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.

when you scatter on top of an enemy unit or impassible terrain ect. you must move the minimal amount of inches to not be in contact with whatever it is your not supposed to but if you do this and you scatter into an enemy unit you will be within 1 inch of a model so you would have to take mishap tests because you have to be far enough away to not be in contact but has nothing to do with any measurement.

It's really hard to work out what the question is here. Sentences and grammar help to make things readable.
Are you asking if being within 1" of a model counts as an obstacle?

Yeah, i think pods mishap if you hit an enemy unit. Its says to move the pod so its no longer on top of the enemy, but it doesnt say to move out of an inch.

We had that question not so long ago as I recall. Surely "avoiding the obstacle" must mean you're placed far enough away that you won't mishap? Else there's really no reason to even mention hostile units in the drop pod's special rule, is there?`

Yes, reducing the scatter enough to avoid the obstacle means you would move more than an inch away from enemy models. Otherwise you haven't avoided the obstacle.

no it doesnt if you avoid the obstacle you move the minimal amount to not be touching it which means you will be within an inch of the enemy model

 forchoas wrote:
no it doesnt if you avoid the obstacle you move the minimal amount to not be touching it which means you will be within an inch of the enemy model

...which would mean that you mishap... which would mean that you didn't avoid the obstacle.

avoiding the obstacle doesnt mean land outside an inch it means dont hit it

 forchoas wrote:
avoiding the obstacle doesnt mean land outside an inch it means dont hit it

That is not true.

The obstacle is the thing preventing the Drop Pod from landing.

An enemy unit prevents you from landing within 1 inch of it, therefore the obstacle, when talking about an enemy unit, is the unit itself and the 1 inch no fly zone.

If you mishap you have not landed.

 forchoas wrote:
avoiding the obstacle doesnt mean land outside an inch it means dont hit it

If the obstacle is preventing you from landing, how have you avoided it?

And the carousel goes round and round and...

OP this has already been discussed and you’re very much in the minority.

No matter how you read the text it is obviously not the intent. Forcing a mishap in these situations makes the rules for landing on top of enemy models totally obsolete. Why would they let you move away if you’re just going to mishap anyway? I suggest you never play it like that, or you will find yourself without opponents very quickly.

 Nem wrote:
OP this has already been discussed and you’re very much in the minority.

I don't believe there has ever been a poll to prove that statement, being the OP of a thread that recently when round and round on a very similar issue to this. I actually agree with the OP here. Just because people on one side of an argument are more vocal in a thread, posting 15+ times, doesn't mean that they are in the majority. Some people who would vote on a poll, aren't invested enough in the issue to get involved in an 8 page argument.

Then maybe you can answer the question the op hasn't: If obstacles cause you to mishap, and you mishap because of an obstacle, have you avoided that obstacle?

This doesn't need an 8 page argument. It's a really, really simple concept.

Deepstriking is a form of movement, following both the drop pods rules and the rules for movement you would need to place the drop pod out side of an inch. Simple.

Betray and OP's reading of the rule would make the part of the rule saying you move it if you end up on a unit redundant. You would always end up within an inch and mishap... Stop trying so hard to be TFG, Betray. You're a nice person deep inside. I am assured of this.

I was in your corner when you were the poster, Betray, but I can't back forchoas. I think that his interpretation is incorrect, and I also think he's in the minority.

Of course, in the interests of full disclosure I should mention that my opinion is probably as biased as it comes, since I play Drop Pods. That being said, if someone seriously tried to tell me that a Pod that scattered over a unit reduced it's distance to within an inch and still mishapped, I would be very, very annoyed. While I think that the OP is making an honest mistake, I think that this interpretation is a silly reading of the rules at best, and at worst a cheap attempt at flim-flammery.

Spetulhu wrote:
Surely "avoiding the obstacle" must mean you're placed far enough away that you won't mishap?

Naturally not. Since an obstacle is the model (friendly or enemy!) or impassable terrain that drop pod would land on (as per Inertial Guidance rule), avoiding the obstacle would mean reducing scatter so that its final position won't be on the top of the obstacle as listed before).

Deepstriking is a form of movement, following both the drop pods rules and the rules for movement you would need to place the drop pod out side of an inch. Simple.

You are absolutely correct!
You need to follow the rules of movement. You cannot place models within 1'' of enemy models. Yet you must, as deep strike rules tell you to.
A problem, yes?
oh, how can it be resolved?
How about not deploying the model and rolling on mishap table, seeing as that's exactly what the rulebook tells us to do?

Betray and OP's reading of the rule would make the part of the rule saying you move it if you end up on a unit redundant. You would always end up within an inch and mishap...

Yes to both points. It is redundant, and droppod will always mishap.

And to add to the OP: if droppod scatters not on the top of enemy model, but within 1'' of it, there is no basis whatsoever to claim it does not mishap.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I was in your corner when you were the poster, Betray, but I can't back forchoas. I think that his interpretation is incorrect, and I also think he's in the minority.

Of course, in the interests of full disclosure I should mention that my opinion is probably as biased as it comes, since I play Drop Pods. That being said, if someone seriously tried to tell me that a Pod that scattered over a unit reduced it's distance to within an inch and still mishapped, I would be very, very annoyed. While I think that the OP is making an honest mistake, I think that this interpretation is a silly reading of the rules at best, and at worst a cheap attempt at flim-flammery.

Yeah, this is a slightly different issue than when I posted. Still, however, the definition of obstacle is either the models blocking placement, which the sentence infers, or is broader. If it's broader than the definition used in the context of the sentence, then that begs the question of just how broad you can define the word obstacle. It becomes silly quickly.

Either way, I'm not too passionate about this, one way or the other. My main shtik was that skimmers actually responded similarly to deep striking based on the new rules.

Rules-wise there's no difference between landing on a model, and landing within 1" of a model.
Both are a mishap, both will mean the pod won't be landing there.
So in terms of rules, why is one an obstacle and the other not?

And bear in mind, the Guidance System rules don't say move to avoid the model, but the obstacle.

So in terms of rules, why is one an obstacle and the other not?

Because one is listed in inertial guidance rules, and the other is not.
As there is no properly defined 'obstacle' in rules, the most obvious meaning in context would be "things mentioned in inertial guidance rules".

Survivor19 wrote:

So in terms of rules, why is one an obstacle and the other not?

Because one is listed in inertial guidance rules, and the other is not.
As there is no properly defined 'obstacle' in rules, the most obvious meaning in context would be "things mentioned in inertial guidance rules".

Something stopping it landing would be a far more obvious definition.

Survivor19 wrote:

So in terms of rules, why is one an obstacle and the other not?

Because one is listed in inertial guidance rules, and the other is not.
As there is no properly defined 'obstacle' in rules, the most obvious meaning in context would be "things mentioned in inertial guidance rules".

Surely using context would bea far better method?

Something stopping it landing would be a far more obvious definition

All kinds of things stop droppods from landing. Partially or fully being outside of table, area effects like warp quake or gsentient singularity. Logically, the list presented in the rule must be full.

Surely using context would be a far better method?

Of course.
Context is determining scatter distance, which explicitely can result in situation where model cannot be deployed in the attained final position.

Survivor19 wrote:

Something stopping it landing would be a far more obvious definition

All kinds of things stop droppods from landing. Partially or fully being outside of table, area effects like warp quake or gsentient singularity. Logically, the list presented in the rule must be full.

Surely using context would be a far better method?

Of course.
Context is determining scatter distance, which explicitely can result in situation where model cannot be deployed in the attained final position.

Warpquake explicitly doesn't stop it from landing. It makes it mishap once it has landed.

thank you for clarification
However I must assert that default situation in which Deep Strike mishap occurs is on where model cannot be deployed, as per Deep Strike Mishap rule.

And being within 1" of an enemy model prevents you from deploying, causing you an obstacle.

RAW is actually pretty simple

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, reducing the scatter enough to avoid the obstacle means you would move more than an inch away from enemy models. Otherwise you haven't avoided the obstacle.

I agree with insaniak.

I have to agree the pod would move the minimum distance not to mishap or there is no need for a guidance system rule?

Why is there if you mishap anyway?

As was posted in the other thread they have identified the two obstacles you avoid, landing on a model and landing in impassable terrain. Those are the only obstacles mentioned in the rule. Is it their intent that you not mishap by landing next to enemy models, probably. Is that the rule they wrote, no. If they had separated enemy and friendly models into their own sections not simply clarified it in parenthesis then you would have more of a leg to stand on. As it is they have indicated what obstacles they are talking about as landing on models or in terrain. Is landing next to an enemy model listed in what triggers the IG rule, no. Since they did not list them, enemy or friendly models, separately then we have to treat them the same. Otherwise anything that would cause a mishap is an obstacle and it can never do so. The FAQ makes it clear that they do not want to eliminate the risk simply narrow it's effects. The rule still works perfectly fine versus friendly models and impassable terrain making it easier to DP multiple pods into a smaller area.