In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire(or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase.

Honestly though... create a new thread, start a poll... Is Deep Strike Movement?
The answer will be "Yes"

How did this discussion turn from Trygons/Drop Pods to Mawlocs?

Because the contention that you cannot deep strike on or within 1" of a unit was a hotly contested issue with the Mawloc.

A new Tyranids Tactica article in the new WD lends a great deal of credence that you can indeed deep strike a Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy unit.

But that isn't what the OP was about at all.

Deep Striking within 1" and it causing a mishap was in the OP which then led to the Mawloc bs.

Akaiyou wrote:Mishaps Occur - When landing on top of impassible terrain, on top of enemy models, off the table, or within 1" of an enemy.

Tell me if I'm wrong, I don't have a codex on me, but they also mishap if they land on their own units, correct? As I recall, scattering onto your own units was worse than scattering onto your opponents.

Regardless, I agree with OP in that it's humorous that someone would place their Trygon in an auto-mishap zone. Seems foolish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

paidinfull wrote:How can something "move any further" if it never moved to begin with?

Unless they've been invisible and chilling there for a while, they had to get there somehow. Be it, teleporting, a drop ship, emerging from the earth, flying, falling, crashing, exploding, anything, I'm pretty sure they had to move somehow to get to where they are via deepstrike.

I guess it's not RAW, but word games seem to take priority over logic :/

This exact situation came up today at the tourny i played in...

Trygon is placed 1/2'' away from drone, Rolls hit on dice, does not scatter, does not get reduced to the minimum distance away w/o causing a mishap. Tyrgon stays 1/2'' away from drone. I pointed this out, guy called organizer over, few pages in BRB are flipped, organizer rules that its a mishap since there is no scatter to reduce, and it met the description to qualify as a mishap. Trygon gets placed by me in the corner on the far side of the board... felt bad it was against my friend.. but =-? what can ya do?

TopC wrote: felt bad it was against my friend.. but =-? what can ya do?

I don't know. For starters I could point out you could have realized he was trying to land as close to you as possible and also realized he probably wasn't fully aware of how the game mechanics worked. You could explained it to him before the roll, or you could have just let him move it back .5" after the roll.

Fizyx wrote:

TopC wrote: felt bad it was against my friend.. but =-? what can ya do?

I don't know. For starters I could point out you could have realized he was trying to land as close to you as possible and also realized he probably wasn't fully aware of how the game mechanics worked. You could explained it to him before the roll, or you could have just let him move it back .5" after the roll.

I second this thought. Unless it is a friend in a tournament (and even then I would say something), I always let a friend know before they do a really stupid move. Hell I even do that to people i don't like if it is not a tournament.

jbunny wrote:

Fizyx wrote:

TopC wrote: felt bad it was against my friend.. but =-? what can ya do?

I don't know. For starters I could point out you could have realized he was trying to land as close to you as possible and also realized he probably wasn't fully aware of how the game mechanics worked. You could explained it to him before the roll, or you could have just let him move it back .5" after the roll.

I second this thought. Unless it is a friend in a tournament (and even then I would say something), I always let a friend know before they do a really stupid move. Hell I even do that to people i don't like if it is not a tournament.

Yea it was during a tourny, i was sitting down eating while it was his turn so by the time i noticed it, got up to look how close it was he had already rolled the dice and got a hit... in a friendly game i woulda just had him move it back to a legal spot, but it was during a tourny, and its kinda how the cookie crumbles when there are people watching/judging...