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.

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
are you trying to say that mishaps happen before scatter is reduced?

I'm trying to say that the IGS rule says, and I'll quote it again so you hopefully see it this time:

Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the edge of the board, it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as per the Warhammer 40, 000 rule book.

okay, so if it ends up off the board or halfway off it mishaps... its clarifying that you DO mishap. order of operations, its on top of a model therefore IGS takes effect before determining ANY mishaps. it reduces the scatter (note this is NOT A SEPERATE SCATTER) If it still winds up off the table edge it mishaps, if not, nothing happens, as the pod was never in the earlier position to begin with.

Except the actual, written rule does not state that. Try again

I will disagree, but I am done with the argument, I don't use pods really so IDC what you guys determine. If I was playing vs someone with pods and the situation in the OP happened, it reduces its scatter before determining mishaps as it cannot land their anyway.

 raiden wrote:


as I said, you determine "scatter" results after IGS takes effect.

Part of IGS taking effect, is suffering a mishap for being off the table. If IGS happens before you do anything else, there's still a provision in IGS for you to mishap

 raiden wrote:
I will disagree, but I am done with the argument, I don't use pods really so IDC what you guys determine. If I was playing vs someone with pods and the situation in the OP happened, it reduces its scatter before determining mishaps as it cannot land their anyway.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you have failed to back it up with any actual rules.

I understand that nos's and rigeld's points that the dp suffers a misshap when it scatters off the board and why not misshaping can be interpreted as not following the whole rule.

But i think the reverse of the situation applies as well. When we follow the second sentence and make the pod misshap we are not following the first sentence and not reducing scatter distance.

As i somewhat suggested earlier, this creates somewhat a simultaneous situation where if we reduce the scatter distance we will not obey the second sentence. And if we cause a misshap for scattering off the table we fail to complete the first sentence of the drop pod rule where we were supose to reduce scatter.

I dont see a rule where one part triumphs the other, no matter how i read it. They have the same certainity.

If i had to push a decision my decision would be not misshaping per 2 rules from the brb.

Page 36. first bulletpoint of "arriving ...

to determine the model's final position : this is surely not done yet because IGS still requires us to reduce scatter.

Page 9 . "Exceptions"

This rule we all know only has any matter in this subject if we accepted that ; the pod both misshaps and not misshaps at the same time. And then the player whose turn it is decides.

My take on this.

IGS makes the drop pod mishap if it scatters off the board edge, but also requires us to reduce the scatter if we are over a friend/enemy model. This reduction is part of the scatter process (I feel you have to infer this because you are reducing the scatter and not moving the drop pod after it scattered). You only mishap after the final position is determined to be completely/partially off the table.

The "Final" position is not taken into account. You place the model and then roll the scatter dice. If you scatter over an enemy model / IT, then you reduce to avoid. If you scatter off the table you mishap. Did the scatter take the Pod off the table ? Yes. Then you mishap.

The rule does not say if the final position.... it says "if you scatter off the table" which you did.

 DJGietzen wrote:
My take on this.

IGS makes the drop pod mishap if it scatters off the board edge, but also requires us to reduce the scatter if we are over a friend/enemy model. This reduction is part of the scatter process (I feel you have to infer this because you are reducing the scatter and not moving the drop pod after it scattered). You only mishap after the final position is determined to be completely/partially off the table.

But that's not what IGS says.

You would trigger a mishap and trigger a scatter reduction. Reducing the scatter is fine as long as you also mishap.

rigeld2 wrote:

But that's not what IGS says.

What IGS says is "...if a Drop Pod scatters off the edge of the board..." and I don't think it can until after anything that modifies that scatter has been applied.

I also would like to point out that IGS says "...it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook." and the BRB says "...would land partially or fully off the table...". If the model's scatter is reduced in this situation it would not land partially or fully off the table and per the BRB it would not mishap.

A model cannot land anywhere until after its final position is determined . Its final position can't be determined until after you reduce the scatter. If that final position is partially or fully off the table it will mishap.

You left part of your quote out conveniently.
The Mishap is triggered if you scatter off the table, meaning you don't need to reference the BRB trigger.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

But that's not what IGS says.

What IGS says is "...if a Drop Pod scatters off the edge of the board..." and I don't think it can until after anything that modifies that scatter has been applied.

I also would like to point out that IGS says "...it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook." and the BRB says "...would land partially or fully off the table...". If the model's scatter is reduced in this situation it would not land partially or fully off the table and per the BRB it would not mishap.

A model cannot land anywhere until after its final position is determined . Its final position can't be determined until after you reduce the scatter. If that final position is partially or fully off the table it will mishap.

If you are required to mishap if you scatter off the table, why don't you still mishap after your scatter is reduced?

rigeld2 wrote:
You left part of your quote out conveniently.
The Mishap is triggered if you scatter off the table, meaning you don't need to reference the BRB trigger.

I see what your saying but if you reduce the scatter for some other reason did you still scatter off the board edge?

Yes. The same scatter that triggered the reduction triggers the mishap.

so, your whole idea of thought is that, because it is stating if you do scatter off the table, the IGS does not take place and you take a mishap, that even if it is in a spot that a drop pod could never be. IE on a unit. it was still there, no matter what? thats like saying ok, I mishap, then IGS takes place. I land here, now let me roll on the mishap table. I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it...

 raiden wrote:
so, your whole idea of thought is that, because it is stating if you do scatter off the table, the IGS does not take place and you take a mishap, that even if it is in a spot that a drop pod could never be. IE on a unit. it was still there, no matter what? thats like saying ok, I mishap, then IGS takes place. I land here, now let me roll on the mishap table. I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it...

IGS does take place. Since the mishap is part of the IGS rule and all...

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes. The same scatter that triggered the reduction triggers the mishap.

In my opinion the reduction alters the scatter and any results from the un-altered scatter should be dis-guarded becouse it is incomplete. The model does not scatter then move. It either scatters X inches or it scatters X minus Y inches, not both.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes. The same scatter that triggered the reduction triggers the mishap.

In my opinion the reduction alters the scatter and any results from the un-altered scatter should be dis-guarded becouse it is incomplete. The model does not scatter then move. It either scatters X inches or it scatters X minus Y inches, not both.

this is my reasoning as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
so, your whole idea of thought is that, because it is stating if you do scatter off the table, the IGS does not take place and you take a mishap, that even if it is in a spot that a drop pod could never be. IE on a unit. it was still there, no matter what? thats like saying ok, I mishap, then IGS takes place. I land here, now let me roll on the mishap table. I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it...

IGS does take place. Since the mishap is part of the IGS rule and all...

but you are saying it takes place at the same time or after the mishap. If this was true, what is the point of the IGS?

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
so, your whole idea of thought is that, because it is stating if you do scatter off the table, the IGS does not take place and you take a mishap, that even if it is in a spot that a drop pod could never be. IE on a unit. it was still there, no matter what? thats like saying ok, I mishap, then IGS takes place. I land here, now let me roll on the mishap table. I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it...

IGS does take place. Since the mishap is part of the IGS rule and all...

but you are saying it takes place at the same time or after the mishap. If this was true, what is the point of the IGS?

Beside avoiding any models and impassable terrain during deep striking?
Honestly, unless you are really unlucky, or have very poor placement, you should almost never scatter off the table. I think only Tyranid Spore Pods correct for scatter like this.
This is simply stating a weakness of IGS as it still mishaps when it scatter off a table, just like how blast do nothing if they scatter off a table, even it they would be covering a model.

 Nilok wrote:

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
so, your whole idea of thought is that, because it is stating if you do scatter off the table, the IGS does not take place and you take a mishap, that even if it is in a spot that a drop pod could never be. IE on a unit. it was still there, no matter what? thats like saying ok, I mishap, then IGS takes place. I land here, now let me roll on the mishap table. I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it...

IGS does take place. Since the mishap is part of the IGS rule and all...

but you are saying it takes place at the same time or after the mishap. If this was true, what is the point of the IGS?

Beside avoiding any models and impassable terrain during deep striking?
Honestly, unless you are really unlucky, or have very poor placement, you should almost never scatter off the table. I think only Tyranid Spore Pods correct for scatter like this.
This is simply stating a weakness of IGS as it still mishaps when it scatter off a table, just like how blast do nothing if they scatter off a table, even it they would be covering a model.

you can't compare a blast template with a drop pod. They have to completely different goals, the Drop pod does not want to land on the squad, the blast does. the drop pod, if it would land on a squad, reduces its scatter causing it to not land where ever it would have been. I have never had this come up tbh. I run 1 pod regularly and never put in withing 12 inches of a table edge. That being said if it winds up on a table edge after IGS or IGS not being activated its a mishap.

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
so, your whole idea of thought is that, because it is stating if you do scatter off the table, the IGS does not take place and you take a mishap, that even if it is in a spot that a drop pod could never be. IE on a unit. it was still there, no matter what? thats like saying ok, I mishap, then IGS takes place. I land here, now let me roll on the mishap table. I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it...

IGS does take place. Since the mishap is part of the IGS rule and all...

but you are saying it takes place at the same time or after the mishap. If this was true, what is the point of the IGS?

It avoids units and impassable terrain. Just like the rule says.

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
so, your whole idea of thought is that, because it is stating if you do scatter off the table, the IGS does not take place and you take a mishap, that even if it is in a spot that a drop pod could never be. IE on a unit. it was still there, no matter what? thats like saying ok, I mishap, then IGS takes place. I land here, now let me roll on the mishap table. I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it...

IGS does take place. Since the mishap is part of the IGS rule and all...

but you are saying it takes place at the same time or after the mishap. If this was true, what is the point of the IGS?

It avoids units and impassable terrain. Just like the rule says.

yes. and in avoiding a unit, reduces the scatter so it would not ever have landed near a table edge, therefore doesn't mishap

 raiden wrote:
yes. and in avoiding a unit, reduces the scatter so it would not ever have landed near a table edge, therefore doesn't mishap

You act like the rule doesn't specifically address scattering off the table. It's not a get out of jail free card.

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
so, your whole idea of thought is that, because it is stating if you do scatter off the table, the IGS does not take place and you take a mishap, that even if it is in a spot that a drop pod could never be. IE on a unit. it was still there, no matter what? thats like saying ok, I mishap, then IGS takes place. I land here, now let me roll on the mishap table. I see your reasoning, but I don't understand it...

IGS does take place. Since the mishap is part of the IGS rule and all...

but you are saying it takes place at the same time or after the mishap. If this was true, what is the point of the IGS?

It avoids units and impassable terrain. Just like the rule says.

yes. and in avoiding a unit, reduces the scatter so it would not ever have landed near a table edge, therefore doesn't mishap

The problem is that IGS says when you scatter off the table, you mishap. It dose not give you permission to not mishap that if you somehow scatter back onto the board. I can see both going off, you scatter back onto the board, but you still triggered IGS's mishap.

Reading it, nothing in the first part denies the second part and vice verse. It tells you that when you scatter past the table, you mishap. It dose not say when you finish IGS, just when you scatter.

If viewed like programming:
Did you scatter over a model/impassable terrain?
reduce scatter

Did you scatter out of the table?
misshap
if (modelUnder == true || impassTerrainUnder == true){ if (outOfTable == true) mishap(); while (modelUnder == true || impassTerrainUnder == true) --scatter; }

Ok like my self I think people just like to hear themselves talk or in this case like to type and read their own writing again counts for me as well.

It is really simple if the drop pod was to scatter and its end scatter distance were to land on a model or impassable terrain the distance scattered gets reduced, if any part of that bottom of the drop pod is off the table edge it's a mis hap, if it ends fully on the table it's fine, the models final placement is what determines where it landed.

It's like deep striking terminators, the centered model can scatter and land near the board edge, if you can't place every model in that squad with at least the minimum touching the original models base then it is a mis hap.

Why do you people make this game so complicated and drawn out?

Dat Guy wrote: the models final placement is what determines where it landed.

You have a page number for that claim? Because IGS dissagreees with you

Regardless of the fact that you can reduce the scatter, you still scattered off the table.
If you're following one part of the IGS rules you have to follow all of them.
The rule says if you scatter off the table, you mishap.
Even if you reduce the scatter to avoid the tank, you still scattered off the table, and the mishap is still triggered.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes. The same scatter that triggered the reduction triggers the mishap.

In my opinion the reduction alters the scatter and any results from the un-altered scatter should be dis-guarded becouse it is incomplete. The model does not scatter then move. It either scatters X inches or it scatters X minus Y inches, not both.

Except you are not follwoing the rule as written, but what you infer. It does not say "if you scatter (after reducing scatter...)..." or anything even remotely like that. It just states: if you scatter

The rule says "if it scatters". DId it scatter off the table? Yes. Did it also scatter over a model? Yes.

You trigger a mishap from the first, and you reduce scatter for the second. You still, however, mishap.

The distance on the dice refers to the movement it would scatter to, but because of igs it prevents it from going off the table if impassable terrain or models reduce it enough. Its simple. The key word in the rule is "if"it doesn't say "when" it does it says "IF" their I even capitalized it for you! Your welcome in advance.

If a blast weapon fired by a BS 5 models rolls enough on scatter dice for the centre hole to land two inches off the table before reducing the scatter by the BS, what happens?

You minus the distance before you center the blast.