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 my brother Grey Elder was at a tournament today, and he was playing the shops top player a Dark Eldar player. When Grey placed his drop pod he then rolled for scatter and got a direct hit, problem was that the Dark Eldar player said that he placed his pod within 1 inch of his ravager, and therefore would automatically mishap. Also, the Dark Eldar player wouldn't let Grey measure because you apparently can't measure that. Grey requested that he show him the rule which says this and the Dark Eldar player said he'ld let him go with a warning.

This isn't the first time that he's pulled rules shenanigans. He also said at the last tourney they met at that if your unit goes to ground it cannot claim objectives.


Now I think that it's either impossible to place your model on the board before scatter whithin an inch of another model, or something else. What I really mean is that it would seem to me that the Dark Eldar player was quoting a suspect rule interpretation.

There has been a lot of debate over the years as to whether the initial DS location can be somewhere the DSer can't legally land... but from what I've seen it's generally come down more on the side of 'sure, it's legal, but not generally a good idea...', reinforced somewhat by the Mawlock's special rules, which would be somewhat useless if you couldn't do so.

So if you're playing that way, yes, the pod would mishap if you don't scatter and its initial placement is illegal.

However, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how you would tell that it's within any set distance of another model if you don't measure...

You wouldn't be allowed to measure it before placing the pod, but you would certainly have to when determining whether or not the pod mishaps.

If the first model you place for deep strike is within 1" of an enemy model (and it doesn't scatter away), then it would definitely mishap. You wouldn't be able to pre-measure it, but you'd have to measure the distance once the final position of the model has been determined in order to figure out whether the unit suffers a mishap or not.

The rule against pre-measuring can be found on p3 of the rulebook: in this case, the rules do call for the player to measure the distance to the enemy in order to check for a mishap.

I can't see anything preventing the initially-placed model from being within 1" of an enemy.

So, your brother's opponent was half right. If your brother did place the pod within 1" of the enemy and it didn't scatter away, then it would mishap; he was wrong in that you DO have to measure the distance to the enemy.

I thought that Drop Pods made things just move out of the way when they land? I'm don't have a codex with me, so I can't really clarify that right now.

Nope, they just get to reduce their scatter distance if they would land on something.

Thanks, guys. That should help when when he comes across him again.

Ratbarf wrote: He also said at the last tourney they met at that if your unit goes to ground it cannot claim objectives.

That's not in the current rules, if it ever was. I know of nothing forbidding a Troop choice from scoring, unless it has a special rule that says so like BA Death Company. Pinned (or Going to Ground as it's also called) prohibits voluntary actions. Scoring is not voluntary far as I know. You score if you're in the right place, same as any enemy can contest an objective by being in the right place.

Even units that are falling back aren't ineligible to score... they're just removed as casualties before tallying victory conditions in standard missions.

Spetulhu wrote:That's not in the current rules, if it ever was.

Going to Ground was only introduced in the current rules.

Pinned (or Going to Ground as it's also called) prohibits voluntary actions. Scoring is not voluntary far as I know.

Not even that... Scoring isn't an action at all. If they're in range, they score.

Huh, well he did pull that one. So Grey didn't go to ground that game and his unit got shot to gak and he lost.

Oh well.

At least we now realise to be on our toes as it would appear he is a TFG.

Not necessarily. I mean, yes, it's worth being on your toes if he's getting rules wrong, but it's a long leap from there to TFG.

There are a lot of rules in this game. Even veterans get confused from time to time, and will sometimes be sure that they're playing it right, just because they've been playing it that way for so long.

sounds like a TFG to me lying about scoring units whether knowingly or not. Sounds like a power play to squeeze a win

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:sounds like a TFG to me lying about scoring units whether knowingly or not. Sounds like a power play to squeeze a win

Not necessarily.

Like insaniak said, sometimes anyone gets a rule wrong or confuses it with a different rule or edition.

When I play, there are times where either myself or my opponent will look at something one or the other did and just say "Are you sure about that?"

That usually brings out the rulebook, the issue is checked, one or the other says "Oh, okay, I thought so (or "I though differently") and we move on, doing our best to remember the point for the next time.

Doing something wrong knowingly certainly could be lying or cheating, but doing something in error is a simple as being mistaken or ignorant of a certain rule.
Doesn't mean the person is lying or cheating or even TFG.

Well before you label him a cheat that is a good question on the DP. The rules state you reduce the scatter. If you place it too close and don't scatter then perhaps you do mishap as there is nothing in the rules that state it won't mishap in that situation. Perhaps instead of him being labeled TFG for saying you roll on the mishap table, perhaps you are TFG for deliberatly putting a DP too close to an enemy unit. Look at that situation from his POV.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:sounds like a TFG to me lying about scoring units whether knowingly or not.

Er... 'knowingly or not' is the difference between TFG lying and honest mistake...

Intertial Guidance System would still reduce the distance.

That's kind of the point of drop pods, if they were mishapping they would not be as effective.

A hit on the scatter dice, logically, is still a scatter roll and if you were within 1" of enemy models, you need to reduce the distance as at 1" you would be considered on top of or whatever. There is also the question of if we are talking about the distance from the doors or the hull.

Drop Pods as intended would be something you get out of the way of. Not much is going to survive that kind of impact near them or the massive doors slamming down into the ground. If the Drop Pod hits too close to a unit and has a mishap, that's not even sensible. It's a high speed missile that deploys troops into the heart of the enemy line.

IdentifyZero wrote:Intertial Guidance System would still reduce the distance.

Ehh... how do you propose to reduce the distance if a hit is a mishap? You'd actually have to INCREASE the distance.

IdentifyZero wrote:A hit on the scatter dice, logically, is still a scatter roll and if you were within 1" of enemy models, you need to reduce the distance as at 1" you would be considered on top of or whatever.

You can only reduce the distance back to your starting point. If you don't scatter at all, there is no distance to reduce.

There is also the question of if we are talking about the distance from the doors or the hull.

It makes no difference, aside from counting the doors making it harder to find room to place the pod in the first place.

Drop Pods as intended would be something you get out of the way of. Not much is going to survive that kind of impact near them or the massive doors slamming down into the ground. If the Drop Pod hits too close to a unit and has a mishap, that's not even sensible. It's a high speed missile that deploys troops into the heart of the enemy line.

If that had been the intention, they would have a rule similar to the Monolith's, moving the obstacle instead of the pod.

Obviously GW's idea of how the pod lands differs somewhat from yours

Definently a TFG. Not because of the pod but because of the whole thing about pinned/gone-to-ground units not being able to capture. Someone tried that on me before as well. But insaniak definently hit the nail on the head with the rules on this one.

IdentifyZero wrote:Intertial Guidance System would still reduce the distance.

Which direction do you move the pod and who gets to pick it? Unless you suspend it in midair you can't reduce the scatter of something coming straight down on you that scores a direct hit.

So, if a drop pod is DS is placed in the middle large horde of gaunts (say, thirty) and _hits_ the drop pod mishaps, but if it scatters an inch (remaining on/near the horde) it doesn't mishap is moved such it is no longer on/near the horde?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:So, if a drop pod is DS is placed in the middle large horde of gaunts (say, thirty) and _hits_ the drop pod mishaps, but if it scatters an inch (remaining on/near the horde) it doesn't mishap is moved such it is no longer on/near the horde?

This situation guarantees a mishap, as there is no way to reduce the scatter to avoid a mishap.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:So, if a drop pod is DS is placed in the middle large horde of gaunts (say, thirty) and _hits_ the drop pod mishaps, but if it scatters an inch (remaining on/near the horde) it doesn't mishap is moved such it is no longer on/near the horde?

No. You could reduce that 1" scatter, but that would still result in a mishap. Drop pods only protect you from aiming at a legal spot to land and then scattering somewhere that would create a mishap. (With a few exceptions, like board edge).

TheGreatAvatar wrote:So, if a drop pod is DS is placed in the middle large horde of gaunts (say, thirty) and _hits_ the drop pod mishaps, but if it scatters an inch (remaining on/near the horde) it doesn't mishap is moved such it is no longer on/near the horde?

No, you reduce the scatter to avoid the obstacle... which you can't do, since you only have an inch back to your starting point which was also over an obstacle.


'Reduce the scatter distance' does not mean 'move as far as you need to in a completely different direction'...

This is just obscene in my honest opinion, if a some odd ton drop pod would land on anything that thing under it would certainly die. In all intetial purposes a drop pod isn't even teleported onto the battlefield, its shot down from the strike cruisers and battlebarges so why should even be considered to be a mishap?

Game != reality*

Many of the rules are about game balance and should be evaluated in that light. Don't try to relate them to what you think would actually happen.

* For a given value of reality where mutant supermen fight ambulatory fungus

For the same reason that tanks can't kill things by running over them... Game Balance.

An entire army in Drop Pods that kill what they land on would be insane.

insaniak wrote:For the same reason that tanks can't kill things by running over them... Game Balance.

An entire army in Drop Pods that kill what they land on would be insane.

True.. But would be funny as !

insaniak wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:So, if a drop pod is DS is placed in the middle large horde of gaunts (say, thirty) and _hits_ the drop pod mishaps, but if it scatters an inch (remaining on/near the horde) it doesn't mishap is moved such it is no longer on/near the horde?

No, you reduce the scatter to avoid the obstacle... which you can't do, since you only have an inch back to your starting point which was also over an obstacle.


'Reduce the scatter distance' does not mean 'move as far as you need to in a completely different direction'...

I think this is one of those "intent" gray areas of the rules. If the intent is the DP doesn't SCATTER into a mishap, I would think if it LANDED into a mishap the same intent would apply. The "hit" marker has an arrow pointing the way the pod could be moved the minimum distanced needed to clear the mishap.

I see the RAW and I can appreciate that point of view. I've always played it the DP never mishaps but I looks I've been more lenient than I need be.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:I think this is one of those "intent" gray areas of the rules. If the intent is the DP doesn't SCATTER into a mishap, I would think if it LANDED into a mishap the same intent would apply.

I would think it far more likely that the intent is for players to not deliberately place their pod somewhere it can't legally land hoping for a favorable scatter.


There is no indication that the intent was for the pod to never be able to mishap. If that had been the case, they would have ruled for reducing the scatter when you hit the table edge as well...

Or an addition to the rule that if a hit is scored you move it the direction of the arrow. I agree with Insaniak on this one. The rules are there to prevent a mishap from a point chosen you can legally land. Not to allow you to place it where a mishap will result if you don't get a favorable scatter.