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.

 chaplaincliff wrote:
This may be redundant, but here goes to simplify this, I will edit later as I read but so far the arguments seem to be going in an infinite loop and I have to chime in...

step one; drop pod is rolled to come in for reserves.

step two; deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled

step three; the drop pod scatters (in this instance a direct hit was not rolled) the distance and direction is measured and darn the pod would land on an obstacle (or two depending on terrain or units on the board.

step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location, as this is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRB PG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, friendly models this does not matter.

step five: deploy the drop pod (ignore the petals as per GW) on the table and dis-embark the models inside.

step six; don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.

so let it go, be cool, and have fun.

I completely agree with this method. Further, because we are using the movement rules you couldn't even target a landing spot that was normally illegal. Such as being within 1" of an enemy.

The only reason this goes round and round is that the movement rules aren't being included.

 chaplaincliff wrote:
This may be redundant, but here goes to simplify this, I will edit later as I read but so far the arguments seem to be going in an infinite loop and I have to chime in...

step one; drop pod is rolled to come in for reserves.

step two; deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled

step three; the drop pod scatters (in this instance a direct hit was not rolled) the distance and direction is measured and darn the pod would land on an obstacle (or two depending on terrain or units on the board.

step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location, as this is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRB PG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, friendly models this does not matter.

step five: deploy the drop pod (ignore the petals as per GW) on the table and dis-embark the models inside.

step six; don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.

so let it go, be cool, and have fun.

So is this how Skimmers work? So the skimmer, by this set up, also avoids mishap.

Step one Deepstriking skimmer arrives from reserves.
Step two deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
Step three The skimmer scatters and is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models
Step four the Skimmer is moved the minimum distance to avoid having the models end up under it, as this is considered a move in the movement phase of the skimmer.
Step five Deploy the skimmer
Step six don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.

Sounds like a match to me. I will concede that Drop pods don't mishap from enemy models, when others concede that Skimmers don't mishap from enemy models.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Again They limited it's effectiveness via either intention or poor writing. They defined the obstacles in the start of the rule landing on terrain or models. I'm still waiting for another term that could have been used in place of obstacle. There isn't one. As such the language they are using may or may not include additional "obstacles" in the way.

You may want to look at that parsing again yourself. See how it says the obstacle, not any obstacle. That tells you that it is refering to the thing that triggered the rule landing on the impassable terrain or landing on the model.

Is landing within 1" of an enemy model what triggers the rule? No.
How can that be the obstacle in that case?

Only if you ignore context of the sentence does your arguement hold water.

this seems to be a normal thing recently, trying to read to much into the rules, there is a point when you need to have some common sense, i guess voltaire was right. but in this line of thinking you must also say that Black Templar cannot take drop pods at all, but I digress...

there comes a point when you need to read a bit into the lines and combine several rules and a bit of grey matter to come to a ruling, this is a pure WAAC argument if i ever heard one and I just cannot agree with you here gravmyr. If anyone tried this in the store I play at or against me I would either end the game there and/or never play them again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 chaplaincliff wrote:
This may be redundant, but here goes to simplify this, I will edit later as I read but so far the arguments seem to be going in an infinite loop and I have to chime in...

step one; drop pod is rolled to come in for reserves.

step two; deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled

step three; the drop pod scatters (in this instance a direct hit was not rolled) the distance and direction is measured and darn the pod would land on an obstacle (or two depending on terrain or units on the board.

step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location, as this is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRB PG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, friendly models this does not matter.

step five: deploy the drop pod (ignore the petals as per GW) on the table and dis-embark the models inside.

step six; don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.

so let it go, be cool, and have fun.

So is this how Skimmers work? So the skimmer, by this set up, also avoids mishap.

Step one Deepstriking skimmer arrives from reserves.
Step two deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
Step three The skimmer scatters and is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models
Step four the Skimmer is moved the minimum distance to avoid having the models end up under it, as this is considered a move in the movement phase of the skimmer.
Step five Deploy the skimmer
Step six don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.

Sounds like a match to me. I will concede that Drop pods don't mishap from enemy models, when others concede that Skimmers don't mishap from enemy models.

first off I am not in the know of the skimmer argument, if I could get a link for that thread so as not to sidetrack this one that would be great....

second you know what i was saying and let me clarify...

step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location in accordance with the inertial guidance system, as deepstriking ,or even coming in from reserves is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRB PG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, for friendly models this does not matter.

I hope that clarified the matter.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Which would be fine if the DS rules did not separate landing on an enemy model and landing within 1" of an enemy model. Then the IG uses only one of them in it's wordage.

It uses obstacle.

In the context of enemy unit, the obstacle is landing within 1 inch of said unit.

It uses the obstacle not all or any obstacle. As such as soon as you stop landing on top of either impassable terrain or the model then you have avoided the obstacle. You have moved onto a new obstacle yes or no?

 Gravmyr wrote:
As such as soon as you stop landing on top of either impassable terrain or the model then you have avoided the obstacle.

If landing within 1" of the obstacle still causes you to mishap, then no, you have not avoided the obstable.

DS separates landing within 1" and on top of an enemy model so does that make two ways or one to mishap? If it makes one then does landing within 1" of an enemy model without landing on top of an enemy model trigger IG?

 DeathReaper wrote:

You should know better than that.

Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation.

I was using your interpretation of obstacle. The 1" is not listed in the obstacles that the IG ignores. Also note that the 1" is also not a model or impassible terrain.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You should know better than that.

Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation.

I was using your interpretation of obstacle. The 1" is not listed in the obstacles that the IG ignores. Also note that the 1" is also not a model or impassible terrain.

And totally ignoring the context of what I said.

It has been stated repeatedly that the drop pod ignores obstacles. When someone uses the obstacle definition that you set up, you say it isn't a model, or impassible terrain, and then proceed to call the 1" limit as part of a model, when in the deepstrike rule it is separated, and the drop pod does not specify that the same 1" bubble is part of the rule for the IG.

Previous quote from Death Reaper "Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so the Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation."

As such the not stated 1" proximity obstacle is not a covered obstacle, so the Inertial Guidance does not apply.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
It has been stated repeatedly that the drop pod ignores obstacles. When someone uses the obstacle definition that you set up, you say it isn't a model, or impassible terrain, and then proceed to call the 1" limit as part of a model, when in the deepstrike rule it is separated, and the drop pod does not specify that the same 1" bubble is part of the rule for the IG.

It does if you take the context of the rule into consideration.

Previous quote from Death Reaper "Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so the Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation."

As such the not stated 1" proximity obstacle is not a covered obstacle, so the Inertial Guidance does not apply.

landing within 1 inch of an enemy is most definitely an obstacle. Therefore the Inertial Guidance rule does in fact apply

Ok I see people saying that either the mishap or anything that causes a mishap is an obstacle. That's fine but I think you are leaving out parts of the rule in order to define the model as a whole as well as all effects attached to a model as the obstacle. Let's actually break the wording down.

"Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle."

What are the triggers for this rule? Scattering on top of impassable terrain or another model.
-Identifying a single cause of on top of terrain or on top of another model
What happens? You reduce scatter to avoid the obstacle.
-Notice the use of the obstacle not all or any obstacle which indicts that it only reduces scatter to avoid a single thing.

"If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly rnodel, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong."

-They separate landing on and being within 1" therefor there is two separate conditions involving enemy model which cause mishaps. 4th edition did not do this and included the 1" buffer and yet the DP Assault still covered being within 1" of an enemy model. The use of "the" obstacle instead of "any or all" limits how many things you can avoid to a single one and in this case it would be landing on top of impassable terrain or another model. Due to the separation of the buffer from landing on top of in the DS rule you can only avoid one of those things.

What we see if you look at both pieces together is the wording does not cover one of the causes of a mishap, landing within 1" of an enemy model.

Obstacle also cannot cover the mishap itself as it is not something that blocks your path but a result of something blocking your path. It would be like driving a car and being told you explode if you run into something in your path and then defining the explosion as something in your path.

Is this what they wanted to write? No idea and no one else can know either without a FAQ.
Is the rule still effective when you dropping multiple pods in a crowded back field? Yes.
Does it allow for better planning on your drops with multiple types of terrain? Yes.
Does it allow you to drop a drop pod any where in your opponents backfield without regard for anything? No, you now have to plan.

 chaplaincliff wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

So is this how Skimmers work? So the skimmer, by this set up, also avoids mishap.

Step one Deepstriking skimmer arrives from reserves.
Step two deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
Step three The skimmer scatters and is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models
Step four the Skimmer is moved the minimum distance to avoid having the models end up under it, as this is considered a move in the movement phase of the skimmer.
Step five Deploy the skimmer
Step six don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.

Sounds like a match to me. I will concede that Drop pods don't mishap from enemy models, when others concede that Skimmers don't mishap from enemy models.

first off I am not in the know of the skimmer argument, if I could get a link for that thread so as not to sidetrack this one that would be great....

second you know what i was saying and let me clarify...

step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location in accordance with the inertial guidance system, as deepstriking ,or even coming in from reserves is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRB PG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, for friendly models this does not matter.

I hope that clarified the matter.

This argument was actually started recently in a related thread that I started, positing that the rules for skimmers keep it from mishapping in certain circumstances. The primary argument against it(correct or otherwise) was that deep striking doesn't count as movement until after the deep strike has been completed, nullifying the movement rules when determining scatter. Basically, it was being pointed out that if you consider the movement rules as part of the justification for drop pods avoiding the 1" bubble, then that would invalidate half the people's arguments in the original thread, found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518371.page

I hope that link helps clarify why referring to ANY movement rules in this debate really doesn't clarify the original discussion, unless you're also arguing that skimmers don't mishap. It's a catch 22. People basically can't both include the movement rules when defending the IGS rule, then deny the movement rules when considering whether or not a skimmer mishaps.

Gravmyr wrote:
Ok I see people saying that either the mishap or anything that causes a mishap is an obstacle.

This is not true.

In the case of enemy models, however, the obstacle includes a 1" buffer zone, because you can't move within an inch of an enemy model.

-Notice the use of the obstacle not all or any obstacle which indicts that it only reduces scatter to avoid a single thing.

Note that under this interpretation, if you scatter on top of a piece of impassable terrain, and if reducing the scatter to avoid this terrain puts you on top of a different impassable terrain piece, you would still mishap rather than further reducing the scatter to also miss this new obstacle... which from my experience is not how it is normally played.

-They separate landing on and being within 1" therefor there is two separate conditions involving enemy model which cause mishaps.

That, or they just separated them for (an attempt at) clarity.

I think bringing up a completely separate rules discussion to invalidate this one is a bait and switch.

insaniak has stated it the clearest from page one.... "Avoid the Obstacle." We can rightfully interpret that to avoid something is to ensure it doesn't inhibit us...

... then again, I wish we could just go off Down of War 2 where it's quite obvious that a delivery vehicle shot out of a battle barge in lower orbit pretty much flattens what it lands on and doesn't scatter to save the poor souls underneath, but that's fluff vs. tabletop.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 chaplaincliff wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

So is this how Skimmers work? So the skimmer, by this set up, also avoids mishap.

Step one Deepstriking skimmer arrives from reserves.
Step two deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled
Step three The skimmer scatters and is forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models
Step four the Skimmer is moved the minimum distance to avoid having the models end up under it, as this is considered a move in the movement phase of the skimmer.
Step five Deploy the skimmer
Step six don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.

Sounds like a match to me. I will concede that Drop pods don't mishap from enemy models, when others concede that Skimmers don't mishap from enemy models.

first off I am not in the know of the skimmer argument, if I could get a link for that thread so as not to sidetrack this one that would be great....

second you know what i was saying and let me clarify...

step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location in accordance with the inertial guidance system, as deepstriking ,or even coming in from reserves is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRB PG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, for friendly models this does not matter.

I hope that clarified the matter.

This argument was actually started recently in a related thread that I started, positing that the rules for skimmers keep it from mishapping in certain circumstances. The primary argument against it(correct or otherwise) was that deep striking doesn't count as movement until after the deep strike has been completed, nullifying the movement rules when determining scatter. Basically, it was being pointed out that if you consider the movement rules as part of the justification for drop pods avoiding the 1" bubble, then that would invalidate half the people's arguments in the original thread, found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518371.page

I hope that link helps clarify why referring to ANY movement rules in this debate really doesn't clarify the original discussion, unless you're also arguing that skimmers don't mishap. It's a catch 22. People basically can't both include the movement rules when defending the IGS rule, then deny the movement rules when considering whether or not a skimmer mishaps.

Would have to agree with your side of the skimmer debate not only does it make skimmers better and a reliable deep strike method like drop pods but it keeps consistency in rules debates throughout the book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry for the second post....but this does not nullify the effects of dangerous terrain tests for skimmers ending on impassible terrain in mg mind, but other than that this just made skimmers a bit nicer in my mind.

 insaniak wrote:

In the case of enemy models, however, the obstacle includes a 1" buffer zone, because you can't move within an inch of an enemy model.

Is being on top of the same as being within 1"? Yes.
Is being within 1" the same as being on top of? No.
If they wanted the 1" bubble to count they would have had to specific it. Instead they used on top of and being next to is not on top of.

As an aside if I go back through this thread I do in fact find at least one person arguing that a mishap is the obstacle and I am sure you can in fact find the posts I am speaking about.

Note that under this interpretation, if you scatter on top of a piece of impassable terrain, and if reducing the scatter to avoid this terrain puts you on top of a different impassable terrain piece, you would still mishap rather than further reducing the scatter to also miss this new obstacle... which from my experience is not how it is normally played.

If we continue to use how something is normally played then I can ignore the FAQs as it is not how something was normally played. My point is and will remain how it is being played does not match what is written. Yet people will argue that if I play something they see as a violation of the rules I am cheating, just because everyone does it does not mean it is how it should happen.

That, or they just separated them for (an attempt at) clarity.

See above for on top of vs within 1".

Gravmyr: This will seem like a personal attack probably, but I'm not understanding your argument. It seems to hinge on a pedantic reading of the rules to try to twist an interpretation so it appears to be RAW.

With DS you mishap if you hit an obstacle or go off the table edge. The BRB defines an obstacle as either impassable terrain or landing on/near an enemy unit.

The Inertial Guidance special rule for the DP says you reduce the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle. This means, for example, if you scatter 4" to the left, but to avoid the obstacle you have to move 5" to the right, you mishap. Likewise, if you scatter 6" to the left and had to reduce 5" to the right to avoid the obstacle, you don't mishap.

Gravmyr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

In the case of enemy models, however, the obstacle includes a 1" buffer zone, because you can't move within an inch of an enemy model.

Is being on top of the same as being within 1"? Yes.
Is being within 1" the same as being on top of? No.
If they wanted the 1" bubble to count they would have had to specific it. Instead they used on top of and being next to is not on top of.

What are you on about here? Since 3rd edition you couldn't move within 1" of an enemy model except when you charge the enemy unit in the Assault Phase. This is nothing new and is explicitly spelled out in the rules for the Movement and Assault phases... Confused.

The BRB defines an obstacle as either impassable terrain or landing on/near an enemy unit.

That's a bold statement. If BRB defines it, then surely providing quote and a page number, where quote has the form of "The obstacle means..." or something to the effect, shouldn't be a problem.

Gravmyr wrote:


"If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly rnodel, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong."

-They separate landing on and being within 1" therefor there is two separate conditions involving enemy model which cause mishaps.

You have read that incorrectly. I have color coded the elements of the statement.

If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain , on top of a friendly rnodel , or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model , something has gone wrong.

If we are to assert that the otherwise undefined "obstacle" is in fact one or more things that would cause a mishap then we can not separate "on top of or within 1" of an enemy model" into two lesser elements.

Thems the rules of grammar.

edit: Also, any comparison to a previous edition is a flawed argument.

cowmonaut: It's very simple. The rule only states that landing on top of a model or impassable terrain as triggering mechanism. Does it mention landing next to a model triggers it? Does it say you move an inch away? No it clearly tells you to move the minimum distance to avoid "the obstacle". I define the obstacle as landing on top of another model or impassable terrain. I actually use all the words in the sentence when defining what "the obstacle" is referencing. The rule itself limits what it references out of the DS rules. Is landing within 1" of an enemy model landing on top of an enemy model? It clearly is not.

DJGietzen: I agree with your breakdown of DS in general terms. As I posted above the IG rule itself limits what it can counts as an obstacle to landing on top of. The mishap is not referenced nor is landing within 1" of an enemy model. How can you count either as part of "the obstacle" if the IG limits what it looks at in DS rules to landing on top of enemy models?

My argument is simply one of RAW. I have no problem with people playing it that way as long as they give me the same courtesy when there is a poorly written rule. I can see what their intent is, that's not a problem. What is a problem is people deciding to play by intent and arguing that is how the rule is written.

For those looking at my comparisons to previous editions I did it for a simple reason, they changed how the rule was worded from being within 1" to landing on top of enemy models. Was this done to limit how effectiveness of the drop pod? They changed the wording of DS problems at the same time to now include the landing on top of models? Was this done to illustrate the change to drop pods? Is there a way to prove it wasn't? I don't have all the answers but what I have is a book that clearly changed the wording of an ability which use to clearly spell out that the 1" bubble triggered a move to one that limited it to landing on the same model.

What you posted above was that the statement in the DS rule created two "separate conditions involving enemy model(s) which cause mishaps" and suggested that the IG rule only instructs you to avoid one of these conditions. If your argument had nothing to do with mishap conditions then you should not have brought it up.

There is no RAW argument to be made. We are instructed to avoid the 'obstacle' with out a definition of obstacle. The IG rule might as well say avoid the magical unicorn. Some have stated that 'obstacle' is intended to mean mishaps caused by friendly or enemy units or impassible terrain. While others suggest that 'obstacle' is meant to to only be the physical impediment of the model representing the enemy or friendly units or impassible terrain. Clearly this is a RAI discussion.

Now, I actually agree that the drop pod will mishap. The triggering events in the IG rule that cause you to move the model are limited to landing on top of enemy or friendly models or on impassible terrain. No mention of a 1 inch zone around enemy models. This means, and this IS a RAW argument, that if the drop pod would land within one inch of an enemy model but not on top of it without its position being modified the IG rule would not trigger. In that event the pod would mishap. I cannot believe it was GW's intention to provide a a greater level of protection to the drop pod when the IG is triggered.

That being said, I would not be surprised if the IG rule was errated to trigger if you land within 1 inch of an enemy model.

 DJGietzen wrote:
What you posted above was that the statement in the DS rule created two "separate conditions involving enemy model(s) which cause mishaps" and suggested that the IG rule only instructs you to avoid one of these conditions. If your argument had nothing to do with mishap conditions then you should not have brought it up.

There is no RAW argument to be made. We are instructed to avoid the 'obstacle' with out a definition of obstacle. The IG rule might as well say avoid the magical unicorn. Some have stated that 'obstacle' is intended to mean mishaps caused by friendly or enemy units or impassible terrain. While others suggest that 'obstacle' is meant to to only be the physical impediment of the model representing the enemy or friendly units or impassible terrain. Clearly this is a RAI discussion.

Now, I actually agree that the drop pod will mishap. The triggering events in the IG rule that cause you to move the model are limited to landing on top of enemy or friendly models or on impassible terrain. No mention of a 1 inch zone around enemy models. This means, and this IS a RAW argument, that if the drop pod would land within one inch of an enemy model but not on top of it without its position being modified the IG rule would not trigger. In that event the pod would mishap. I cannot believe it was GW's intention to provide a a greater level of protection to the drop pod when the IG is triggered.

That being said, I would not be surprised if the IG rule was errated to trigger if you land within 1 inch of an enemy model.

Counter argument to that thought:

Why waste ink to even reduce scatter on DS when landing on enemy models if the end result is STILL a mishap? Seems pretty ludicrous to put a special rule in there to move your model and still say "WHOOPS, STILL BONED!"

No, Drop Pods are intended not to mishap unless you miss the table. It IS Space Marines, poster children, we are talking about here. (Then again, this would apply to Tyranid Mycetic Sports probably, too).

@TheKbob: Well, the game does not have a basic rule describing what to do if your model ends it movement on top of another model. These situations can happen but are handled on a case by case basis using the advanced rules. The IGS rule, as it is written, does not prevent mishaps. It only prevents models being stacked on top of one another.

Lets play "what if"; If a drop pod scatters to 0.75 inches of an enemy model but is not on top of that model do you move the drop pod or does it mishap?

 DJGietzen wrote:
@TheKbob: Well, the game does not have a basic rule describing what to do if your model ends it movement on top of another model. These situations can happen but are handled on a case by case basis using the advanced rules. The IGS rule, as it is written, does not prevent mishaps. It only prevents models being stacked on top of one another.

Lets play "what if"; If a drop pod scatters to 0.75 inches of an enemy model but is not on top of that model do you move the drop pod or does it mishap?

We already cannot stack models on top of each other. My models can never be within 1" of enemies unless is CC. That's a part of the BRB. The other instances where this would happen, say a stunned flyer, result in "Crash & Burn." Even when placed within 1", but not on top of, enemy units.

I already agreed with insaniak and many others (and every gaming group I have played in over 3 years across 3 states...), you move drop pods to avoid the obstacle. Drop pods don't mishap. This is the first time in three years I have been playing this game that I have ever heard anyone attempt to insinuate otherwise. Even playing in every form of tournament; from local to grand level. I know that C:SM has been out longer then that and if it was anything but super simple, it'd have been FAQ'd. Ergo, common sense tells us "avoid the obstacle". How is it avoided? Move it until no ramification (positive or negative) is required (however obstacle conveys a negative connotation).

This argument is still pretty silly, to me.

Edit: Most of these type arguments should really come with a poll. If it's not a near split on the issue, then there is probably a good reason why it's generally accepted one way or the other. In this instance, it's nitpicking some shoddy writing from GW and almost every individual picking up the correct RAI.

Gravmyr wrote:
it clearly tells you to move the minimum distance to avoid "the obstacle". I define the obstacle as landing on top of another model or impassable terrain.

And your definition does not coincide with the standard British English definition of Obstacle, which it would have to as obstacle is not defined in the brb, therefore your definition is incorrect.

As above.

Redefining what "obstacle" means isnt a safe position.

As I pointed out the problem with trying to say they are refering to anything that would then get in the way it it is not listed in the triggering mechanism. By using something that stands in the way (such as the mishap) then you have to include the scatter die roll and just put it back where you placed it. What you are in essence saying is once the rule is triggers anything that ever gets in the DP's way is ignored. You want to use the definition that's fine but please explain how you ignore all obstacles you come in contact with instead of "the" obstacle that has triggered the rule.

Edit: Considering english has stolen a majority of it's wordage from other languages, which one in many cases do we follow?

something that impedes progress or achievement
an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path
Something that stands in the way or that obstructs progress (lit. and fig.); a hindrance, impediment, or obstruction

Now the model itself is clearly an obstacle by all accounts. My problem becomes when you add the 1" bubble around it. Is the model the obstacle at that point? Is it the DS that creates the 1" bubble that is the hindrance? If the bubble is part of the model then why isn't it defined in the model section? It's a subset of the rule and not actually a part of the model. They limited what part of the DS rule is affected by the rule when they put it on top of another model, which includes friend or foe. Why would we treat one different from the other in this case? Can you use the IG rule to avoid more than one thing? I say no. They limited that as well by saying "the" obstacle.

The "thing that impedes progress" is the *mishap*

The enemy model, and the 1" buffer, triggers the obstacles appearance.

Grav, you're looking at it from just the physical impediment whilst the rest of us view it as the game or strategy impediment. The latter is the correct view on this matter.

Again, I reiterate, why would they write something into a codex with the full intention of you moving off the enemy models but still causing a mishap? Now granted, GW doesn't always make the most sense, but this seems highly illogical to waste ink on a scenario where you move off enemy models and are still screwed.

It's okay to be like "whoops, yea I'm wrong. Sorry, guys!"