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.

 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, 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.

Bzzzt, still wrong. It is not that I am not "acknowledging future tense wording", it is your inabilty to grasp that your "interpretatioN" is nonsense - rigeld2 already pointed that out, and you chose to ignore it

It is a conditional. By the time the conditional can kick in you have already mishapped

Why you are unsable to see the difference between a rule which is ONLY to do with movement and a rule which is NOT movement, and how one really cannot apply to the other, is something I cant quite understand.

Your rules quotes, arguments etc have all been shot down, yet you continue to parrot them as if nothing has changed. Indeed you cant be persuaded, in this or other threads, it seems

 Timmy149 wrote:
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.

There's no debate, stuff disembarking from a Deep Striking LandRaider do count as arriving from reserve.
They can't Assault, they can be targeted by Interceptor.

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

The skimmers rule doesn't say "would". The mishap rule does, so your snarky comment about skimmers holds no substance.

As for mishaps, they only happen if you "would" land on a model. Skimmers wouldn't, therefore no mishap occurs over allies.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

The skimmers rule doesn't say "would". The mishap rule does, so your snarky comment about skimmers holds no substance.

It absolutely does. It's a conditional, not a future tense. According to you, if at some point in the future a skimmer will end up over models in a deep strike, I can move it out of the way.

As for mishaps, they only happen if you "would" land on a model. Skimmers wouldn't, therefore no mishap occurs over allies.

So it's a conditional - a mishap doesn't happen if you do not land on a model. It's not future tense. Your argument makes no sense and therefore cannot be correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The skimmers rule doesn't say "would". The mishap rule does, so your snarky comment about skimmers holds no substance.

It absolutely does.

It doesn't say that. BRB page 83.

rigeld2 wrote:

As for mishaps, they only happen if you "would" land on a model. Skimmers wouldn't, therefore no mishap occurs over allies.

So it's a conditional - a mishap doesn't happen if you do not land on a model. It's not future tense. Your argument makes no sense and therefore cannot be correct.

Right, so it's a conditional. A skimmer wouldn't fulfill that condition, since it would not land on the model.

Except it can only not land there when you are dealing with movement

We arent dealing with movement

Again: you are applying a rule pertaining to MOVEMENT to a rule that does not pertain to MOVEMENT. The illogic there is stunning

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The skimmers rule doesn't say "would". The mishap rule does, so your snarky comment about skimmers holds no substance.

It absolutely does.

It doesn't say that. BRB page 83.

Way to selectively quote! Reported.

rigeld2 wrote:

As for mishaps, they only happen if you "would" land on a model. Skimmers wouldn't, therefore no mishap occurs over allies.

So it's a conditional - a mishap doesn't happen if you do not land on a model. It's not future tense. Your argument makes no sense and therefore cannot be correct.

Right, so it's a conditional. A skimmer wouldn't fulfill that condition, since it would not land on the model.

Yes, it would. There is no rule allowing a skimmer to change its Deep Strike scatter distance. None.
There's a rule pertaining to movement. That's it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Right, so it's a conditional. A skimmer wouldn't fulfill that condition, since it would not land on the model.

Yes, it would. There is no rule allowing a skimmer to change its Deep Strike scatter distance. None.
There's a rule pertaining to movement. That's it.

Deep strike counts as movement. The scatter is only a mechanic of deep strike, directing where deep strike lands/moves.


EDIT: And report me as much as you like. I'm not going to NOT cut quotes down to what I'm responding to. Otherwise, a single reply to say simply "No." would be 8 pages long.

Except by cutting the quote you changed the meaning of it, mneaning it was no longer a quote. You do understand what a "quotation" implies, yes?

The scatter is not movement, and by the time you get to the thing that counts as Movement (finishing DS) you have mishapped. Guess you dont get to use your rule pertaining to movement when youre not moving after all...

However given your more than usual ignorance I guess you have me on ignore - meaning this is mostly just to help others into not thinking you are correct

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Right, so it's a conditional. A skimmer wouldn't fulfill that condition, since it would not land on the model.

Yes, it would. There is no rule allowing a skimmer to change its Deep Strike scatter distance. None.
There's a rule pertaining to movement. That's it.

Deep strike counts as movement. The scatter is only a mechanic of deep strike, directing where deep strike lands/moves.

Right. So when the Deep Strike finishes resolving you can apply movement rules to it. If you end up over models when you finish the Deep Strike the skimmer can float to safety.
By the time the Deep Strike has finished resolving you've already mishapped. So you will never have ended a Deep Strike over models. Or impassable terrain.

EDIT: And report me as much as you like. I'm going to reply simply "No.".

You changed the meaning of what I said, just as I did with your quote here. That's not just not the right way to have a discussion, it's downright rude.

I think an important part being overlooked is that the model is not even on the table until DeepStrike is fully resolved.
You're using a 'marker' (represented by the appropriate model), but the model itself, and any movement rules it may have, cannot be used. These rules belong to the model, not the marker used for determining DeepStrike.
Look closely at the early part of DeepStrike. You're using a marker, not the actual unit.

 grendel083 wrote:
I think an important part being overlooked is that the model is not even on the table until DeepStrike is fully resolved.
You're using a 'marker' (represented by the appropriate model), but the model itself, and any movement rules it may have, cannot be used. These rules belong to the model, not the marker used for determining DeepStrike.
Look closely at the early part of DeepStrike. You're using a marker, not the actual unit.

BRB page 36 wrote:First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

You're remembering 5th edition.

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I think an important part being overlooked is that the model is not even on the table until DeepStrike is fully resolved.
You're using a 'marker' (represented by the appropriate model), but the model itself, and any movement rules it may have, cannot be used. These rules belong to the model, not the marker used for determining DeepStrike.
Look closely at the early part of DeepStrike. You're using a marker, not the actual unit.

BRB page 36 wrote:First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

You're remembering 5th edition.

Ah you're quite right, ignore me!
Shows how much DeepStriking I've done lately.