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.

The rule do not say they are moved to avoid a mishap, that may be the intent but per the page you posted.

Intent Arguments

While interesting, discussing the "Designers Intent" will never help you in a rules discussion. Why? First, intent of a single designer and what may actually end up in print are never guaranteed to be the same. GW has no policy against routinely changing the same rule back and forth repeatedly. Second, it's impossible to know intent. Unless you've got ESP, or the rules author is in the discussion, you're just guessing at intent. Intent can be very simply refuted with an, "I don't agree", and the conversation ends, as neither side can prove its case for intent.

You have to be discussing this. Either post something from the rule stating you move them an 1" away or admit you are arguing intent.

It is not an intent argument. It is informing people on what obstacle actually means.

The rules say "Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." P 32 BA Codex

Avoiding the obstacle means that the drop pod reduces its scatter in order to get clear of anything that "impedes progress or achievement" (Dictionary definition).

And in order to have avoided it you must have avoided the Mishap.

Please post proof from the rule that they wanted you to avoid a mishap. Don't include inference. Don't include a quote definition. Proof.

Saying that the rule tells you to avoid mishaps is not supported. You avoid landing on two things that is all.

No, the rules say you move to avoid the obstacle. That requires you be over an inch away to have avoided it.

Also from the site you want to keep using

Obstacle: an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path

Which definition are they using? The one speaking about actual things or the one speaking about metaphysical ides?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, the rules say you move to avoid the obstacle. That requires you be over an inch away to have avoided it.

Demonstrably untrue.

The rules tell us to reduce scatter to avoid the Obstacle if you land on models. In the case of enemy models you must reduce the scatter enough to land where you avoid the obstacle of the enemy unit. This includes the 1 inch distance as if you try to land closer to the unit you have to roll for the mishap and have not avoided the obstacle.

You have avoided the obstacle what you have not avoided was a mishap. Saying the same things over and over does not change the fact that you avoided the two things the rule is talking about. No where does it mention mishaps.

No, the unit is creating the mishap, therefore the mishap, in that case, is also an obstacle as you can not land there.

Still not supported by RAW. Show me where the rule mentions mishaps or tells you to move it 1" away.

The mishap is a separate thing.

The syntax of the rule also states that you avoid the obstacle not all obstacles in this case either impassable terrain or another model. As those are the only two things referenced those are the only obstacle(S) you can avoid.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Still not supported by RAW. Show me where the rule mentions mishaps or tells you to move it 1" away.

The mishap is a separate thing.

The syntax of the rule also states that you avoid the obstacle not all obstacles in this case either impassable terrain or another model. As those are the only two things referenced those are the only obstacle(S) you can avoid.

The Mishap is caused by failing to avoid the unit(be more than 1" away), so the Inertial Guidence will prevent the mishap.

Unless you are silly enough to actually play that Inertial Guidence does nothing at all.

IN case you missed it I pointed out that I was speaking RAW not how it is played. And, yet again, the rule would still work against your own models and impassable terrain so saying it does nothing at all tells me you haven't actually read anything in this thread.

 Gravmyr wrote:
IN case you missed it I pointed out that I was speaking RAW not how it is played. And, yet again, the rule would still work against your own models and impassable terrain so saying it does nothing at all tells me you haven't actually read anything in this thread.

That still does practically nothing at all.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
IN case you missed it I pointed out that I was speaking RAW not how it is played. And, yet again, the rule would still work against your own models and impassable terrain so saying it does nothing at all tells me you haven't actually read anything in this thread.

That still does practically nothing at all.

So many untruths, speculations, and slander in this thread. Claiming that it "practically does nothing" because it only applies to 2 out of the 3 situations you think it should is far from the truth. There are plenty of situations where those 2 of 3 could be beneficial. You're only looking at it from the perspective that you feel they should be able to target the middle of an enemy mob and be guaranteed to land safely, but that isn't how the rule reads.

@ Deathreaper: I would appreciate it if you wouldn't say such things as, "BetrayTheWorld was using the definition wrong" without doing more research.

If you want to enforce things to the letter of the English language, then here, try this on for size:

From the BA codex page 32 "Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle."

Per the rules of the English language, and proper grammar, the word obstacle in the aforementioned sentence specifically refers ONLY to landing ON TOP of impassable terrain or another model. The sentence itself dictates the definition of an obstacle in this context. You are trying to expand that with the dictionary definition of your choosing. With the definition from the dictionary that you're citing, we would have to consider falling off the table an "obstacle" as well. But you're not arguing that, because you understand how absurd that sounds given the context of the sentence. You can't use the context on one side of the argument, then not use it on the other because it's not convenient.

Because it doesn't consider being close to an enemy model an obstacle within the context of the sentence, you still have to roll on the mishap table after moving the minimum distance to avoid landing ON TOP of them, as written.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Still not supported by RAW.

It is if you understand what Obstacle means.

That is why I posted the definition.

I also posted that the definition you posted was just one of them. As BTW has pointed out your use of obstacle is less justified RAW then his and mine. You still didn't post which definition you thought was being used . Nor why you would think that the use of a singular instance of obstacle should reference multiple things including something which is not mentioned, ie mishaps.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
And does it say the Drop pod avoids all obstacles?

From the BA codex page 32 "Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle."

Impassible terrain and enemy models are obstacles as are mishaps from said terrain/Models since we use the basic English definition of obstacle.

An Deep Strike Mishap is not an obsctacle any more than is a Quad Gun w/ Interceptor an obstacle.

Intertial Guidance will protect you from Impassible Terrain, but it will not, RAW, protect you from scattering onto enemy units, as the minimum distance to avoid the obstace is not 1" extra. It is the minimum distance required to allow the model to be placed, and will then cause a Deep Strike Mishap.

An Deep Strike Mishap is not an obsctacle any more than is a Quad Gun w/ Interceptor an obstacle.

Context tells us that the obstacle is the unit that causes a mishap if landed on/near.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Intertial Guidance will protect you from Impassible Terrain, but it will not, RAW, protect you from scattering onto enemy units, as the minimum distance to avoid the obstace is not 1" extra. It is the minimum distance required to allow the model to be placed, and will then cause a Deep Strike Mishap.

This is incorrect.

Inertial Guidance will protect you from scattering onto enemy units, that is exactly the point of the rule.

The minimum distance to avoid the obstacle is a placement where the pod will not mishap, because if you mishap you have not avoided the obstacle, as the unit is causing the mishap if you land within 1 inch of said unit.

Obstacle means just that, anything that "impedes progress or achievement" as defined by the English Language.

Again, yet again, you have not given a single reason why you think they mean to avoid mishaps and not the obstacle, meaning model or terrain. Would it not have been simpler to say

"Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (Friend or Foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the mishap."

By using obstacle they actually had to be referencing the actual object previously mentioned, model or terrain. That being said can you offer any proof in the wording of IG that tells you that they are talking about mishaps and not either the model or terrain? I have pointed out as well that there are multiple definitions of obstacle to include both actual things, models and terrain, as well as ideas, mishaps. Saying that they have to be referencing a concept as opposed to the actual items previously mentioned is assigning intent to the rule.

Saying that a drop pod has not missed the enemy model because it mishapped is like saying you were shot because you could feel the air flow of the bullet as it passed. You cannot prove that the mishap is what they were talking about. By moving the DP you have missed the model, just because you still mishapped does not change this.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
IN case you missed it I pointed out that I was speaking RAW not how it is played. And, yet again, the rule would still work against your own models and impassable terrain so saying it does nothing at all tells me you haven't actually read anything in this thread.

That still does practically nothing at all.

As does the skimmer rule that moves it the minimum distance off of other models. There is only 1 (2 if Skipping tank Shock is allowed) situation(s) that it can conceivably be forced to end over another model.

 Gravmyr wrote:
By moving the DP you have missed the model, just because you still mishapped does not change this.

It does if you know what avoid and obstacle mean.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
By moving the DP you have missed the model, just because you still mishapped does not change this.

It does if you know what avoid and obstacle mean.

You can't use obstacle in its abstract form- the definition is "a thing that blocks one's way". "hinders progress" is so broad that it would allow you to violating the reserve deployment rules.


Just admit it; I ruined drop pods. (and play Space Wolves )

A "foe" gives an "obstacle" (transitive)

How is it an Obstacle? It causes a mishap (we know this because Scatter is not Movement, so the rules referencing impassable terrain and Movement are irrelevant) so "mishap" is the Obstacle caused by the Foe

If you do not avoid the mishap, you have not avoided the Obstacle, and have not complied with IG

Azazel -how have you avoided that "Scatter" is not a move, in showing that a DS Skimmer can avoid the mishap? The rule for skimmers ONLY references movement, and we know that Scatter is NOT movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:A "foe" gives an "obstacle" (transitive)

How is it an Obstacle? It causes a mishap (we know this because Scatter is not Movement, so the rules referencing impassable terrain and Movement are irrelevant) so "mishap" is the Obstacle caused by the Foe

If you do not avoid the mishap, you have not avoided the Obstacle, and have not complied with IG

Azazel -how have you avoided that "Scatter" is not a move, in showing that a DS Skimmer can avoid the mishap? The rule for skimmers ONLY references movement, and we know that Scatter is NOT movement.

Scatter may or may not be movement; it's moot, because Deep Striking counts as movement (BRB p. 36), whether there is scatter or not.

If something counts as, then it triggers rules that would apply as if it did.

In answer to my question then you have nothing to actually add to this beyond no one understands obstacle but you? I have pointed out three good reasons why obstacle applies to the model or terrain and all you can come up with is a definition which includes both physical and metaphysical definitions. Using Occam's Razor the assumption they are speaking solely about the model or terrain must be the correct answer. Using the least beneficial reading as per the dictates of YMDC the same is also true. They make no mention of mishaps and therefor by RAW our reading is correct. You have to assign intent to the rule in order to get to your reading as well which is also against the tenets of YMDC. If you can't actually add anything else from the rule books I have to assume you reading of IG is incorrect.

Azazel - except the scatter itself is not movement, otherwise it could never cause a mishap

You have proven your own argument is incorrect. If Scattering (2D6 + scatter dice) is movement, then a mishap can NEVER occur from impassable terrain or enemy / friendly models.

If it is NOT movement, then skimmers can indeed mishap, as their rule only deals with Movement.

The whole action of DS is movement; the action of Scattering is NOT movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Reread deepstrike, and note that you are told that the model is where you want the unit to arrive. The unit does not arrive until AFTER you have completed the scatter, which is AFTER any mishap result.

Then, ONCE you have arrived, you are treated as having moved cruising speed.

You are making a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Once again, wrong as all hell.

Are you exempt from rule #1 BR? Or the tenets of this forum?

Please make an actual argument, that would help

Seems that this whole thing boils down to what the obstacle is.

Most units cannot end movement on top of another unit nor impassable terrain. Skimmers have a special rule allowing them to be placed on top of impassable if they can physically fit. However, I'm going to ignore that special case for a moment.

The Movement rules (pg 10, Models in the Way) say that "A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model...they must go around." Impassable Terrain rules (pg 90, Impassable Terrain) state that "Models cannot enter...-they must go around."

Very similar verbiage used that applies when you are faced with an obstacle: you go around.

Considering that with the IGS rules it seems clear that the "obstacle" in question is the physical placement problem of being on a friendly unit, within 1" of an enemy unit or on top of impassable terrain. However, there is more.

A DP deep strikes after it comes in from reserves. Deep striking is a special reserve action (pg 36, 1st paragraph) "..the unit must start the game in reserve." So we start with the reserve rules (pg 124) which refer to the act of arriving from reserves as 'movement' multiple times; the reserves models just have to go first. pg 124, right column, paragraphs 5-7. Specifically:
"When Reserves arrive, the player picks any one of the uits arriving and deploys it, moving it onto the table as described below."
"When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move fully onto the table from the controller player's own table edge."
"Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield".

Now, when arriving by deep strike it tells us which rules to ignore and how to bring them in. "First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table...and roll for scatter..." It even goes on to say "In the movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further.." This confirms that Deep Striking is part of movement and therefore we have to use those rules as well.

So if a DP scatters it has to follow the movement rules to avoid the "obstacle" that has been defined by the enemy troops and the 1" bubble around them. Which means a DP that scatters onto units will never mishap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If Scattering (2D6 + scatter dice) is movement, then a mishap can NEVER occur from impassable terrain or enemy / friendly models.

Correct for DPs. Partially correct for skimmers. Skimmers can't mishap in impassable (as they can be placed there) nor for friendly. They can however mishap for enemy as their special rule simply says to move them to where the friendly or enemy models are NOT underneath it and therefore will still be within 1" of the enemy causing the mishap.

However, other units such as Terminators don't have those special rules.

If we don't consider reserves (and by extension DS) to be movement, then there is no ability for a unit to move onto the table from reserves.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Please post proof from the rule that they wanted you to avoid a mishap. Don't include inference. Don't include a quote definition. Proof.

The proof is simply that in order to mishap, the unit "cannot be deployed" (pg 36). I've shown how DPs can be deployed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A "foe" gives an "obstacle" (transitive)
How is it an Obstacle? It causes a mishap (we know this because Scatter is not Movement, so the rules referencing impassable terrain and Movement are irrelevant) so "mishap" is the Obstacle caused by the Foe

This entire argument hinges on that singular definition of obstacle, but that is not the only one, nor is it the most intuitive.

Based on the wording in the actual rule, "obstacle" could very simply mean models that are preventing you from physically placing your model on the board. Using this definition, you would move your model the minimum distance to be able to place it on the board, which would cause it to still be within 1" of enemy models, thereby causing a mishap.