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.

DeathReaper wrote:Right, and the rules allow for circles with as many models that will fit. so if that is a 4 model circle then you move to the next circle and get as many models as will fit in the next circle.

A four model circle is always less than what will fit (assuming there are more than 5 total models to place). If terrains blocks you from making a complete circle, you mishap. Very simple.

Nowhere does it say that if you can not fit more into the first circle you mishap.

you fill the circles with as many models as will fit, and move to the next circle.

alright so if your circle will fit 6 models and you only place 4 because of Impassable Terrain ... you mishap.

..and the reason they wont fit is because of impassable terrain, which causes you to mishap.

You're avoiding mishap by misreading a rule. It does not give you permission to avoid the mishap.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:alright so if your circle will fit 6 models and you only place 4 because of Impassable Terrain ... you mishap.

No, because as many models as will fit is 4 models, so you move to the next circle.

DeathReaper wrote:What I am describing IS a circle with as many models as will fit.

No it's not. You're describing a circle with as many models as can be placed. You can fit more models into that circle, you just can't legally place them. Which is what triggers a mishap.

I get it. A model has to be 100% on the table to be on the table but a circle doesn't have to be complete to be a circle. OK then.................

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I get it. A model has to be 100% on the table to be on the table but a circle doesn't have to be complete to be a circle. OK then.................

Because the rules allow for as many models as will fit.

I am describing a circle with as many models as will fit, according to the rules this is allowed. be it 3 or 5 models, then you move on to the next circle.

insaniak wrote:You can fit more models into that circle, you just can't legally place them. Which is what triggers a mishap.

You can not fit more, because there is impassible terrain there.

so no mishap.

Either way, it will not come up much, and the rule is written poorly so I will leave it at that.

DeathReaper wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I get it. A model has to be 100% on the table to be on the table but a circle doesn't have to be complete to be a circle. OK then.................

Because the rules allow for as many models as will fit.

I am describing a circle with as many models as will fit, according to the rules this is allowed. be it 3 or 5 models, then you move on to the next circle.

insaniak wrote:You can fit more models into that circle, you just can't legally place them. Which is what triggers a mishap.

You can not fit more, because there is impassible terrain there.

so no mishap.

Either way, it will not come up much, and the rule is written poorly so I will leave it at that.

Actually the rules are written fine, you're misinterpreting them. As many models as will fit, is quite diferent than as many models that will legally fit.
when you place your 4/6 you are inherently ignoring the DS rules

DeathReaper wrote:You can not fit more, because there is impassible terrain there.

so no mishap.

By this argument, a mishap is never going to occur unless the original model scatters onto an obstacle.

If you have more than a base-sized gap between models in the circle, you can fit more models in the circle. The fact that impassable terrain is preventing you from placing them is exactly what triggers the mishap... where the model needs to go is somewhere that it can't be placed.

insaniak wrote:By this argument, a mishap is never going to occur unless the original model scatters onto an obstacle.

If you have more than a base-sized gap between models in the circle, you can fit more models in the circle. The fact that impassable terrain is preventing you from placing them is exactly what triggers the mishap... where the model needs to go is somewhere that it can't be placed.

I read it the other way as it says as many as will fit.

If the "as many as will fit" clause was not there I could see it working as you have described.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Actually the rules are written fine, you're misinterpreting them.

In your opinion.

So what in your interpretation of the rules would cause a mishap to occur? From what I see it would only happen if the center model scattered onto impassible terrain, an enemy unit or off the table.

DeathReaper wrote:If the "as many as will fit" clause was not there I could see it working as you have described.

Sorry, that makes no sense. You're saying that if it didn't require you to place as many as can fit, then you would have to place as many as can fit... but because it does say that you have to place as many as can fit, you don't actually have to?

DeathReaper wrote:What I am describing IS a circle with as many models as will fit.

The models that will fit are put in a circle around the first, then you move on to the second circle with as many models as will fit.

No, what you're describing is an arc, which is a portion of a circle.

To clarify, for something to be "a circle with as many models as will fit," it must first be a circle. If the models only complete a portion of the circle, then you have an arc, not a circle, and have failed to satisfy the first part of the requirement.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:So what in your interpretation of the rules would cause a mishap to occur? From what I see it would only happen if the center model scattered onto impassible terrain, an enemy unit or off the table.

That's the way I read that part of the rules as well, so DR isn't alone in his way of thinking. It didn't even occur to me that it might not be the right way of doing it until this thread - now I'm not sure.

I guess for Drop Pods/Mycetic Spores, the deployed troops aren't DSing, they're disembarking but count as DSing?

Yes, which means you abide by both rules - however the general movement rules (cant move into impassable terrain) prevents you from making them mishap

Boss GreenNutz wrote:So what in your interpretation of the rules would cause a mishap to occur? From what I see it would only happen if the center model scattered onto impassible terrain, an enemy unit or off the table.

That or if you were surrounded by enemy models and or impassible terrain, and could not place all the models in the DSing unit due to ther being no space at all.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If the "as many as will fit" clause was not there I could see it working as you have described.

Sorry, that makes no sense. You're saying that if it didn't require you to place as many as can fit, then you would have to place as many as can fit... but because it does say that you have to place as many as can fit, you don't actually have to?

I am saying that the rules say to place as many as will fit. If there is impassible terrain in the way then clearly the models can not fit, and you are allowed to make another circle, as per the rules.

DeathReaper wrote: If there is impassible terrain in the way then clearly the models can not fit, ...

Except they can. If the circle is not complete, there is room to fit more models. If there is impassable terrain in the way, that simply means that the models can not be placed, not that they can't fit in the circle.

You don't have a complete circle, because the terrain is preventing you from completing it. Hence, a mishap.

So what you are saying is, there is no way to Deep Strike a unit of 3 or 4 models, since you will not have a complete circle?

No, I'm saying you have to complete a circle before you can move onto the next. Having insufficient models to complete a circle does not prevent you from placing models.

If a model can not be legally placed in the appropriate circle, the unit mishaps.

insaniak wrote:No, I'm saying you have to complete a circle before you can move onto the next. Having insufficient models to complete a circle does not prevent you from placing models.

If a model can not be legally placed in the appropriate circle, the unit mishaps.

We clearly read that differently, and that is okay.

The rules are a bit ambiguous.

Moving on now. Thank you all for the discussion.

-DR

DeathReaper wrote:

insaniak wrote:No, I'm saying you have to complete a circle before you can move onto the next. Having insufficient models to complete a circle does not prevent you from placing models.

If a model can not be legally placed in the appropriate circle, the unit mishaps.

We clearly read that differently, and that is okay.

The rules are a bit ambiguous.

Moving on now. Thank you all for the discussion.

-DR

If you really think every single person in this thread disagreeing with you are seeing something magical in the rules that you're not, I suggest you try making a poll thread where you post the rules and describe the situation and ask what people think the rules say in this case (mishap or no mishap). I think you will find an overwhelming majority of people disagree with you to the point where your interpretation borders on ridiculousness.

Anyone else find it a touch ironic that DeathReaper's signature contains the definition of the area of a circle?

On a constructive note, I'm with everyone else on the matter.

yakface wrote:If you really think every single person in this thread disagreeing with you are seeing something magical in the rules that you're not, I suggest you try making a poll thread where you post the rules and describe the situation and ask what people think the rules say in this case (mishap or no mishap). I think you will find an overwhelming majority of people disagree with you to the point where your interpretation borders on ridiculousness.

While I respect you yakface, I have to disagree with this post. As I said earlier, I read the rules the same way as DR and I'm still not convinced it's an incorrect reading. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

rigeld2 wrote:
While I respect you yakface, I have to disagree with this post. As I said earlier, I read the rules the same way as DR and I'm still not convinced it's an incorrect reading. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply that he would be the only person sharing that opinion. Experience with the INAT has taught me that no matter how outlandish the interpretation of the rules there are always at least some people who read it that way.

There is a big difference between an issue that is a 60/40 split and one that it is 90/10, and I would be very, very surprised to find that this issue is closer to the 60/40 situation then it is the 90/10.

But by all means, feel free to try to prove me wrong by creating a poll thread!

I would guess more of a 98/2 result.

It's probably in the 20-25% range honestly

Agreed with Nos, Insaniak, Yak and almost everyone else in this thread.

DeathReaper has a spiteful (and misguided) quote in his signature about what the area of a circle is, perhaps the rest of the definition of a circle should be included?

editing to add:
Not being able to complete a circle because of something that is defined as causing a mishap is definitely a strange thing to justify NOT causing a mishap.

kirsanth wrote:DeathReaper has a spiteful (and misguided) quote in his signature about what the area of a circle is, perhaps the rest of the definition of a circle should be included?

First off, it is not a quote.

Second, why do you think its "spiteful (and misguided)"?