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:

 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".

It doesn't say they never mishap, because they're still able to (and intended to be able to) mishap off the table. They're protected from mishap due to impassible or other models. Which in the case of enemy models, includes the 1" bubble.

@gravmyr:

If we don't include the 1" bubble around the enemy models as part of the "obstacle", then there is simply no point to the IGS rules. That entire rule may as well not have been written.

Also, it's not like this was a change from 5th. The DS rules are identical.

Let's, for a moment, assume that your interpretation is correct. Can you think of any other reason for IGS to even mention enemy units/models?

**edit**. Just reread your post from 4/7:

So, to fully state your opinion: you believe the entire purpose of IGS is to prevent a mishap over friendly models but allow a mishap over enemy ones?

 Mannahnin wrote:

It doesn't say they never mishap, because they're still able to (and intended to be able to) mishap off the table. They're protected from mishap due to impassible or other models. Which in the case of enemy models, includes the 1" bubble.

But it doesn't say that it includes the 1" bubble, which as shown by Gravmyr, is defined seperately elsewhere in the rules. The argument being made is that if you're including things it doesn't say in the definition of obstacle, then you are flirting with the idea that "obstacle" is some all-encompassing, magical word that would effect other things it doesn't say as well.

clively wrote:
@gravmyr:

If we don't include the 1" bubble around the enemy models as part of the "obstacle", then there is simply no point to the IGS rules. That entire rule may as well not have been written.

Also, it's not like this was a change from 5th. The DS rules are identical.

Let's, for a moment, assume that your interpretation is correct. Can you think of any other reason for IGS to even mention enemy units/models?

**edit**. Just reread your post from 4/7:

So, to fully state your opinion: you believe the entire purpose of IGS is to prevent a mishap over friendly models but allow a mishap over enemy ones?

In older editions DP Assault only worked on enemy models. Could they have been clarifying for players from previous editions that it now included all models? It was at this time they also removed the 1" bubble from what you avoided. Could we still be playing it incorrectly from then? IS it just convention that holds us using this rule instead of using it as written?

It's not the purpose but it is the result as they have written it. If the bubble is part of the enemy model as been has put forth and is not worth mentioning why would they define models as both enemy or friendly? Isn't it also implied that all models are one or the other per the rules? Yet they took the time to define that.... Is it a possibility that they could have been looking to create a long term edition that they could tweak without entirely changing the edition? Is it a possibility they could have been scaling back the power of the Drop Pod so you actually have to think about Drop Pod placement?

Edit: For those of you that don't know IG replaced the section about scatter that use to be part of Drop Pod Assault.

I've rewritten this about 10 times so far.

The mishap reasons, broken out as bullet points (based on the elements in the sentence) are:
- land partially or fully off the table,
- in impassable terrain,
- on top of a friendly model,
- or on top of [enemy model]
- or within 1" of an enemy model.

However, looking at IGS we are told to reduce scatter if we land "on top of":
- impassable terrain
- another model friendly
- [another model] foe

(note: I injected the bracketed parts as part of normal english language sentence parsing)

Now, IGS does a weird thing by ignoring the 1" part of the mishap rules. Going further, the word obstacles is only mentioned in reference to those three items; which means we can scratch items 1, 3 and 4 from the mishap list but that leaves #5. So, taken literally, I believe we have a RAW situation in which the "foe" part of the rule has no bearing on the result. Namely, the DP will mishap when it lands next to enemy models anyway (whether by scattering to just next to or purposely targetting that spot) so why include a provision for "on top of"?

So, if I was to judge intent I'd say that the purpose of including the word "foe" was to allow the DP scatter distance to be reduced to avoid that bubble from the #5 restriction in the mishap list. I'm making this judgement based purely on the fact that including "foe" has zero impact on the fact that a mishap will occur, unless it means to handle that situation as well.

I would like nos/dr/or others to explain how landing on "another model (friendly or foe)" overrides the "within 1" of an enemy model" part without using the movement rules as they've claimed those don't apply..

Either way, this was argued only 2 weeks ago: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/518371.page

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 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.

You should know better than that.

Leaving the board is not a model or impassible terrain so Inertial Guidance does not apply to that situation.

This is the type of inane arguments I talked about in another thread. This is really an argument?

Let's write a rule that does nothing. Because that's a good use of ink and our time. Are people arguing this just to prove how poorly written stuff is (hint: none of us are surprised by this anymore) or are they really trying to stop drop pods from reducing scatter and causing a mishap? I want to see anyone propose this happens in a legit game or tournament setting and see you either get the most dumbfounded stares, laughed at, and/or asked to leave.

This shouldn't even be a discussion. Drop pods are intended not to mishap. Done.

 TheKbob wrote:

Let's write a rule that does nothing. Because that's a good use of ink and our time. Are people arguing this just to prove how poorly written stuff is (hint: none of us are surprised by this anymore) or are they really trying to stop drop pods from reducing scatter and causing a mishap? I want to see anyone propose this happens in a legit game or tournament setting and see you either get the most dumbfounded stares, laughed at, and/or asked to leave.

This shouldn't even be a discussion. Drop pods are intended not to mishap. Done.

What are you doing here? This forum is for discussing rules as written. Go somewhere else with your "people will laugh", "everyone plays it like that" and "Drop pods are intended not to mishap" and "but this is pointless!".

To the topic. What about this tangential situation: Drop Pod scattering within 1'' but not on top of enemy model. In this case Inertial Guidance does not comes into effect, and mishap must occur.

PS. I do wonder, can Phased Reinforcements or a squad of Deathmarks drop down before squad(s) in Drop Pod disembark, thus destroying them by denying opportunity to leave the drop pod?..

Survivor19 wrote:
To the topic. What about this tangential situation: Drop Pod scattering within 1'' but not on top of enemy model. In this case Inertial Guidance does not comes into effect, and mishap must occur.

Yes a mishap will occur in that specific situation as the Inertial guidance wording says "Should a drop pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model..." P.32 BA Codex

In your situation the pod is not "scatter[ing] on top of impassable terrain or another model."

How does anyone know what the intent of the wording change is? In 4th you didn't mishap you simply lost the models you could not place making DS much less risky. In 5th they started to mishap. The IG rule we know didn't appear till then and they have not FAQed it to my knowledge. People simply assumed it included the bubble.

4th wording: " If this movement would take it into impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them."

5th Wording: "Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle."

In 4th they didn't even talk about friendly models in either DS or the DP rules which they changed in 5th, which would explain the addition of friend or foe. The 1" rule has existed since before 4th yet they included it in the original rule why remove it? Why change the wordage at all in terms of enemy models? I pointed out several ways the rule could have been written to all DP to act as people have been playing it. The simplest would have been to end it with "to avoid a mishap." As I pointed out I'm not sure it's ever been questioned as questioning GW's golden children of space marines is verboten. I'm simply pointing out that you have to argue intent to not have a mishap at all due to enemy models and that is not covered by the rule. I think both sides have stated their positions and it's clear it's a RAW vs RAI discussion at this point and therefor pointless.

 Gravmyr wrote:

4th wording: " If this movement would take it into impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them."

5th Wording: "Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle."

In 4th they didn't even talk about friendly models in either DS or the DP rules which they changed in 5th, which would explain the addition of friend or foe. The 1" rule has existed since before 4th yet they included it in the original rule why remove it? Why change the wordage at all in terms of enemy models? I pointed out several ways the rule could have been written to all DP to act as people have been playing it. The simplest would have been to end it with "to avoid a mishap." As I pointed out I'm not sure it's ever been questioned as questioning GW's golden children of space marines is verboten. I'm simply pointing out that you have to argue intent to not have a mishap at all due to enemy models and that is not covered by the rule. I think both sides have stated their positions and it's clear it's a RAW vs RAI discussion at this point and therefor pointless.

Why remove it?

Because "reduc[ing] the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle." Covers the 1 inch as not landing is an obstacle.

you do not have to argue intent, you have to argue context to not have a mishap at all due to enemy models and that is actually covered by the rule if you can parse the sentence correctly.

Survivor19 wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

Let's write a rule that does nothing. Because that's a good use of ink and our time. Are people arguing this just to prove how poorly written stuff is (hint: none of us are surprised by this anymore) or are they really trying to stop drop pods from reducing scatter and causing a mishap? I want to see anyone propose this happens in a legit game or tournament setting and see you either get the most dumbfounded stares, laughed at, and/or asked to leave.

This shouldn't even be a discussion. Drop pods are intended not to mishap. Done.

What are you doing here? This forum it for discussing rules as written. Go somewhere else with your "people will laugh", "everyone plays it like that" and "Drop pods are intended not to mishap" and "but this is pointless!".

To the topic. What about this tangential situation: Drop Pod scattering within 1'' but not on top of enemy model. In this case Inertial Guidance does not comes into effect, and mishap must occur.

PS. I do wonder, can Phased Reinforcements or a squad of Deathmarks drop down before squad(s) in Drop Pod disembark, thus destroying them by denying opportunity to leave the drop pod?..

I'm here to discuss actual discrepancies. This is not one of them and one of the dumbest arguments I have seen on YMDC. The rules for drop pods have been around for years and not FAQd for this. Maybe because it's forehead slapping simple?

Oh, yea, because it is. They don't mishap unless you fall off the table. How is that so hard to understand. The discussion about Drone controller plus counter defense systems, that's a real thoughtful discussion. This? Lol, get real.

 TheKbob wrote:
They don't mishap unless you fall off the table.

Don't you think, if this were the intention, it would have been simpler for them to write:

"When deep striking, drop pods don't mishap unless scattering off the table. In all other cases, simply reduce the scatter distance to avoid the mishap."


If this is what it said, no one here would be arguing this. This isn't what it says.



EDIT: formatting

In 4th you actually just lost the WHOLE unit Gravmyr, you are misremembering the rule.

In 5th was the first time DS "mishap" wasnt immediately deadly.

Betray - its called future proofing, and would mean that Warpquake and other similar abilitiies would not operate.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Don't you think, if this were the intention, it would have been simpler for them to write:

"When deep striking, drop pods don't mishap unless scattering off the table. In all other cases, simply reduce the scatter distance to avoid the mishap."

Ignoring for a moment the fact that pods can also mishap if their original landing point is on something that they can't land on and they don't scatter, the fact that a rule could have been written in a way that is clearer doesn't make the current interpretation of it incorrect...

Move it an inch away from the enemy and move on.

The rules book can never or will ever be perfect. However some common sense has to be applied in order to prevent chaos from ruining the day. It's post seems to to be not so much a question as it is the need to argue...

Move it far enough away to avoid the obstacle.

However personally drop pods should land where ever and take the damage they deserve. To include a group of dudes it crushes.. Lol

DeathReaper wrote:
Because "reduc[ing] the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle." Covers the 1 inch as not landing is an obstacle.

you do not have to argue intent, you have to argue context to not have a mishap at all due to enemy models and that is actually covered by the rule if you can parse the sentence correctly.

That is intent. You are making a conscious decision to include that one inch and only that one inch as an additional consideration. The beginning of the rule tells you two very specific obstacles, as I have posted multiple times. Using obstacle is overly complex when compared to mishap, obstacle can mean anything including just the model or terrain. Consider this: I have a troop choice wedged into a nook with a 6" psychic power bubble causing mishaps between my unit and a safe area for your Drop pod to land. You take the chance and scatter onto the unit bypassing the power field. You reduce your scatter but if a mishap is considered an obstacle you would continue to reduce it till you could land safely, correct? Is the psychic power one of the things listed in the power as obstacles?

It doesn't say that you do not have mishaps due to enemy models, that is where you are interpreting something that does not exist. It is clearly stated that you do not mishap due to landing on top of enemy models. This is entirely different from not mishaping from enemy models. If you are counting the 1" bubble you are not landing on top of the model now are you? You would have to also allow DP to reduce scatter for simply landing in that bubble as well, which is also clearly not in the text of the rule. There are literally dozens of ways to have written this rule and have the bubble count and they didn't use a single one. Please list a single word other then obstacle which could have been used to cover both of the triggers, models and terrain. Would it not have been simpler to use mishap if they wanted you to avoid all mishaps from models or terrain?

nosferatu1001 wrote:In 4th you actually just lost the WHOLE unit Gravmyr, you are misremembering the rule.

In 5th was the first time DS "mishap" wasnt immediately deadly..

That depended on who landed where if the first model landed there yes but if only some of the subsequent models could not be placed due to impassable terrain only they would have been lost.

Again, incorrect. Any model that could not be deployed made the entire unit disappear.

Same criteria as 5th edition for triggering a mishap. All they did was stop making it immmediately deadly.

You are again not using the context definition of "obstacle" correctly, hence you are limiting the scope.

4th DS rules PG 84

"If you are unable to complete a circle of models without any of them coming within 1" of the enemy, entering impassable terrain or going off the table, the surplus models are destroyed."

If you use any mishap is an obstacle then the DP can never mishap. They have made it clear that it can.

Nope, any mishap caused by the obstacles mentioned. And an enemy model causes a mishap by being within 1", so that is the definition of obstacle for enemy models. The context is king

Apologies, I really misremembered that rule.

Context is king and context tells us landing on top of enemy models not just enemy models. They even went out of their way to add landing on top of enemy models in the DS rules instead of simply leaving within 1" as it previously was. Those two things give us context that the 1" bubble was intentionally left out.

@Betray. If the maneuvering thruster rule works as you describe, what is the benefit of the rule?

 Gravmyr wrote:
Context is king and context tells us landing on top of enemy models not just enemy models. They even went out of their way to add landing on top of enemy models in the DS rules instead of simply leaving within 1" as it previously was. Those two things give us context that the 1" bubble was intentionally left out.

And the context is MISHAPS caused by enemy models. And enemy models cause mishaps within 1".

Context is key, you are redefining context.

There is no context in this rule refering to all mishaps caused by models. They have specified in what context they are refering to, landing on top of models.

@Gravmyr. If the maneuvering thruster rule works as you describe, what is the benefit of the rule?

 Gravmyr wrote:
There is no context in this rule refering to all mishaps caused by models.

You might want to re-read the rule.

"Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (friend or foe!) then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." P.32 BA codex

It talks of scattering on top of models or impassible terrain.

Then it tells you to reduce the scatter by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle.

Obstacle is not defined in the BRB so we fall back on the common English definition of Obstacle, which of course is "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress"

In the context of an enemy model the 1 inch "no fly zone" around an enemy model is most definitely something that blocks one’s way and therefore included in the definition of obstacle.

Only if you ignore context does your argument hold water.

This may be redundant, but here goes to simplify this, I will edit later as I read but so far the arguments seem to be going in an infinite loop and I have to chime in...

step one; drop pod is rolled to come in for reserves.

step two; deployment location is decided (in a legal deployable location) and scatter is rolled

step three; the drop pod scatters (in this instance a direct hit was not rolled) the distance and direction is measured and darn the pod would land on an obstacle (or two depending on terrain or units on the board.

step four; move the pod back towards the original location until it can actually land in a legal location, as this is considered a move in the movement phase the drop pod (BRB PG. 10) must be no closer than 1" of an enemy model, friendly models this does not matter.

step five: deploy the drop pod (ignore the petals as per GW) on the table and dis-embark the models inside.

step six; don't be a TFG and have some fun this is only a game, the rules can only define so much or else we will have set of rules the size of the united states code of laws wich in the currently printed form spans 200,000 pages and then we would have no way to truly play as the fun will be totally sucked out.

so let it go, be cool, and have fun.

Again They limited it's effectiveness via either intention or poor writing. They defined the obstacles in the start of the rule landing on terrain or models. I'm still waiting for another term that could have been used in place of obstacle. There isn't one. As such the language they are using may or may not include additional "obstacles" in the way.

You may want to look at that parsing again yourself. See how it says the obstacle, not any obstacle. That tells you that it is refering to the thing that triggered the rule landing on the impassable terrain or landing on the model.

Is landing within 1" of an enemy model what triggers the rule? No.
How can that be the obstacle in that case?

Only if you ignore context of the sentence does your arguement hold water.

Yea... enemy units are an obstacle, so you reduce the distance so you avoid it.

Keep in mind you can't reduce past 0. So if you scatter left and have to reduce by moving to the right, you can only go as far right as your original starting point.

And yes, you have to maintain 1" distance.

Which would be fine if the DS rules did not separate landing on an enemy model and landing within 1" of an enemy model. Then the IG uses only one of them in it's wordage.