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.

Dat Guy wrote:
You minus the distance before you center the blast.

Yes, and this drop pod thing seems to be a similar case.

Dat Guy wrote:
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.

So, no rules to back up you assertion?

IGS activates on the same trigger as the off the table mishap. By activating one you MUST activate the other. Failing to do so is breaking a rule


It says SCATTER, not "Scatter after reduction for landing on a model or impassable terrain", it just says scatter.

If you disagree, page and para wher e you get to ignore the same initial condition "just because"

Dat Guy wrote:
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.

Do you agree that IGS has two parts to the rule?
Do you agree they have literally the same trigger?
Why are you applying one and not the other?

I would just like to point out that if the off-table clause doesn't kick in until after you determine final location, then neither would the scatter reduction. This would mean that IGS does nothing. I'm OK with that.

 Happyjew wrote:
I would just like to point out that if the off-table clause doesn't kick in until after you determine final location, then neither would the scatter reduction. This would mean that IGS does nothing. I'm OK with that.

Yeah, evidently it's difficult for some people to realize that

 Crimson wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:
You minus the distance before you center the blast.

Yes, and this drop pod thing seems to be a similar case.

if this is true.. why is a drop pod any different? because the phrase was poorly written?

How is the phrase poorly written?

Both triggers are the same, and neither rewrites the other....so why only follow one, and not the other?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would just like to point out that if the off-table clause doesn't kick in until after you determine final location, then neither would the scatter reduction. This would mean that IGS does nothing. I'm OK with that.

Yeah, evidently it's difficult for some people to realize that

Because until happyjew explained it you were saying the pod misshaps because igs rule, not that two parts of the rule cancel each other out. You keep saying "why follow one part on the other " and one can say why follow misshap part and not the reduce. I agree with happys way that the rule is bypassed in this situation and the pod mishaps, not with rigelds explanation of why follow half a rule which creates a superposition when two sides of the coin is taken into account.

 raiden wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:
You minus the distance before you center the blast.

Yes, and this drop pod thing seems to be a similar case.

if this is true.. why is a drop pod any different? because the phrase was poorly written?

They aren't similar.
Blasts you subtract BS before you measure.
Pods you measure and then reduce if required.

Pods mishap if they scatter off the table. Not "if their final position is off the table".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pizzaguardian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would just like to point out that if the off-table clause doesn't kick in until after you determine final location, then neither would the scatter reduction. This would mean that IGS does nothing. I'm OK with that.

Yeah, evidently it's difficult for some people to realize that

Because until happyjew explained it you were saying the pod misshaps because igs rule, not that two parts of the rule cancel each other out. You keep saying "why follow one part on the other " and one can say why follow misshap part and not the reduce. I agree with happys way that the rule is bypassed in this situation and the pod mishaps, not with rigelds explanation of why follow half a rule which creates a superposition when two sides of the coin is taken into account.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/562615.page#6241153
You obviously missed that post.
And I've said - from the start - that you do both. Reducing the scatter is fine, but you also mishap.
I said the triggers are the same. Advocates of not mishap ping are saying you only do one.
You can walk away saying Happy is right and I'm not but since we're saying the same thing...

 pizzaguardian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would just like to point out that if the off-table clause doesn't kick in until after you determine final location, then neither would the scatter reduction. This would mean that IGS does nothing. I'm OK with that.

Yeah, evidently it's difficult for some people to realize that

Because until happyjew explained it you were saying the pod misshaps because igs rule, not that two parts of the rule cancel each other out. You keep saying "why follow one part on the other " and one can say why follow misshap part and not the reduce. I agree with happys way that the rule is bypassed in this situation and the pod mishaps, not with rigelds explanation of why follow half a rule which creates a superposition when two sides of the coin is taken into account.

The pods mishap because of the IGS rule, which has 2 parts. There is no superposition, the pod mishaps and doesnt mishap - however mishap forces a state (rolll on table, deploy, destroy, etc) which means it is irrelevant what the other result is.

If the model ends ontop of another model or off the board and IGS cannot prevent that, or causes it. the model has mishapped as per the rules for IGS

rigeld2 wrote:

quote
..

I agree with the end result not with the way you reach it.

 pizzaguardian wrote:
I agree with the end result not with the way you reach it.

So... how do you reach it then?

Ok, you have to follow the deep striking rule, when you deep strike you place the model on the table for the spot you want them you roll 2d6 and a scatter die. So with igs if the distance would scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model friend or foe then reduce the scatter dice to avoid the obstacle.

For igs PG 99 out of C:SM and PG 36 out of Warhammer 40k 6th edition basic rule book. Particularly read deep strike mishaps it notes a mis hap occurs if the model or models cannot be placed.

Enough said.

Dat Guy wrote:
Ok, you have to follow the deep striking rule, when you deep strike you place the model on the table for the spot you want them you roll 2d6 and a scatter die. So with igs if the distance would scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model friend or foe then reduce the scatter dice to avoid the obstacle. With IGS if the pod scatters off the board it mishaps.

For igs PG 99 out of C:SM and PG 36 out of Warhammer 40k 6th edition basic rule book. Particularly read deep strike mishaps it notes a mis hap occurs if the model or models cannot be placed.

Enough said.

You're misquoting the IGS rule and not applying it when you should. I added the sentence you forgot in bold.

How does the pod scatter off the board? Its the scatter distance in inches that is off the board not the drop pod because if impassable terrain or a model were to be where the scattering drop pod is placed the distance gets reduced. Obviously if their is no impassable terrain or models in its final scatter then of course its a mis hap you have to apply all the rules together and read the words, then sentences, and paragraphs as a whole not a separate entity.

Dat Guy wrote:
How does the pod scatter off the board? Its the scatter distance in inches that is off the board not the drop pod because if impassable terrain or a model were to be where the scattering drop pod is placed the distance gets reduced. Obviously if their is no impassable terrain or models in its final scatter then of course its a mis hap you have to apply all the rules together and read the words, then sentences, and paragraphs as a whole not a separate entity.

Read the trigger to reduce scatter.
Now read the mishap trigger.

Notice that they are identical. Now please support your assertion that one happens and not the other.

The mis hap trigger says if you can't place the model or models fully on the table.

Dat Guy wrote:
The mis hap trigger says if you can't place the model or models fully on the table.

So you're ignoring half of the IGS rules then?
That's a fine house rule, but the actual rules disagree.

Please state your assertion that both can happen because that sounds stupid because if both happen it can't because a mis hap never ends with the unit on the table. And if both happen like you say that's a false statement.

Your making up a rule saying if you land on the table but your scatter distance is off and your final placement is on the table you still mis hap....tsk tsk

Dat Guy wrote:
Please state your assertion that both can happen because that sounds stupid because if both happen it can't because a mis hap never ends with the unit on the table. And if both happen like you say that's a false statement.

Your making up a rule saying if you land on the table but your scatter distance is off and your final placement is on the table you still mis hap....tsk tsk

When dose the IGS rule for reducing scatter occur? When you scatter over a model or impassable terrain.
When dose the IGS rule for mishap occur? When you scatter off the table.
Both trigger from the same scatter.

Could you please state which part of this rule happens first and why?

Dat Guy wrote:
Please state your assertion that both can happen because that sounds stupid because if both happen it can't because a mis hap never ends with the unit on the table. And if both happen like you say that's a false statement.

No - both absolutely happen. You reduce your scatter but you also mishap.

Your making up a rule saying if you land on the table but your scatter distance is off and your final placement is on the table you still mis hap....tsk tsk

I'm making up nothing - I've cited the rules. You are literally ignoring a rule for no reason.

If igs is reducing the distance the drop pod never scatters off, how the feth can you have something deep strike and land on the table and still freaking mis hap?

The answer is no.

Dat Guy wrote:
If igs is reducing the distance the drop pod never scatters off, how the feth can you have something deep strike and land on the table and still freaking mis hap?

The answer is no.

Before reducing the scatter, did the DP scatter off the table?

 Happyjew wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:
If igs is reducing the distance the drop pod never scatters off, how the feth can you have something deep strike and land on the table and still freaking mis hap?

The answer is no.

Before reducing the scatter, did the DP scatter off the table?

no, because it never really landed to begin with.

Dat Guy wrote:
If igs is reducing the distance the drop pod never scatters off, how the feth can you have something deep strike and land on the table and still freaking mis hap?

The answer is no.

The issue is that you are missing a step. IGS doesn't care if your final position is off the table, only that you scattered off the table - a subtle but important difference. So you place the model, then roll scatter - taking you off the table. This is the standard process for the Deep Strike rules and would normally be your only two steps (place then scatter). Then at the same time both parts of the IGS rules kick in meaning you have another two steps which resolve at the same time so you both a) mishap because you are off the table and b)are allowed to reduce your scatter. Note there is nothing stating that you can't mishap and end up on the table (quite the opposite in fact, this is precisely what happens if you don't have IGS and land on another model etc).

 raiden wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:
If igs is reducing the distance the drop pod never scatters off, how the feth can you have something deep strike and land on the table and still freaking mis hap?

The answer is no.

Before reducing the scatter, did the DP scatter off the table?

no, because it never really landed to begin with.

In that case you do not have permission to reduce the scatter.

If the DP is not considered to have scattered off the table until you determine the final location, then the same can be said for impassable terrain/models. As such, you have no permission to reduce the scatter ever.

Good job, you've made IGS do absolutely nothing.

No. The igs says SHOULD a models scatter place it over another model or terrain then reduce the scatter. The mishap part simplely stats if it scatters off the table (they are probably assuming no IGS activation which to be fair I would never have thought "what if" for this scenario lol) then you mishap.

Dat Guy wrote:
If igs is reducing the distance the drop pod never scatters off, how the feth can you have something deep strike and land on the table and still freaking mis hap?

The answer is no.

You're making a logical leap but missing the point.

To reduce the scatter due to hitting an enemy tank, you must first scatter. Scattering onto the tank is what causes the reduction. Without the act of scattering, you cannot trigger the cause for reduction.

The same trigger (scattering[off the table edge]) causes a mishap. You cannot reduce the scatter because you've mishapped.

I've got 15 years of fog between me and my last logic class, but it would be something like this:
If S(e) then R(S)
If S(t) then M

S= scatter
e= enemy or impassible
t= table edge
R= reduce
M= mishap

The only variable is e (enemy unit or impassible terrain) versus t (tble edge). Roll your scatter and plus your result into the equation before arriving at a reduced scatter result or mishap.

Edit- actually they're not mutually exclusive but if you arrive at both situations you must apply both results thus ensuring the mishap as reducing the scatter won't matter as you've already mishapped.

Of course this could simply be a holdover from a previous edition when the edge of the board was considered impassible terrain, and GW couldn't be bothered to proof read their rules......

Cheers

Andrew