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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except the scatter is not movement.

Again, and again, and again, and again, I have not said scatter is movement. Please stop responding as if I am saying that.

Scatter is not movement. Deep strike counts as both deployment and movement. Scatter is a mechanic of deep strike, determining where deep strike tells you to move/deploy. This has been my stance through the entire argument, and it is now clearly becoming a straw man, as I have not claimed scatter to be movement, and you keep responding as if I have.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except the scatter is not movement.

Again, and again, and again, and again, I have not said scatter is movement. Please stop responding as if I am saying that.

Scatter is not movement. Deep strike counts as both deployment and movement. Scatter is a mechanic of deep strike, determining where deep strike tells you to move/deploy. This has been my stance through the entire argument, and it is now clearly becoming a straw man, as I have not claimed scatter to be movement, and you keep responding as if I have.

And yet you keep claiming that a rule that has to do with movement has anything to do with protection from mishaps...
Either it's movement and a movement rule applies, or its not and a movement rule doesn't apply.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except the scatter is not movement.

Again, and again, and again, and again, I have not said scatter is movement. Please stop responding as if I am saying that.

Scatter is not movement. Deep strike counts as both deployment and movement. Scatter is a mechanic of deep strike, determining where deep strike tells you to move/deploy. This has been my stance through the entire argument, and it is now clearly becoming a straw man, as I have not claimed scatter to be movement, and you keep responding as if I have.

And yet you keep claiming that a rule that has to do with movement has anything to do with protection from mishaps...
Either it's movement and a movement rule applies, or its not and a movement rule doesn't apply.

That's because DEEP STRIKE counts as movement/deployment. Scatter is not a seperate entity in and of itself. It is simply a mechanic of deep strike, which counts as both movement and deployment.

If something counts as something else then it is that thing as far as the rules are concerned.

If not then the rules break down in spectacular ways.

If scatter counts as movement then you can not use it to get within 1 inch of an enemy model.

P.S. did I miss a page and graph reference to where Deep Striking counts as movement?

If so please direct me to the page and graph.

 DeathReaper wrote:

P.S. did I miss a page and graph reference to where Deep Striking counts as movement?

If so please direct me to the page and graph.

Rulebook, pg 36.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further...


Moving any FURTHER is only grammatically correct if Deep Strike itself is considered movement.

Betray - so, again, how does being forced to end your move, which the scatter is not, get triggered?

At the itme you mishap you have yet to arrive (ref, the part of DS telling you that you place the model wher eyou WANT the unit to arrive) meaning you cannot have ended your move

If you havent ended your move, you cannot be moved by a rule stating you can be moved out of the way

Meaning you mishap.

Again: Betray please actually answer the chain, rather than going "move/deploy!" as if it means anything

 yakface wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

P.S. did I miss a page and graph reference to where Deep Striking counts as movement?

If so please direct me to the page and graph.

Rulebook, pg 36.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further...


Moving any FURTHER is only grammatically correct if Deep Strike itself is considered movement.

So no one can ever mishap by Deepstriking as you are not allowed to move within 1 inch of an enemy unit?

Or does it only count as movement after the scatter.

and if so aren't the rules kind of messed up?

P.S I just realized this might be the wrong thread I just posted in, because we may have wandered off topic.

 DeathReaper wrote:

So no one can ever mishap by Deepstriking as you are not allowed to move within 1 inch of an enemy unit?

Or does it only count as movement after the scatter.

and if so aren't the rules kind of messed up?

P.S I just realized this might be the wrong thread I just posted in, because we may have wandered off topic.

Yes, we're quite off-topic now.

Models that arrive via Deep Strike count as having moved (and thus cannot move any FURTHER).

Scatter is not movement. Therefore, per the rules for Deep Strike, scatter can change the arriving position of a Deep Striking unit to within 1" of an enemy unit.

So... You're violently agreeing with his base premise?
That skimmers still mishap?

rigeld2 wrote:
So... You're violently agreeing with his base premise?
That skimmers still mishap?

No, because scatter is a mechanic that forces the movement that is deep strike, to end over enemies/allies/whatever. Skimmers would still mishap over enemies, because even after moving to avoid the troops, they'd still be within 1". However, this DOES stop them from suffering mishap on allies, and the rules allow skimmers to deep strike onto impassable terrain so long as they can actually be placed there.

As far as the IGS, the wording is different, and that is a slightly different debate. It's my thought, based on the wording, that drop pods still mishap over enemy units because the "obstacle" based on standard English grammar, can only refer to the words "another model" and "impassable terrain" as listed in it's description. Otherwise, the definition of obstacle becomes far too broad for logic to apply properly. Strictly RAW, it would still mishap as it would still be within 1" of an enemy unit.

Effectively, based on the rules as written, drop pods and skimmers end up having very similar rules for deep striking, with a couple small exceptions.

1. Obviously skimmers don't have the first turn deep strike rules.
2. Drop pods rule is better in regard to impassable terrain, as it reduces the scatter distance rather than allowing it to land there. In allowing it to deploy there, the skimmer side subjects it to dangerous terrain tests.


EDIT: grammar

Betray - except you mishap before you arrive, meaning your movement has not ended, meaning your rule cannot trigger.

DS is only movement once compelted. Scatter is NOT movement, so at this point you have not moved, and have not ended your move.

The context of "obstacle" is "mishap", yet you have decided it can mishap despite being told it must avoid the obstacle == mishap?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - except you mishap before you arrive, meaning your movement has not ended, meaning your rule cannot trigger.

1. DS is only movement once compelted. Scatter is NOT movement, so at this point you have not moved, and have not ended your move.

2. The context of "obstacle" is "mishap", yet you have decided it can mishap despite being told it must avoid the obstacle == mishap?

1. This doesn't matter. The deep strike mishap rules say "If a unit WOULD(as in, in the future) land over an enemy unit, roll for mishap". A skimmer's special rules would prevent it from doing so, so it explicitly WOULD NOT land on top of the enemy models.

2. That is not the context of obstacle at all. In fact, it never mentions mishaps. It only refers to "another model" and "impassable terrain" as being obstacles.

1) Incorrect, as I have already shown. The move has NOT ENDED, because Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT, and you HAVE NOT MOVED yntil you have FINISHED DS.

Have you finished DS? No, you mishapped instead.

Simple concept.

They also say "would" because that is the only way that tense structure could work. It does not state that the move has ended, which is what the skimmer rules require - that your move has ended. It never ends, because mishap gets in the way instead

Only if you manage to land do you count as having moved.
2) And how are they obstacles? They cause mishaps.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) Incorrect, as I have already shown. The move has NOT ENDED, because Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT, and you HAVE NOT MOVED yntil you have FINISHED DS.

Have you finished DS? No, you mishapped instead.

Simple concept.

They also say "would" because that is the only way that tense structure could work. It does not state that the move has ended, which is what the skimmer rules require - that your move has ended. It never ends, because mishap gets in the way instead

Only if you manage to land do you count as having moved.
2) And how are they obstacles? They cause mishaps.

No. Your logic creates a logical paradox. If you wouldn't land there because mishap prevents it, then you wouldn't mishap, because mishap requires that you would.

Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

You'd still end up within 1 inch of the enemy, meaning a mishap.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

So on before the first turn I move my skimmer 6" forward because at some undetermined point in the future he will be forced to stop over models.

Or... it's not being used in a future tense, but in a conditional (like "will").

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

Do you understand conditional usage? IF...then is the basic construction of this sentence.

Try again: the DS scattering tells you to mishap if [you would end up there]. Would is a conditional - if you do not satisfy that condition you do not mishap.

You also continually ignore that the skimmer rule only kicks in if you are forced to *end* your move there - you never get to see if you end your move, because before that occurs you Mishap.

Your argument is still refuted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

Do you understand conditional usage? IF...then is the basic construction of this sentence.

Try again: the DS scattering tells you to mishap if [you would end up there]. Would is a conditional - if you do not satisfy that condition you do not mishap.

Now you're catching on. Keep at it. Since, future-tense, you wouldn't land over the model, you wouldn't mishap. There is no "find out" if you would end your move over enemy units, because since we know the rules, we know we wouldn't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

You'd still end up within 1 inch of the enemy, meaning a mishap.

You are absolutely correct, as I've said over and over:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Skimmers would still mishap over enemies, because even after moving to avoid the troops, they'd still be within 1". However, this DOES stop them from suffering mishap on allies, and the rules allow skimmers to deep strike onto impassable terrain so long as they can actually be placed there.

Betray - seems like you arent catching on.

You have not finished moving, until after you arrive and complete DS [may not move any further]

You cannot arrive because you mishap, at a portion of DS which is NOT movement. So your allownace to move out of the way does not apply. Because you are not moving

Not sure how many times I can explain such a simple concept - you arent moving at this point, so a rule pertaining to movement doesnt apply. It doesnt get a lot simpler than that, really, but keep on trying.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - seems like you arent catching on.

You have not finished moving, until after you arrive and complete DS [may not move any further]

You don't have to finish moving, because the rules for mishap say if you "Would" end up over units, which you wouldn't. Mishap doesn't happen until you know if you would end up there, which means you'd resolve any rules that would cause or prevent you from landing there prior to determining mishap. Since the rules for skimmers would mean you wouldn't land in said location, you'd need to see where you would land before you can determine if you mishap.

Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

That's because you're not acknowledging future-tense wording, and other rules that have been quoted in the original thread, and this one, pertaining to deployment and movement in regards to deep strike.

Look nos, it's obvious that my arguments aren't going to persuade you, and your arguments aren't going to persuade me, so let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives. I don't have time to try to persuade people who don't want to be persuaded. No hard feelings. Have a great night.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

That's because you're not acknowledging future-tense wording, and other rules that have been quoted in the original thread, and this one, pertaining to deployment and movement in regards to deep strike.

Look nos, it's obvious that my arguments aren't going to persuade you,

Because your arguments have no basis in the actual rules of the game.

and your arguments aren't going to persuade me

How you can not understand the rules, after we have laid them out clearly is really something.

so let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives. I don't have time to try to persuade people who don't want to be persuaded. No hard feelings. Have a great night.

It is not about persuasion, it is about what the rules actually say.

and the rules do not back your argument at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because your arguments have no basis in the actual rules of the game.

Only because you choose to ignore quotes and page numbers when I post them, which is why there is no point in continuing this debate with you.

You don't WANT to be persuaded, and you don't WANT to look up quotes and context that I post, and that's perfectly fine. But stating straight up lies, like "Your arguments have no basis in the rules", when every one of my arguments is started based on quotes and page numbers from the book(which I post in my opening threads), is highly inflammatory.

Your responses come off as if I personally harmed you in life or something. Did I dump your sister? Did I father your brother and not pay child support? Unless I've done something to earn such angst, let's stay mature, and not spread outright lies. And if I HAVE done something in life to earn your ire, PM me to work out whatever the problem might be. This isn't the place to take out your frustration about such things. This is a place for logical, mature debate and rules discussions.

Having said that, if you would like to continue discussion with me in a logical, mature manner(which doesn't include spreading lies, or flinging insults), then I would be happy to. If you're just going to ignore it when I post the page numbers and quotes, as several people have, then let's not bother, and just move on, if you're capable. If you're incapable, however, I'll be happy to be the bigger man, and walk away if you continue to post disrespectful and outright false replies.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, youre still not getting it

Scattering isnt movement. Understand this part?

You have a rule which isnt movement, and you are trying to claim a rule about movement applies. It really, really, really doesnt.

Your disconnect here is impressive.

That's because you're not acknowledging future-tense wording, and other rules that have been quoted in the original thread, and this one, pertaining to deployment and movement in regards to deep strike.

As I've demonstrated, the "would" use here makes zero sense as future tense and only makes sense as a conditional.
Meaning your interpretation is incorrect.

Or can I move my skimmers as much as I want because eventually they will end up on top of an enemy unit?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because your arguments have no basis in the actual rules of the game.

Only because you choose to ignore quotes and page numbers when I post them, which is why there is no point in continuing this debate with you.

I have not ignored your page numbers, but they do not support your claims.

Scatter is not movement and the mishap happens before the move so the rule about skimmers being forced to end their move over another unit has no bearing on deep strike scatter. Somehow you do not grasp this.

You don't WANT to be persuaded, and you don't WANT to look up quotes and context that I post, and that's perfectly fine. But stating straight up lies, like "Your arguments have no basis in the rules", when every one of my arguments is started based on quotes and page numbers from the book(which I post in my opening threads), is highly inflammatory.

It is not about persuasion, it is about the rules. If you are trying to persuade you are trying to influence others and we should let the rules do that.

Your responses come off as if I personally harmed you in life or something. Did I dump your sister? Did I father your brother and not pay child support? Unless I've done something to earn such angst, let's stay mature, and not spread outright lies. And if I HAVE done something in life to earn your ire, PM me to work out whatever the problem might be. This isn't the place to take out your frustration about such things. This is a place for logical, mature debate and rules discussions.

Okay what?

Where are you getting all of this? I am not sure what you mean.

Having said that, if you would like to continue discussion with me in a logical, mature manner(which doesn't include spreading lies, or flinging insults), then I would be happy to. If you're just going to ignore it when I post the page numbers and quotes, as several people have, then let's not bother, and just move on, if you're capable. If you're incapable, however, I'll be happy to be the bigger man, and walk away if you continue to post disrespectful and outright false replies.

I have not lied or insulted you (At least I can not find any insulting posts towards you in my posts).

If you can not see how scattering is not movement and does not interact with the skimmer rules about being forced to end their move over other models, then Just say that you can not see how it does not interact, and then re-read the rules about how scattering in not movement.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, the skimmer rule doesn't kick in until you've finished your move, at which point you've already mishapped.

Again, you only mishap if you WOULD land on enemy models. Future-tense. Since the skimmer rule WOULD prevent you from doing so, you WOULDN'T.

So on before the first turn I move my skimmer 6" forward because at some undetermined point in the future he will be forced to stop over models.
.

Oh, Oh! On a frequently used gaming table these is bound to be a model anywhere at some future point so there's no legal place to stop and place it, it just keeps moving!



Seriously though. I see where is says "deep striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a deep striking Transport vehicle". This statement could be taken to imply the unit has already moved but contextually that would be incorrect as no movement was previously indicated and it would not later need to be stated the unit counts as having moved if that were the case. Rather this only states the unit cannot move other that to disembark and keeps in mind the fluff that got them there which has no bearing on the rules.Per fluff they drop in from the sky, tunnel up, teleport, etc. Per RAW, they just appear there.

I see where is says units arriving by Deep Strike, in the subsequent shooting phase, count as having moved during the previous movement phase.
"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase"
But that rule does not apply til the shooting phase.

I don't see where is says DS counts as movement. It does not gain 'counts as movement' by association with a unit that will retroactively count as having moved in this movement phase but in the future shooting phase. Even if you did somehow try to apply that future past to the present it still only says the unit counts as having moved, which does not indicate the DS counts as movement but rather is limited to an effect on the unit that causes them to count as such.

I would say no, because the Marines are Disembarking FROM the thing that was in reserve-similar debate to stuff disembarking from a deep striking landraider.