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.

Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Were they in Reserves before the Turn started? If so they are an eligible target.

Yep, I believe it's in the reserve rules, they all count as arriving from reserve.

Yeah, definitely.

Yes

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

However, most people would consider that absolutely ridiculous, and would say that you've got the right of it already.

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

Intercept is done at the end of the opponent's movement phase, the reserves coming on the board isnt a part of the movement phase you can do it whenever you want long as they came in at all. And seeing as you cannot stay embarked in the drop pod, they disembark before the movement phase is completed.

They were in reserves prior to this, thus viable targets. Shooting the pod itself is kinda pointless (unless they FAQ it somewhere where if you kill the pod in the Intercept fire the embarked unit dies too...which would be HILARIOUS to see people rage over that)

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Intercept is done at the end of the opponent's movement phase, the reserves coming on the board isnt a part of the movement phase you can do it whenever you want long as they came in at all. And seeing as you cannot stay embarked in the drop pod, they disembark before the movement phase is completed.

They were in reserves prior to this, thus viable targets. Shooting the pod itself is kinda pointless (unless they FAQ it somewhere where if you kill the pod in the Intercept fire the embarked unit dies too...which would be HILARIOUS to see people rage over that)

If any survived would they have to take impact test as they fell to the ground?

Would they have to roll for scatter as they plummeted and then have to try to move back into coherence after taking a pinning test?

Oh the fun you could have

 Vineheart01 wrote:

Shooting the pod itself is kinda pointless

That can get you first blood though

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

I'd allow it, around my 96" Icarus. Try to drop anywhere close to my army? Nope. You can drop on the next table over.

 Purifier wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

I'd allow it, around my 96" Icarus. Try to drop anywhere close to my army? Nope. You can drop on the next table over.

But then you'd be open to his guard allies basilisking you from the next table over...

Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

TheMind wrote:Quick rules clarification question: Marines arriving via droppod assault still technically arrived from reserves and are therefore valid targets for interceptor y/n?

Well, according to DeathReaper, the Interceptor rule could be considered an obstacle, in the sense that it impedes the progress of the drop pod, and therefore the Inertial Guidance rule allows you to move the Drop Pod far enough away that it is outside the range of the interceptor model.

That is actually not at all what i had said...

I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

It was a reference to a joke that DeathReaper posted. But I don't think DeathReaper considered it as such.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
I think (read: hope) that azazel was joking. If so it was in poor taste...Especially since getting hit with an Interceptor weapon has nothing to do with IGS.

It was a reference to a joke that DeathReaper posted. But I don't think DeathReaper considered it as such.

Mind pointing out the joke in that post you linked, because I am not seeing it. (Plus do not forget context).

Your choice to read "obstacle" to mean more than the physical object (that is, your extra 1" notion, which is so silly I assumed it was a joke). If you interpretation of an obstacle implies you get an extra 1" of movement so that the unit's progress is not hindered, then obviously the unit would get an extra 48" or 96" or whatever of movement so that the unit's progress is not hindered by the Interceptor's range.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Your choice to read "obstacle" to mean more than the physical object (that is, your extra 1" notion, which is so silly I assumed it was a joke). If you interpretation of an obstacle implies you get an extra 1" of movement so that the unit's progress is not hindered, then obviously the unit would get an extra 48" or 96" or whatever of movement so that the unit's progress is not hindered by the Interceptor's range.

The context dictates that the Obstacle is the impassible terrain or unit, not a Gun emplacement.

Therefore it is your read that is so silly I am going to assume it is a joke.

The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

But they came out of reserves as well so wouldn't they be eligible for interceptor as well?

A GumyBear wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

But they came out of reserves as well so wouldn't they be eligible for interceptor as well?

No more so than a unit inside a Rhino.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

Huh, what? Interceptor is used at the end of the movement phase. If the unit arrived from Reserve that turn, no matter how, then Interceptor allows you to shoot at it.

azazel the cat wrote:

A GumyBear wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

But they came out of reserves as well so wouldn't they be eligible for interceptor as well?

No more so than a unit inside a Rhino.

Yeah, and if the unit and the Rhino arrived from Reserve that turn, than a model with Interceptor can choose to shoot at either of them at the end of their movement phase (provided they disembarked as part of that move onto the board).

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The Marines aren't targetable when Interceptor is tripped. At that time, the Drop Pod is the transport, so your Interceptor has to target that.

Which has no basis in the actual rules. Reread interceptor, and notice the timing of it and what units it is allowed to target

Azazel - given the context proves obstacle has something to do with preventing mishaps, and an interceptor shot isnt a mishap, I assume you are simply making a very poorly constructed joke that has no relvance to the rules.

Said marines are certainly targetable if are in range and satisfy LOS rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - given the context proves obstacle has something to do with preventing mishaps, and an interceptor shot isnt a mishap, I assume you are simply making a very poorly constructed joke that has no relvance to the rules.

Actually it was to lambast the foolish notion that a Drop Pod gets to move an additional 1" so as to adoid a Mishap from landing on an enemy unit. The term "obstacle" was being read as to include an event like a Mishap, on the grounds that the definition of an obstacle is "anything which impedes progress". However, if that is the interpretation of what "obstacle" refers to (as in, not only objects, but anything that impedes progress), then I insist that this stupidly-broad definition be used consistently; thus allowing the Drop Pod to move out of range of the Interceptor gun, which would also be considered an "impediment to the progress" of the Drop Pod. And that would also mean that if the entire table is within range of the Interceptor guns, then the Drop Pod cannot actually be deployed on the tabletop.

Or, a less stupid reading is that the Drop Pod moves far enough to avoid landing ON models, but then mishaps because it is within 1" of enemy units.

If that is the case, then why would it be worded as it is? Simple: because it means if the Drop Pod scatters onto friendly units, it can move so that it doesn't mishap by landing ON them. Same with impassible terrain. However, the Inertial Guidance rule only gives the Drop Pod permission to move the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle (which must be interpreted as a physical object, or else you get that assinine Interceptor-avoiding concept as outlined above). So if the obstacle is an enemy unit, then the Drop Pod doesn't land on them, but rather immediately beside them, and thus mishaps due to being less than 1" away.

It's that simple: either you don't mishap and thus get to move far enough away to avoid the Interceptor guns (and if the entire field is covered by Interceptor guns, then Drop Pods cannot deploy on the table), or else you only move far enough to not land on top of the physical object that is the enemy unit.

Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

No, a less stupid one would not be following that line, as you are told you can only reduce scatter, not increase it beyond 0.

You also ignore context, but that is par for the course.

Your slippery slope fallacy is just that.

 azazel the cat wrote:
The term "obstacle" was being read as to include an event like a Mishap, on the grounds that the definition of an obstacle is "anything which impedes progress". However, if that is the interpretation of what "obstacle" refers to (as in, not only objects, but anything that impedes progress)

Do not overlook the context of the IG rule. not only objects, but anything that impedes progress that has to do with impassible terrain or the unit you scattered onto, as noted in the IG rule.

 azazel the cat wrote:
then I insist that this stupidly-broad definition be used consistently; thus allowing the Drop Pod to move out of range of the Interceptor gun

Only if you ignore the context of the Inertial Guidance rule.

Or as Azazel and I pointed out they could simply be referring to the model or terrain. The most logical reason for using obstacle being they could not use model nor terrain piece when referencing both options later in the rule so they used obstacle to cover both. They never even imply that mishaps are included as part of the "obstacle" even though the rule exists to avoid a mishap. The intent of the rule is to avoid the mishap, I agree, but nothing in the rule even implies they are to be included in the implementation of the rule. In the end this should be still in the other thread.

They are simply "referring to the model or terrain", and the IG rule tells you to reduce the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle.

The obstacle, when dealing with an enemy unit, includes the 1 inch mishap distance.

Again I would agree if they had written it to say landing within 1" of an enemy model instead of "landing on a model (friend or foe)" You are adding intent of the writer in order to include the 1" as it is not mentioned in the rule. It doesn't even separate the two types of models but lumps them together. As there is no rule that covers moving an inch away from all models that is yet more proof that it does not reference an inch bubble. You are including more in the definition then is indicated in the rule in order to stretch obstacle to include the bubble.

DeathReaper wrote:They are simply "referring to the model or terrain", and the IG rule tells you to reduce the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle.

The obstacle, when dealing with an enemy unit, includes the 1 inch mishap distance.

No. This is the fundamental we disagree on. I do not consider 1" to be part of the obstacle.