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.

Then why even mention models?
Land on a model and you mishap, reduce the scatter or not, by that interpretation.

As you would not mishap when landing on friendly models as you would move the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle (landing on a model). Why did they leave landing within 1" of an enemy model out? Poor writing is my guess as the fourth edition DP specifically mentions landing within 1" of an enemy model. Option two would be it was intentional as they felt drop pods were too powerful giving free rain to drop large numbers of models into your opponents back field. By leaving out the 1" of enemy models you would be taking a chance to actually mishap or move the DP further away allowing enemies more of a chance to respond to the new threat. I read it as option two considering the push with the changes to reserves and charging.

Or option X, the rules work perfectly well, as "Obstacle" is made equivalent to Mishap, as that is what it is telling you you are avoiding.

If a mishap is the obstacle then a DP can never mishap and the FAQ indicates that it can mishap.

If you have two possible interpretations of a rule, one of which makes the rule function (reduce the scatter onto impassible or models by enough that it doesn't mishap) and one of which doesn't (reduce the scatter but still mishap anyway), then the problem is probably in your interpretation, not in the rule.

Or as I said poor writing. There is no interpretation here. It tells you what causes it to function which must be what is referenced later in the rule. The rule does function. You do not mishap over models or impassable terrain. There is another variable which use to be referenced, being within 1" of an enemy model.

Wouldn't have been easier to write landing on impassable terrain, friendly models, or within 1" of an enemy model if they wanted the 1" to be taken into consideration?

 Gravmyr wrote:
The rule does function. You do not mishap over models or impassable terrain.

Except if you land over a model, and reduce the scatter by just enough to miss the model and this does not include the 1", then you do mishap over enemy models.

Wouldn't have been easier to write landing on impassable terrain, friendly models, or within 1" of an enemy model if they wanted the 1" to be taken into consideration?

It might have been a little clearer, but not really necessary. If you are forbidden from moving within 1" of an enemy model, than a rule which tells you to move away from an enemy model automatically includes that 1" buffer zone.

It doesn't tell you to move away from the model it tells you to move so you do not land on the model.

It tells you to reduce the scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle. If you interpret obstacle NOT to include the 1" buffer, you are using an interpretation which causes the rule to fail.

Does the rule work over friendly models and impassable terrain? Yes.
Is it as effective as it could be? No.
Have they FAQed it to make it clear they did not want the DP to ever mishap? No.

What other word could they have used beyond obstacle to cover both models and impassable terrain which block your path?

You have to play the rule house rules to move them away 1". RAW the 1" is never even hinted at.

Occum's Razor tells us it does not include the 1".

Once again: If obstacles cause you to mishap, and you miishap as a result of an obstacle, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle?

Is landing on an enemy model the same as landing within 1" of an enemy model? There are two separate obstacles.

Does IG trigger if you land within 1" an enemy model but not over one? No.

Therefor they are treated as separate things.

Seriously, no one plays that way. It's a nonfunctional distinction.

Then you are breaking the rules.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Then you are breaking the rules.

Only by your reading of the rules. And by that reading the rule doesn't function.

Does the BRB differentiate between landing on an enemy model and landing within 1" of an enemy model?

 Gravmyr wrote:
Is landing on an enemy model the same as landing within 1" of an enemy model?

So far as the rules are concerned, since you are forbidden from moving within an inch of an enemy model, yes, they are exactly the same.

So, I answered your question, now kindly answer mine:

If obstacles cause you to mishap, and you miishap as a result of an obstacle, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle?

Is the1" caused by the model and is it preventing the pod landing?

 insaniak wrote:

It might have been a little clearer, but not really necessary. If you are forbidden from moving within 1" of an enemy model, than a rule which tells you to move away from an enemy model automatically includes that 1" buffer zone.

ohreally? So skimmers would not mishap over enemy units either?

Also, Insaniak, your other question you keep asking people to answer is a loaded question. I wouldn't answer it either, as I don't agree with your interpretation of the word obstacle. In the sentence in which obstacle is used, it refers ONLY to models and impassable terrain. Nothing else. The way you're wording the question, in order to answer it, you'd have to cede that your definition of obstacle is correct. I don't believe it is.

An enemy model, and the zone 1" around it, is an obstacle for deep striking. It causes mishaps. The Inertial Guidance rule tells us that if the scatter would take you over models or impassible terrain, to reduce the scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle. I think the meaning of "obstacle" here is clear.

insaniak wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
Is landing on an enemy model the same as landing within 1" of an enemy model?

So far as the rules are concerned, since you are forbidden from moving within an inch of an enemy model, yes, they are exactly the same.

So, I answered your question, now kindly answer mine:

If obstacles cause you to mishap, and you miishap as a result of an obstacle, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle?

You have to define "the obstacle" in that sentence. If you use the wording of the rule, Your question reads:

If landing on a model causes you to mishap, and you mishap as a result of landing within 1" of an enemy model, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid landing on an enemy model?

Yes.

If landing on an enemy model and landing within 1" are exactly the same why does the Deep Strike rule differentiate between them?

grendel083 wrote:Is the1" caused by the model and is it preventing the pod landing?

The 1" is created by movement rules and Deep Strike rules is does not exists as part of the model. The model itself is not causing the mishap nor is the model preventing the pod from landing.

Inertial Guidance tells us that if it scatters into impassible terrain or a model (Friend or Foe!) then to reduce the scatter by enough to avoid the obstacle. In the case of impassible terrain or friendly models, that means right next to them. In the case of enemy models, that means 1" away. The minimum distance needed to avoid the thing that's preventing a legal landing.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
In the sentence in which obstacle is used, it refers ONLY to models and impassable terrain. Nothing else.

They don't need to specify every time models are referenced that you can't move within 1" of enemy models. That would be pointlessly redundant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gravmyr wrote:
You have to define "the obstacle" in that sentence. If you use the wording of the rule, Your question reads:

If landing on a model causes you to mishap, and you mishap as a result of landing within 1" of an enemy model, have you reduced your scatter by enough to avoid landing on an enemy model?

And the answer is 'no' since in a system that forbids you from moving within 1" of an enemy model landing within 1" is the same as landing on the model.

Inertial Guidance tells us if it scatters on top of not into. That is my point. The rule itself defines obstacle as landing on top of a model or impassable terrain. There is no indication in the wording of the rule to take the 1" bubble into consideration at all. The old wording of DP Assault did clearly indicate it. It has always been a rule that is nothing new so why suddenly change the wording to exclude it? If they are always taking 1" into consideration why put both into the Deep Striking rule?

'Avoiding an obstacle' indicates you are to avoid any challenges/risks it may place in the path of your goal. In this case you are attempting to DS and anything that would interfere with that is in fact an obstacle. Enemy models create a 1" bubble in which you cannot DS. Unarguably that bubble is a part of the obstacle they present.

I really don't see how you separate the ' 1" away' part form the 'model' part. The enemy model is one obstacle that poses risks based on two rules, landing on top of it and landing within one inch of it. You are told to avoid this obstacle so you remove yourself from the dangers associated with it. If you do not, you have broken the rule.

Unless otherwise specified general definitions for terms should be used. If you get told to go to the other side of a clearing but to avoid an obstacle, lets say... a machine gun nest. Are you being told not to make physical contact with the it? No, you're being told to avoid taking fire from it because that is the main obstacle it presents.

 Abandon wrote:

I really don't see how you separate the ' 1" away' part form the 'model' part. The enemy model is one obstacle that poses risks based on two rules, landing on top of it and landing within one inch of it. You are told to avoid this obstacle so you remove yourself from the dangers associated with it. If you do not, you have broken the rule.

The rule itself is telling you that you do not count the 1" bubble by telling you landing on top of instead of within 1" which would cover both the bubble and the model. It does not on the other hand say "if you would mishap due to models or impassable terrain" which would hold up an interpretation of the mishap being the obstacle or the bubble being part of the enemy model.

 Gravmyr wrote:
The rule itself defines obstacle as landing on top of a model or impassable terrain.

No, it doesn't.
It doesn't define obstacle. So we need to take obstacle as meaning obstacle.
It's preventing the model from landing, it's an obstacle.

 Abandon wrote:
'Avoiding an obstacle' indicates you are to avoid any challenges/risks it may place in the path of your goal. In this case you are attempting to DS and anything that would interfere with that is in fact an obstacle. Enemy models create a 1" bubble in which you cannot DS. Unarguably that bubble is a part of the obstacle they present.

I really don't see how you separate the ' 1" away' part form the 'model' part. The enemy model is one obstacle that poses risks based on two rules, landing on top of it and landing within one inch of it. You are told to avoid this obstacle so you remove yourself from the dangers associated with it. If you do not, you have broken the rule.

Unless otherwise specified general definitions for terms should be used. If you get told to go to the other side of a clearing but to avoid an obstacle, lets say... a machine gun nest. Are you being told not to make physical contact with the it? No, you're being told to avoid taking fire from it because that is the main obstacle it presents.

That definition would mean that DPs never mishap. If that were the case, or their intention, it would have been much easier for them to simply say, "Drop pods never mishap. Simply move the model the minimum required distance to avoid the mishap."

It would have been a shorter rule, and much clearer. This is not the rule they went with. In the context rule I made up, obstacle would mean what you're saying. In the context of the actual rule, it specifically refers to models which block your ability to place your models on the table, not "mishap".

Back to the Rules that GW writes that are pointless/redundant. If a Drop Pod can ignore the mishap, so can skimmers. Skimmers have a rule that can only come into place when used with Deepstrike, and maybe 2 other situations. As has been pointed out, many times, a skimmer still mishaps. As the skimmer whose rule only effects a very limited number of rules mishaps, so does a Drop Pod whose rule also only works in the same number of very limited situations.

A Skimmer, if forced to end it's move over friendly or enemy models is moved the minimum distance so that they are no longer under it. This only would have Deepstrike, and a Grapple gun thing from the orks for it to function. Tank Shock does not have this effect, as tank shock specifies that the enemy models are moved out from under it. Further, as stated many times, it doesn't help for Mishap, meaning the rule has 1 function, ever.

The Defined obstacle is a model, and impassible terrain, it does not extend beyond the stated, any more than a skimmer can move off of other models during a deepstirke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
The rule itself defines obstacle as landing on top of a model or impassable terrain.

No, it doesn't.
It doesn't define obstacle. So we need to take obstacle as meaning obstacle.
It's preventing the model from landing, it's an obstacle.

So you reduce it for leaving the board? Missing the Board is an obstacle, as defined by obstacle.

How you separate the 1" from the model is defined by Deep Strike rules.

"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." Since only one of those conditions is specified by IG it is the only one that should be taken into account. If the Deep Strike rules simply said within 1" then yes it could always be considered part of the model for the Deep Strike rule.