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.

BRB says movement.

Just to clarify, since this thread is still hanging around.

My original insistence regarding padinfull's interpretation of Deep Strike was as a result of my misreading his post.

He claimed that the area within 1" of enemy models satisfies the classification of Impassable Terrain, and is such when Deep Striking, thus preventing you from placing a model in that region. (I would tend to disagree with this statement still, but it is what he was saying.)

I understood him to be saying that, a unit may not be placed within 1" of an enemy when deep striking because of the rule preventing you from moving within 1" of an enemy.

I felt that by insisting the act of placing a model was movement, simply because the entire act of deep striking is counted as movement, should mean that when you are told to "move the model" when scattering, you are also performing movement, and thus you cannot move off the table, into impassable terrain, or within 1" of enemy units, making a Deep Strike Mishap totally impossible.

In re-reading his post I have noticed that it was a misunderstanding, and while I still would not agree with his interpretation, it's not the same issue I believed it to be.

Even then the poll is a misrepresentation of what I was questioning, which wasn't "is deep strike movement", but rather, "is the act of placing a model for Deep Strike movement, and further is the act of scattering a model when Deep Striking movement".

The rules really could use a second term for describing movement not governed by the movement rules, maybe shift, or relocate, because as I say, if the term "move" in the scatter rules is taken as a literal reference to movement, then you can't mishap, similarly, can a Callidus Assassin force a unit to take a dangerous terrain test, or does the unit not follow normal movement rules.

If you take the view that Deep Strike is a special set of rules which replaces the normal Movement rules for the turn when you deploy a unit by Deep Strike, it would seem to resolve the issue.

Unless there is some specific rule which people think should be covered in Deep Strike, and which isn't.

If this is the case I think it would be more useful to discuss the specific issue.

It's movement. When they DS they have moved whether it is via teleport, JP, GC etc they have moved.

Ed_Bodger wrote:It's movement. When they DS they have moved whether it is via teleport, JP, GC etc they have moved.

So you take Dangerous Terrain tests if you scatter though Terrain then?

Ed_Bodger wrote:It's movement. When they DS they have moved whether it is via teleport, JP, GC etc they have moved.

When you look at a set of rules you have to distinguish between 'movement' in the general sense we all understand and "Movement" as defined within the game. They may not be the same thing.

Deep Strike may not be "Movement".

Gwar! wrote:

Ed_Bodger wrote:It's movement. When they DS they have moved whether it is via teleport, JP, GC etc they have moved.

So you take Dangerous Terrain tests if you scatter though Terrain then?

No because the scatter represents where you actually land/appear. For example if you use a Grav Chute to deepstrike you may jump out the aircraft and ami for point A: the target but due to wind/being unable to control your grav chute you land at point B which is where the scatter has taken you. You haven't been dragged across the terrain you have just landed in a different place.

If the so-called movement that occurs while a Deep Strike units drifts down on parachutes and so on, has no effect in game, can it be said to be "Movement"?

Yes because if you have just deepstruck (?) you should not be able to use a Heavy Weapon this is why it should count as movement. I can't see how you would be anymore able to fire a missile launcher after parachuting/teleporting than you would be after walking.

What does the rule on Deep Strike say about the use of Heavy Weapons?

Kilkrazy wrote:What does the rule on Deep Strike say about the use of Heavy Weapons?

You can't since a unit that Deep Strikes counts as having moved.

Counts as Having Moved doesn't mean that it is actually "Movement" and has to adhere to all the stipulations of Moving.


I follow Gwar's reasoning. If you define Deep Strike as full on Movement rather than it's own rules that happen at the beginning of the Movement Phase (like some other non-movement stuff) then you run into strange situations like he pointed out. If you place the first model in difficult terrain then you have to roll a difficult terrain test. But what does that mean? And how does it apply if you scatter? Do you have to roll Difficult Terrain again if you scatter from difficult terrain into difficult terrain? What about if you scatter from difficult terrain into normal terrain? Does the movement test affect the distance of a scatter? You can't pick and chose when you want the rules to apply.

Burger Rage wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What does the rule on Deep Strike say about the use of Heavy Weapons?

You can't since a unit that Deep Strikes counts as having moved.

Counts as Having Moved doesn't mean that it is actually "Movement" and has to adhere to all the stipulations of Moving.

...
...

Well, there it is then.

It's irrelevant if Deep Strike is "Movement" if people are worried about shooting heavy weapons.

Ed_Bodger's logic seems reversed.

The entire deepstrike sequence of events (the actual placing of the initial model, rolling for scatter, then scattering if applicable) is not movement per se (i.e. you wouldn't take difficult/dangerous terrain tests for scattering through woods ect.), but when all is said and done and your unit is placed it counts as having moved for all intents and purposes. So if the issue is just heavy weapons, then no, they cannot fire. Is there something else?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What does the rule on Deep Strike say about the use of Heavy Weapons?

You can't since a unit that Deep Strikes counts as having moved.

Counts as Having Moved doesn't mean that it is actually "Movement" and has to adhere to all the stipulations of Moving.

...
...

Well, there it is then.

It's irrelevant if Deep Strike is "Movement" if people are worried about shooting heavy weapons.

Ed_Bodger's logic seems reversed.

How is my logic reversed? My point is that you shouldn't be able to do anything after Deep Striking that you can't do after moving. Simples

Voted no, but the OP should take a look at some of yakface's polls for a better approach (e.g. this one).

Deep Striking isn't movement, but a Deep Striking unit counts as having moved. Movement rules have no bearing on the initial intended location, so put your unit wherever and perish them in a mishap (or be a Mawloc).

Here is the way I see the whole situation.

Deep Striking is a compulsory action that occurs at the beginning of the Movement Phase. It is comprised of the following steps:
1. Place an initial model from the unit anywhere on the table
2. Roll the scatter dice.
3. If you roll a hit, the model stays where it is. If an arrow is shown move the model that many inches away from the intended position.
4. Place the remaining models from the unit around the initial model in concentric circles.
x. If any models cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model or within 1" of an enemy model roll on the mishap table.

If you treat Deep Striking as movement the resolution would be:
Step 1. The position must be a valid location for a move action; not on impassable terrain, at least 1" away from any enemy models. You would have to roll dangerous terrain tests for this initial model if you place the initial model on difficult/dangerous terrain as that is part of the movement rules when a model enters difficult/dangerous area terrain.
Step 3. This movement would have to be constrained by the movement rules as well, since the BRB says "the model moves away from the intended position". This means the model would stop 1" away from enemy models and would never be possible to scatter onto impassable terrain as movement rules prohibit that. I'd allow that this compulsory movement could carry a unit off the table since there is precedence for that. If the model passes through or ends up in Difficult/Dangerous terrain and did not perform a Dangerous Terrain test in step 1 then perform a Dangerous Terrain test.
Step 4. You would have to roll dangerous terrain tests for each model that you place in this step if they land in difficult/dangerous terrain.
Step X. If a mishap occurs at this point (which could only occur if you are unable to place all the models in circles around the initial model because the position of the initial model is close to terrain/other models/edge of table that you are unable to place the rest of the unit) you roll a mishap.

This obviously makes the stipulations for Mishaps less meaningful if it's impossible to enter impassable terrain or scatter on top of friendly units in the first place or to move off of the table.

What happens to your Deep Strike if the initial model is destroyed by a Dangerous Terrain test in Step 1 or when it moves in Step 3?

What happens if the unit is returned to reserves through a Mishap result but has suffered enough losses from Dangerous Terrain checks to prompt a leadership test?

If you treat Deep Striking as not movement then these problems don't exist. The initial position or the scattered destination isn't constrained by the movement rules and the validity of the unit's position is only checked once the unit is fully deployed (or unable to be deployed) and in those situations the mishap table handles it and prevents the problem from continuing. After following the Deep Strike rules you have a unit deployed in a valid position which then checks for difficult or dangerous terrain if one or more of it's models are in difficult/dangerous terrain, or you have a unit that is destroyed or put back in reserves.

You have two interpretations, one of which causes a number of questions and problems and the other which works flawlessly and doesn't cause any rules problems.

People need to read the rules on deepstrike a bit better. Looking on pg 95 we find the follwoing under those rules:

"obviously count as having moved"

This is where most people stop reading, its telling us that for shooting purposes the units counts as having move....but keep reading farther down the page:


"in the Movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any farther"

This tells us that they have moved.

"they are too disrupted by their deepstrike move"

This is clear RAW telling us in black and white that deepstrike is a move. There is really no need for a poll, since the deep strike rule itself calls it a move!

Sliggoth

Burger Rage wrote:This obviously makes the stipulations for Mishaps less meaningful if it's impossible to enter impassable terrain or scatter on top of friendly units in the first place or to move off of the table.

All of these would still apply, as the scatter takes precedence over the normal restrictions on moving.

You have two interpretations, one of which causes a number of questions and problems and the other which works flawlessly and doesn't cause any rules problems.

Which may make one of them the better way to play it, but given the general state of GW's rules doesn't inherently make either interpretation right or wrong.

I would have to agree with Xcaliber

the initial placement is not movement, its a marker, once the models land and the DS is complete they Have moved.

Ed_Bodger wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What does the rule on Deep Strike say about the use of Heavy Weapons?

You can't since a unit that Deep Strikes counts as having moved.

Counts as Having Moved doesn't mean that it is actually "Movement" and has to adhere to all the stipulations of Moving.

...
...

Well, there it is then.

It's irrelevant if Deep Strike is "Movement" if people are worried about shooting heavy weapons.

Ed_Bodger's logic seems reversed.

How is my logic reversed? My point is that you shouldn't be able to do anything after Deep Striking that you can't do after moving. Simples

It is a syllogism.

Cats have four legs. This dog has four legs so it is a cat.

Units which move can't shoot heavy weapons. A deep strike unit can't shoot heavy weapons, so it moved.

If you want units which deep struck not to be allowed to shoot heavy weapons, that is in the deep strike rules. No need to claim they moved.

insaniak wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:This obviously makes the stipulations for Mishaps less meaningful if it's impossible to enter impassable terrain or scatter on top of friendly units in the first place or to move off of the table.

All of these would still apply, as the scatter takes precedence over the normal restrictions on moving.

I would dispute that.

Deep Strike: "If a scatter occurs, roll 2d6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position"

Movement: "Infantry move up to six inches in the Movement phase."

Why does one of these statements let you ignore normal movement rules but the other doesn't if both are calling for "Movement" in the game sense, rather than the real world sense.

If the act of scattering is consider an "in game movement" then you can't mishap, if it is not defined as such, then it's a "real world movement" which suggests that the initial placement also isn't "in game movement", meaning none of the actions which comprise the parts of a Deep Strike are "movement".

While this doesn't inherently mean deep strike as a whole is movement, it suggests that to attempt to deep strike within 1" of an enemy unit is entirely valid. Which I think is relevant to the debate of whether you can attempt to deep strike entirely ontop of things defined as impassable terrain (either actual terrain itself, or enemy models).

Drunkspleen wrote:Why does one of these statements let you ignore normal movement rules but the other doesn't if both are calling for "Movement" in the game sense, rather than the real world sense.

Because one is normal movement, and one is forced movement over which the player has no control.

The movement rules stop you from choosing to move a model within 1" of an enemy model, or into impassable terrain or off the table, by saying that models may not move into these things. Nothing stops the model from being forced to move in such a way, though.

You may not have permission to go through the gate, but you'll still go through it if someone pushes you. Or, you know, straps a rocket to your back and points you at it.

insaniak wrote:Because one is normal movement, and one is forced movement over which the player has no control.

So Spore mines never take Dangerous Terrain tests as they wont have counted as "moving" by your logic?

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Because one is normal movement, and one is forced movement over which the player has no control.

So Spore mines never take Dangerous Terrain tests as they wont have counted as "moving" by your logic?

I can only assume units with Rage are also immune to difficult terrain/dangerous terrain, and can traverse impassable terrain with no penalty as well, quite a boon if I may say so.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Because one is normal movement, and one is forced movement over which the player has no control.

So Spore mines never take Dangerous Terrain tests as they wont have counted as "moving" by your logic?

I can only assume units with Rage are also immune to difficult terrain/dangerous terrain, and can traverse impassable terrain with no penalty as well, quite a boon if I may say so.

Indeed good sir, it makes me notice that Hormagaunts suddenly got a lot better when outside of Synapse Range!

From the way the discussion has gone, perhaps the question should be changed a bit, split into component parts:

1) Is deep strike movement?

2) What portions of deepstrike are movement and how do they follow the movement rules?



Part 1 has been very clearly answered, deep strike is itself called a move and units that deepstrike cannot move any farther. This applies to units that scatter and units that do not scatter...so all deepstrike is a move.



But, and its a big but, is scatter a normal move or not?

A single model is placed "in the position that you would like the unit to arrive" and then we go on to check scatter. The unit hasnt arrived yet at this point according to the brb.

If normal movement rules are then applied to the scatter roll, the model cannot move within 1" of an enemy unit, cannot enter impassable terrain etc. Unfortunately we arent told that the model can stop if it meets any of these problems, we are only told to move it as directed by the scatter rule. So at this point the rules break down, if we are interpretting the original model to be "real" rather than just representational. There are also some slight problems with unit coherency if the model is "real" but those are minor compared to the other difficulties.

Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:
2) What portions of deepstrike are movement and how do they follow the movement rules?



Sliggoth

IMO I dont consider Deep Strike movement until the deep strike is completed, I would tend to think that the wording used is to walk us through the complicated scenario of parachuting, teleporting, burrowing, ect on to a battlefeild mid war. For instance the initial model does not arrive onto the table, magically slide over 2d6" then the rest of the squad happens to neatly scatter the same direction and form nice neat concentric circles around the first model, I would tend to believe that the first model is a marker of where your entire unit wants to land but has not landed yet. ( because with out a marker how could you determine your scatter distance?) the whole unit then arrives from above or below or just appears out of thin air. At this point it is considered movement. GW realizes that this can then cause situations that break other general rules thus the mishap table if any models cannot be deployed because....

The first question to answer is what is "Movement"?

Is it any form of moving in the game, or is it the rules contained in the section called "Movement"?

Gwar! wrote:So Spore mines never take Dangerous Terrain tests as they wont have counted as "moving" by your logic?

What? I never said that scatter didn't count as moving. I said it wasn't bound by restrictions on where they could be moved to.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So Spore mines never take Dangerous Terrain tests as they wont have counted as "moving" by your logic?

What? I never said that scatter didn't count as moving. I said it wasn't bound by restrictions on where they could be moved to.

It remains true however that you considered that because it was forced, that was enough to justify being able to for instance, move onto impassable terrain with it, much like a unit with Rage is forced to move.

Frankly, the only way you can make it work without breaking other things for the sake of consistency is to say that when you do a deep strike scatter move it's not "in game movement" but "real world movement" of the models.

As I mentioned before there are other situations where this is relevant and it's a failure on GWs part to not define the two with different terminology.

I personally choose to consider the initial model no more than a marker, and the shifting of it not governerned by normal rules since it is not being used to represent a game piece YET, and in line with this would allow someone to attempt to deep strike onto an enemy model if they so desired, but I do understand why people argue the opposite of that, while not truly representing a game piece, it is a model, and there are rules against placing models on impassable terrain without a necessary exception, which is why the argument tends to come down to "is anywhere on the table" an exception, or simply an indicator of the region involved while still following the standard rules.