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.

This may seem like a weird question, but could you attempt to DS a drop pod full of melta sternguard on top of an enemy tank?

IIRC drop pods can't mishap, they simply move them the minimum distance to avoid a dangerous landing. So surely if you place the original DS point on top of a vehicle one of two things will happen:
1) No scatter. The DP is moved to the closest "safe" spot i.e. right next to the tank and WELL within melta range
2) scatter. The DP is moved away from the tank (but will potentially be closer due to having to first clear the chassis of the tank) and is likely to still be within melta range.

It just seems like a cool little way of boosting the odds of frying the tank without wasting your combi-meltas on failed penetration rolls (happened to me the other day, landed outside of 8" and failed to kill the thing ) or am I missing something? I couldn't find anything in the rulebook explicitly saying DON'T LAND ON THEIR , but I think that's because in normal situations no one would want to?

(Edited for spelling)

No they can not. Missed opportunity for something awesome.

Yeah, would be cool if they did, but alas no. You just move it to where the scatter dice say and if it lands on top of a unit or building then you place it as close to where it could have landed without being on top of it.

Placing DP on top of enemy model and rolling 'hit' on scatter dice doesn't allow you to "reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle" because you did not scatter. Then read "Deep Strike Mishap" - if you land within 1" of enemy models you actually do mishap.

Awww.... I thought I was bein' a reel sneeeky 'umie.....

ah well, will have to live with it I guess!

It's not a missed opportunity. The standard space marine drop pods are just too puny to do anything cool. This thing does exactly what the OP wants in the Fist of Khorne formation. It hits vehicles with a D.

 danyboy wrote:
Placing DP on top of enemy model and rolling 'hit' on scatter dice doesn't allow you to "reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle" because you did not scatter. Then read "Deep Strike Mishap" - if you land within 1" of enemy models you actually do mishap.

I thought you could avoid enemy models as well ? As in "land in 1 inch distance" instead of "land in base contact" - am I playing that wrong?
(Of course assuming that my initial placement was outside of said 1 inch, so it is possible to reduce the distance)

nekooni wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Placing DP on top of enemy model and rolling 'hit' on scatter dice doesn't allow you to "reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle" because you did not scatter. Then read "Deep Strike Mishap" - if you land within 1" of enemy models you actually do mishap.

I thought you could avoid enemy models as well ? As in "land in 1 inch distance" instead of "land in base contact" - am I playing that wrong?
(Of course assuming that my initial placement was outside of said 1 inch, so it is possible to reduce the distance)

I resolved OP scenario when his DP was forced by himsef to land on enemy model. Without "reducing scatter distance" you land within 1" of enemy model - or on Impassable Terrain (I think enemy models are Impassable) - you are forcing yourself to mishap.

So nekooni you are playing perfectly fine (you reduce scatter distance to move 1" from enemy model).

I won't make a call on this as far as RAW, but I would definitely call "shenanigans" on an opponent declaring what that he is going to DS onto a location he would not normally be able to land. This is definitely not RAI.

 EnTyme wrote:
I won't make a call on this as far as RAW, but I would definitely call "shenanigans" on an opponent declaring what that he is going to DS onto a location he would not normally be able to land. This is definitely not RAI.

It's a terrible idea. If he rolls a "hit", he'd auto mishap. I'd actually be sort of OK if my opponent wanted to add a ~33% chance of mishap to his drop pods.

But yeah, I think generally speaking that you're expected to pick a viable location as your intended location. I don't feel like checking the rulebook, but anything else feels like shenanigans.