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.

It indicates, but it isnt actually. Also, you ignored DRs post - they DID arrive via DS; they mishapped and were then placed.

In order to make deployment DS you are required to show it actually IS DS; nothing you posted proves that. Nothing whatsoever.

I think the biggest problem people will have with this nos, is that you would never have to roll dangerous terrain tests on a 3-4 mishap result and the unit is put in difficult terrain.

Like I stated before, I would wager quite heavily that the VAST majority of 40k players do not play this way.

Do the vast majority also play that you can deploy with the unit within 1" of an enemy and auto mishap them again?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Do the vast majority also play that you can deploy with the unit within 1" of an enemy and auto mishap them again?

So basically you have to place the models in an area where they can't mishap again? I would agree with that.

That is totally different from my argument that folks placing a unit that deep struck, mishapped(?) and rolled a 3-4 result and were placed in difficult terrain would roll for dangerous terrain. Since the introduction of 5th ed. Until possibly now.

That's a yes or no answer.

So your answer is no. The VAST majority of players have played that if you mishap, get a 3-4 result and are placed in difficult terrain, they would never rolled for dangerous terrain.

I would disagree with your assertion.

I think the best way to tackle this is in steps, you take difficult terrain tests AFTER deployment.... You mishap DURING deployment... Therefore your argument on whether or not DT tests are taken has no baring on the initial ruling that they won't suffer an addition mishap... Valid DS formation is what it states literally, a formation as result of mishap, they still have mishad during the deployment. Trying to use WQ during the mishap is trying to stack a mishap on top of another mishap which is not possible.... Further more if what you re suggesting is true then overlapping WQ zones would cause multiple mishaps simultaneously?!! That's ridiculous!!! Also someone noted teleporter homers in there argument as stopping WQ which is silly because WQ ignores the effect of homers anyways (which in it's self is stupid).

I would say that the placing of the models (done by the non-owning player) would be restricted to somewhere they would not mishap.

What happens when the board is COVERED COMPLETELY by Warp Quake - well, any unit that cannot enter play from reserves is destroyed, yes?

No, considering as I stated you cannot mishap multiple times as the RAW, a 3-4 result dictates that you deploy the models in DS FORMATION, they are not deep striking a second time, this is the result of the original DS attempt AND mishap... If you folks would read the rules how they are written then this wouldn't even be an issue... you can only DS once per turn, therefore you can only mishap once per turn as well!

Red Corsair wrote:No, considering as I stated you cannot mishap multiple times as the RAW, a 3-4 result dictates that you deploy the models in DS FORMATION, they are not deep striking a second time, this is the result of the original DS attempt AND mishap... If you folks would read the rules how they are written then this wouldn't even be an issue... you can only DS once per turn, therefore you can only mishap once per turn as well!

So you can place the mishapped models within 1" of enemies, or even on top of them, as long as they are in formation?

No, as you cannot deepstrike into or within 1" of another unit initially as a valid target. Again you are trying to make it more complicated then it is... This is just turning into a shenanigans thread... If you want to play it complexly then you have the right to, at this point I don't know how much more clearly it can be explained... If your argument was the world is flat I can only show you the facts, you can believe what you want.

For the sake of practicality, I'd like to point out that the option that is least beneficial to the GK player (myself being one), is the option where you can place the mishap-ed unit within range of warpquake, and it does not mishap again.

If you can repeatedly mishap, then the chances of a mishap causing a unit's death increases to 50% (rather than 33%), since any result of 1-2 will cause the unit to die, as well as half of the rolls of 3-4 (e.g. a 3-4 is rolled, and then the unit repeatedly mishaps until either a 1-2 or 5-6 is rolled, meaning 2 of the 4 possible non-3-4 results will also kill the unit).

If you can't repeatedly mishap (and can't place the unit back into range of warp quake), and the GK player covers enough of the table with warp-quake (which is contemptuously easy to do), any roll of 1-4 on the mishap table will destroy the unfortunate unit (as "units that cannot fully arrive from reserve are destroyed"). This scenario doubles the chances of a unit to be destroyed by mishap. While this situation cannot happen all the time, does anyone really want to play that it can happen at all? I'm a GK player and I'd feel like TFG for imposing this on someone.

I've already given my RAW reasoning for why I like the top option, but it seems like a lot of people in this thread really want Warpquake to be even more powerful than it already is. I just thought I'd give some practical perspective.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I understand the notion of using 3-4 to drop units into kill-boxes, but I feel like in that case, at least your opponent gets a fighting chance, and gets his models on the table. It's much more douche-y to instant-kill a whole unit without any threat of consequences.

GiantKiller wrote:

"GK - no, it *suggests* it is a DS deployment, but it is NOT a DS deployment - you are simply being deployed in a DS deployment. Additionally your evidence is, knowing GWs ability to write redundant rules (e.g. Bikes and ID), evidence of redundancy at best. You need to find more assertive rules than this, otherwise it is what it says it is - deployment in a DS formation, but not actual DS any longer "
-Nosferatu1001

As I've explained above, every piece of the "Misplaced" result language indicates that it is a deep strike deployment that your opponent controls. I've also pointed out that the mishap rule is a subsection of the deep strike rule. You have zero language which indicates it's not a deep strike. Which of us needs more evidence again?

Also realize the absurd results that come along with saying a "misplaced" deployment isn't a deep strike:
1. the unit can assault since it didn't arrive by deep strike
2. the unit doesn't have to take dangerous terrain tests because it didn't arrive by deep strike
3. the unit doesn't count as moving because it didn't arrive by deep strike and can move normally in the movement phase

Obviously none of those assertions are correct interpretations of the rules.

You're trying to argue that a deployment which occurs as the result of a deep strike, in a deep strike formation, and following the rules for deep strike... isn't a deep strike. Come on. You know perfectly well that doesn't hold water. A "misplaced deployment" is a deep strike deployment, therefore it can trigger warp quake.

Hope this helps!
-GK

The problem arises from the potential for looping the arrival.
Unit arrives, scatters into Warpquake zone, triggers mishap, opponant places unit in warpquake zone, triggers mishap, opponant places unit in quake zone, triggers mishap, places in quake, mishap, triggers, places, mishap......... just how long is the units player supposed to let this go on?
I am not saying it is Going to happen, just that the potential is there for it to happen.
So the question is.....
How many times can a unit be "misplaced", especially by the same warp quake zone?
And don't quote me some mathhammered die roll bs....

I am asking for a set number of times a given unit can be "misplaced" in a single turn/instance.

helgrenze wrote:

The problem arises from the potential for looping the arrival.
Unit arrives, scatters into Warpquake zone, triggers mishap, opponant places unit in warpquake zone, triggers mishap, opponant places unit in quake zone, triggers mishap, places in quake, mishap, triggers, places, mishap......... just how long is the units player supposed to let this go on?
I am not saying it is Going to happen, just that the potential is there for it to happen.
So the question is.....
How many times can a unit be "misplaced", especially by the same warp quake zone?
And don't quote me some mathhammered die roll bs....

I am asking for a set number of times a given unit can be "misplaced" in a single turn/instance.

Assuming the dice hates both players, an infinite number of times. Statistically speaking though, it would be significantly less. I happen to agree that you can't mishap a mishap. If you really feel you need to keep making your opponent mishap, I feel that a) your TFG, and B) you play WAAC. As it is, I feel being placed by your opponent is deepstriking, and would follow all rules associated with it, except for rolling a mishap.

helgrenze wrote:The problem arises from the potential for looping the arrival.
Unit arrives, scatters into Warpquake zone, triggers mishap, opponant places unit in warpquake zone, triggers mishap, opponant places unit in quake zone, triggers mishap, places in quake, mishap, triggers, places, mishap......... just how long is the units player supposed to let this go on?
I am not saying it is Going to happen, just that the potential is there for it to happen.
So the question is.....
How many times can a unit be "misplaced", especially by the same warp quake zone?
And don't quote me some mathhammered die roll bs....

I am asking for a set number of times a given unit can be "misplaced" in a single turn/instance.

Infinite times. But that is totally irrelevant. And why do you want to ignore "mathhammer"? There *IS* a difference between 50% infinite loop and one that is much less probable than batman, superman, flying spaghetti monster and Denis Rodman suddenly being created and brought to life by my thought.
Only because it's possible doesn't mean that you should ignore rules. How do you define who goes first and who goes second? There is also the possibility of never ending ties for who goes first but no sane person is going to deny this way of dealing with this.

I would also like to note that another auto-mishap is not just reroll. That is just plain false. Because in case of the reroll the first result is discarded. Here we have a situation where it is taken under consideration. It just may create another situation where identical roll may be needed. This is not mishap reroll, it's mishap Blood Talons.

In the end I don't have BRB in front of me, and I don't have codex either so I can't read appropriate rules. I'm not saying that it may cause another mishap (or the other way around), only that those two reasons are unquestionably wrong.