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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
If the monolith is a skimmer it should be on a flying base, that's what the rules say.

Oh, so you're unaware that "flying base" != Flyer base? That's cool, but just FYI, they are different things.

Were did I say that everything that happens in the movement phase is movement ?

You said that it "pretty much goes without saying" that something that happens in the movement phase is movement. Please support that statement with actual rules.

If you check the rule it is the fact that a model can't move into impassible terrain and thus cannot be deployed is what causes the mishap. Units mishap not because they move into impassable terrain, they mishap because they can't.

First of all, movement and deployment are two completely different things.
Second, there are examples of being able to deploy somewhere that you cannot ever move. A TFC on top of a Bastion, for example.
The model scatters. The model cannot move into Impassable terrain so stops before it gets there. The model can absolutely be deployed.
Why the mishap? Because it's not deployed where it scattered? Is that what the rules actually say?
If so, why do Drop pods not mishap?

Fair enough, like I said before I've never actually seen anyone put a monolith on any form of base so I'm not up to speed on what could fit under it.

There is nothing anywhere that says that deployment and movement are different. I mean fair crack of the whip, if I'm being asked to cite things I think you need to as well. Deployment not equaling movement is a concept that has been introduced and it does have a certain degree of merit but it isn't something presented in the rules set.

The preamble the the chapter dealing with the Movement phase makes it pretty clear that it is all about moving things. Yes there are other things that go on in the phase that aren't movement ()can't really think of one ATM) but I have no problem with going with the default that "happens in the movement phase, looks like movement" = movement.

The battlements of a bastion are now clarified as being regarded as the upper levels of a ruin. The rules for ruin forbid artillery from occupying them.
I see what you are saying however and the important difference in the TFC example is that is the the path to the battlement that is impassable, not the battlement itself.

There seems to be a bit of confusion creeping in here, I am not saying that the act or repositioning the initial model to the point nominated by the scatter is movement, i.e. from the intended point to the end point. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. What I am saying is that whether deep strike is movement or not the act of deep striking ends the move of the model/unit and so therefore satisfies the requirement for the skimmer to be forced to end it's move. I do not agree that the ability for a skimmer to end it's move on impassable terrain or be moved off enemy units that it ends its move over is something that accrues at some nebulous moment in time.

A mishap occurs when a unit cannot be deployed, not sure what you are getting at with those last two things. I'm confident you know that Drop pods have the special rule that allows them to reduce their scatter distance to areas that they cannot be deployed in.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so you didn't read the ds rules them? The initial model has to function as a marker, as you're told it is where you want the unit to arrive. Meaning the unit cannot actually be there yet.

Markers and the concept of what a marker is or how it interacts with Warhammer 40,000 is not mentioned anywhere in the 6th Edition rules in relation to Deep Striking. That statement is again just a concept that you have decided and again I see that it has merit but it just doesn't exist in the rules, particularly when we are talking about a unit that usually consists of 1 model.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
There is nothing anywhere that says that deployment and movement are different. I mean fair crack of the whip, if I'm being asked to cite things I think you need to as well. Deployment not equaling movement is a concept that has been introduced and it does have a certain degree of merit but it isn't something presented in the rules set.

Movement is defined - how and when it happens.
Deployment is defined - how and when it happens.
It's not possible to prove a negative. It should be possible to prove this positively if you could support your position with actual rules.
Since you've again failed to support your position, however, your position cannot be correct.

The preamble the the chapter dealing with the Movement phase makes it pretty clear that it is all about moving things. Yes there are other things that go on in the phase that aren't movement ()can't really think of one ATM) but I have no problem with going with the default that "happens in the movement phase, looks like movement" = movement.

So spawning Termagants, taking dangerous terrain tests, casting Blessings/Maledictions are all movement?

The battlements of a bastion are now clarified as being regarded as the upper levels of a ruin. The rules for ruin forbid artillery from occupying them.

That's incorrect. The actual ruins rules say Artillery cannot move on the upper levels of a Ruin. Unless i missed something.

I see what you are saying however and the important difference in the TFC example is that is the the path to the battlement that is impassable, not the battlement itself.

It's not impassable at all.

There seems to be a bit of confusion creeping in here, I am not saying that the act or repositioning the initial model to the point nominated by the scatter is movement, i.e. from the intended point to the end point. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. What I am saying is that whether deep strike is movement or not the act of deep striking ends the move of the model/unit and so therefore satisfies the requirement for the skimmer to be forced to end it's move. I do not agree that the ability for a skimmer to end it's move on impassable terrain or be moved off enemy units that it ends its move over is something that accrues at some nebulous moment in time.

The Deep Strike isn't finished until scatter is resolved. Correct?
Scatter isn't resolved until you figure out if the unit mishapped, correct?
Why are you saying the skimmers movement is over (remember, it's required to be forced to ends its movement there for the rule to trigger) before completing the scatter resolution?

A mishap occurs when a unit cannot be deployed, not sure what you are getting at with those last two things. I'm confident you know that Drop pods have the special rule that allows them to reduce their scatter distance to areas that they cannot be deployed in.

You've asserted that deployment and movement are equivilant. If they are, and we know models cannot move into impassable terrain, why would a model be able to scatter into impassable terrain?

Up - so you don't have a rules argument? The unit has not arrived. You place a model representing where you wish the unit to arrive. The unit has NOT arrived. It does not yet exist on the table. It is, functionally, a marker. It does not have to say marker to be a marker.

You still claim scatter is movement. It isn't. If it were you could not mishap apart from initially placing a model on a unit.

If I may just say....

Even if you can move skimmers such that no models are underneath the skimmer after deep strike (which I'm not sure it can), moving it such that models are not underneath would still mean that the enemy model is within 1 inch, since RAW does not say move the skimmer until all models are 1 inch away.

And since you are within 1 inch still, won't that still satisfy the mishap criteria?

yes in most situations.

However, skimmers with small flying bases like landspeeders could potentially avoid a mishap as they could land in a manner that would get their base more than 1" away by such a move.

You don't measure to a skimmers base ever.

rigeld2 wrote:
You don't measure to a skimmers base ever.

Apart from the exceptions (assault, for one)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You don't measure to a skimmers base ever.

Apart from the exceptions (assault, for one)

Sigh...
Which is still completely irrelevant when talking about mishaps from deep striking.

I was qualifying your statement, as otherwise it might not be clear the context you made your "ever" statement in.