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.

Ok I'm having an issue in the rules about the dreadclaw drop pod rules. When you deep strike this model it is not immobile, it is considered a skimmer, now no one in my local group is saying its a mishap, because its a skimmer and all, but I need to know whether or not I'm using it properly.

My logic is that since it deep strikes as a skimmer, it doesn't mishap, you move it the minimum distance to avoid a mishap then carry on.

How would you interpret it?

Previous threads on this issue:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/623838.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/618219.page (11 pages)

Let me ask this: Where in the rules about Deep Strike (pg. 162 BWB) and Skimmers (pg. 89 BWB) does it say that they don't mishap?

Every unit that can somehow avoid a mishap clearly states such in it's unit entry within a codex. For Example, a Drop Pod has the Inertial Guidance System that clearly states what happens when a Drop Pod scatters over Impassible Terrain or off the table. Does the Dreadclaw Drop Pod have such a rule?

This is a heated rules debate with no real clear answer (go search any thread about skimmers and deep strike)

The way I see it is that deep striking isn't movement (it a form of deployment) so doesn't trigger the "forced to end its move over a unit" clause of skimmers.

Seems like a no brainer, but becomes one of those "the more you think the more goes unanswered".

Way I see it, lazy rules writing, probably from their perspective giving it the " Skimmer" USR was to avoid if not allow people to disregard the mishap rules.

As for the comment, along the lines of "It doesn't say it can't" I don't really believe in the permissive rule set.. Kinda.. Lol if that makes sense.

Think if it that way, why even have a skimmer if the concept of the rules writing discated that the rules were moot and therefore to be completely ignored. You're a skimmer, great! You can deep strike, even better! This fancy rule that moves you the minimum distance away from enemy models, dooooooesnt help sadly, we just wrote it to talk out of our ass. ??? Seems fishy.

It is ture that each and every unit that will in some way avoid a accident plainly says these kinds of inside it is unit entry in just a codex.