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.

 TheKbob wrote:
Grav, you're looking at it from just the physical impediment whilst the rest of us view it as the game or strategy impediment. The latter is the correct view on this matter.

Again, I reiterate, why would they write something into a codex with the full intention of you moving off the enemy models but still causing a mishap? Now granted, GW doesn't always make the most sense, but this seems highly illogical to waste ink on a scenario where you move off enemy models and are still screwed.

It's okay to be like "whoops, yea I'm wrong. Sorry, guys!"

QFT

at this point I think I will say something here as well, when we resort to arguing definition and grammar to prove a point, I think we are beyond good discussion and are just jabbing at each other with blunted sticks. this is pretty clear what was meant, everyone IRL that I have talked to about this is wondering how this has gone on for so long...I think it is time we learn to be adults and either accept when you are wrong as well as kindly take the other sides generosity in giving the proverbial 'field'.

 TheKbob wrote:
The latter is the correct view on this matter.

Actually, that's a matter of debate, hence the debate.

It's super-annoying when people resort to, "I'm right, you're wrong, har har" in a supposedly mature debate. Always facepalm-worthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chaplaincliff wrote:
this is pretty clear what was meant

He is arguing a RAW debate, not RAI. I don't think anyone is majorly arguing RAI, but Grav has made a good point which would lead me to question it. If RAI was that the 1" bubble was part of the obstacle, why would they remove that statement from later editions of the books?

Nevermind, don't answer that. Again, this isn't RAI. Trying not to get sidetracked into an intent discussion.

I get what you are saying RAW v RAI betray, but this has become a back and forth slam head against the wall type of discussion, when it comes to RAW I don't think we will find any kind of middle ground on this one because of bad wording.

I wish we could get a solid RAW resolution, I just don't see it on the horizon.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
The latter is the correct view on this matter.

Actually, that's a matter of debate, hence the debate.

It's super-annoying when people resort to, "I'm right, you're wrong, har har" in a supposedly mature debate. Always facepalm-worthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chaplaincliff wrote:
this is pretty clear what was meant

He is arguing a RAW debate, not RAI. I don't think anyone is majorly arguing RAI, but Grav has made a good point which would lead me to question it. If RAI was that the 1" bubble was part of the obstacle, why would they remove that statement from later editions of the books?

Nevermind, don't answer that. Again, this isn't RAI. Trying not to get sidetracked into an intent discussion.

Please, prove us definitively wrong.

AGAIN why even waste ink the book if it's not intended to prevent mishaps over enemy units. Why? Oh, that's right, it's plain as day to a great majority of the gaming community. Drop pods don't mishap unless they fall off the table (or a special rule exists to mess 'em up, too). The same wording is kept in all the books. So by your very logic, why would they KEEP including something that would have zero game effect? Oh, that's right, because it's forehead-slapping obvious that you "avoid the obstacle," meaning the enemy models and their 1" threat range.

Like I said, there's a significant consensus from my own anecdotal experience playing 40K across three states in multiple gaming groups and various level of tournament play (local to grand national invitational). So the burden of proof is on you to prove against the status quo. And some griping over some poor grammar is NOT enough.

This isn't a mature debate. Mature yes, debate no. You're trying to prove something wrong that no one except a small vocal handful object towards. Just because you can post a contrary discourse on YMDC doesn't mean it's a truly valid argument.

 TheKbob wrote:


We already cannot stack models on top of each other. My models can never be within 1" of enemies unless is CC. That's a part of the BRB. The other instances where this would happen, say a stunned flyer, result in "Crash & Burn." Even when placed within 1", but not on top of, enemy units.

Well, no this is not true. The BRB tells us not to intentionally move one inch or closer to an enemy model unless we are charging them in the assault phase. Even the basic rules for a charge do not allow for the possibility for one model to be on top of another model. The BRB then provides a few exceptions via advanced rules where this sort of intentional movement is allowed. It is in these advanced rules, like tank shock, that tell us what to do to avoid models being placed on top of each other. We also have unintentional movement, like scatter or crash and burn, and these advanced rules also tell us not to place our models on top of other models. This is what I mean when I say it is handled on a case by case basis.

If we take the instruction that I cannot move my models within 1 inch of an enemy model and use it as the reason I cannot place my models on top of enemy models, even when deep striking, it would also mean that when deep striking I could not place my model within 1 inch of an enemy model. This would prevent all deep striking units from mishaps caused by being to close to the enemy.

 TheKbob wrote:

I already agreed with insaniak and many others (and every gaming group I have played in over 3 years across 3 states...), you move drop pods to avoid the obstacle. Drop pods don't mishap. This is the first time in three years I have been playing this game that I have ever heard anyone attempt to insinuate otherwise. Even playing in every form of tournament; from local to grand level. I know that C:SM has been out longer then that and if it was anything but super simple, it'd have been FAQ'd. Ergo, common sense tells us "avoid the obstacle". How is it avoided? Move it until no ramification (positive or negative) is required (however obstacle conveys a negative connotation).

This argument is still pretty silly, to me.

Edit: Most of these type arguments should really come with a poll. If it's not a near split on the issue, then there is probably a good reason why it's generally accepted one way or the other. In this instance, it's nitpicking some shoddy writing from GW and almost every individual picking up the correct RAI.

You never directly answered my question. If a drop pod scatters to within 1 inch of an enemy model but is not on top of that model do you move the drop pod or does it mishap? It sounds like you would move the drop pod but I have to ask why? What in the IGS rule allows you to do that?

If you did mishap after the drop pod correction there would be no reason to even have the drop pod correction rule in the first place since there is difference in what happens either way. So we are now left with the question of why make a rule that would never actually matter anyways. So the only logical conclusion is that there is no mishap unless you actually manage to miss the table.

The rule would still matter. GW may have learned from its former Monolith rules, which could be used to push opposing models from their position. As they rewrote this rule in different incarnations they removed this ability to push.

 White Ninja wrote:
If you did mishap after the drop pod correction there would be no reason to even have the drop pod correction rule in the first place since there is difference in what happens either way. So we are now left with the question of why make a rule that would never actually matter anyways. So the only logical conclusion is that there is no mishap unless you actually manage to miss the table.

the rule prevents you from placing your drop pod on impassible terrain or on top of another unit. Here is a list possible drop pod deep strike results with and without the IGS rule as I've described it.

The Drop Pod ... | Without the IGS Rule |With the IGS Rule[u]

would end it's move partially or fully off the table. | The Drop Pod mishaps. |The Drop Pod mishaps.

would end it's move in impassable terrain. | The Drop Pod mishaps. | The Drop Pod is moved.

would end it's move in any other kind of terrain. | The Drop Pod does not mishap. | The Drop Pod does not mishap.

would end it's move on top of a friendly or enemy rnodel. | The Drop Pod mishaps. | The Drop Pod is moved.

would end it's move within 1" of an enemy model. | The Drop Pod mishaps. | The Drop Pod mishaps.

As you can see, the rule is not a "waste of ink" and still provides a service.

Unless one of you can post wording from the rule itself I have to assume the model or terrain itself. Occum's Razor tells us so.

Again the mishap can't be the obstacle as it is not there till after you can't deploy. Reference previous posts. If the mishap is the obstacle then it is too late to move it as it isn't triggered till after you can't deploy.

Until someone can actually post a rules reason not intent or RAI then I'm out.

Gravmyr wrote:
Unless one of you can post wording from the rule itself I have to assume the model or terrain itself. Occum's Razor tells us so.

Again the mishap can't be the obstacle as it is not there till after you can't deploy. Reference previous posts. If the mishap is the obstacle then it is too late to move it as it isn't triggered till after you can't deploy.

Until someone can actually post a rules reason not intent or RAI then I'm out.

Look at the thread, there are numerous rules reasons.

Choosing to ignore them does not make them go away.


In the case of an enemy unit what is the obstacle that needs to be avoided?

Well the enemy unit and getting to close causing a mishap is the obstacle that needs to be avoided. Linguistically this is the correct application of obstacle.

Call me crazy here, and if this has been mentioned before, I am sorry. But. what if, somehow, we viewed this 1" 'buffer zone' as impassible terrain, as this buffer zone is not a unit, but is terrain you cannot move into. Thus the rule is activated for the 1" buffer zone and you can move the pod out of this zone that in fact is impossible to move into, unless you are assaulting.

Easy, land within 1" of an enemy unit, but not on it, did you just incur an obstacle that would stop your progress of deep striking?

Yes.

Move the damned thing. Done.

They don't mishap. I have never, ever seen anyone in three years claim otherwise. Again, from new dudes to GT players. Asinine argument. I don't have my multiple Space Marine variant codecis on hand, but I'd bet they all have the relatively same wording when it comes to this subject (tyranids, as well).

 TheKbob wrote:
Easy, land within 1" of an enemy unit, but not on it, did you just incur an obstacle that would stop your progress of deep striking?

Yes.

Move the damned thing. Done.

They don't mishap. I have never, ever seen anyone in three years claim otherwise. Again, from new dudes to GT players. Asinine argument. I don't have my multiple Space Marine variant codecis on hand, but I'd bet they all have the relatively same wording when it comes to this subject (tyranids, as well).

The IGS rule does not say "If the Drop Pod would mishap..." it only gives you permission to move the pod if it would land on top of an enemy or friendly model, or in impassible terrain. You have absolutely no permission to move it if it lands within one inch of an enemy model but not on top of it. Why would you assume you could?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chaplaincliff wrote:
Call me crazy here, and if this has been mentioned before, I am sorry. But. what if, somehow, we viewed this 1" 'buffer zone' as impassible terrain, as this buffer zone is not a unit, but is terrain you cannot move into. Thus the rule is activated for the 1" buffer zone and you can move the pod out of this zone that in fact is impossible to move into, unless you are assaulting.

that is a RAI argument I can live with. No book with me atm to see if it has any RAW standing.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Easy, land within 1" of an enemy unit, but not on it, did you just incur an obstacle that would stop your progress of deep striking?

Yes.

Move the damned thing. Done.

They don't mishap. I have never, ever seen anyone in three years claim otherwise. Again, from new dudes to GT players. Asinine argument. I don't have my multiple Space Marine variant codecis on hand, but I'd bet they all have the relatively same wording when it comes to this subject (tyranids, as well).

The IGS rule does not say "If the Drop Pod would mishap..." it only gives you permission to move the pod if it would land on top of an enemy or friendly model, or in impassible terrain. You have absolutely no permission to move it if it lands within one inch of an enemy model but not on top of it. Why would you assume you could?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chaplaincliff wrote:
Call me crazy here, and if this has been mentioned before, I am sorry. But. what if, somehow, we viewed this 1" 'buffer zone' as impassible terrain, as this buffer zone is not a unit, but is terrain you cannot move into. Thus the rule is activated for the 1" buffer zone and you can move the pod out of this zone that in fact is impossible to move into, unless you are assaulting.

that is a RAI argument I can live with. No book with me atm to see if it has any RAW standing.

ok, give me a shot at getting this from RAW:

BRB Pg 90 states; The rules for impassable terrain cover those areas of the board that warriors physically cannot enter."...."Models cannot enter, cross or move into or through impassable terrain - they must go around."

this part fits the argument to a 'T', with models being generally unable to enter the 1" buffer zone outside of one exception, this part of the rule would seem to label the buffer zone as impassible terrain.


BRB Pg 90 also states; Note that this category is used for terrain that is actually, physically impassable. If you want terrain that is more or less lethal, look to dangerous terrain and lethal terrain, covered later.

this may turn a wrench into the works here, so I will try to work this one out a bit. I can see the argument that 'physically impassable' means that because you can IRL place a model in the space 1" next to an enemy model it is passable. I say not really, Physically impassible in the context of the game means any terrain that a model cannot pass through, thus the 1" buffer zone is actually Impassible terrain with one printed exception of assaulting units.


I hope this one works out.

Using your reasoning for 'physically impassible' means we determine it on a case by case bases. For example a skimmer can enter the 'zone' but other vehicles cannot. If we do this that being instructed to move my model into the zone by an advanced rule would mean its not impassable terrain and we are right back where we started. Sadly I would say there is no context argument for what 'physically impassible' means. I literally means a model cannot be placed in the terrain and based on what you posted here I would say there is no RAW argument to be had.

Survivor19 wrote:

The BRB defines an obstacle as either impassable terrain or landing on/near an enemy unit.

That's a bold statement. If BRB defines it, then surely providing quote and a page number, where quote has the form of "The obstacle means..." or something to the effect, shouldn't be a problem.

Alright, fair enough. Looks like 'obstacle' is never defined anywhere, despite being used more than a dozen times throughout the book. Apparently they are using the dictionary definition of obstacle, but arguing dictionary definitions is a weak argument and against the rules regardless. As far as I can tell only the two rule exerpts appear to be relevant to this thread:



Gravmyr is arguing that because the Inertial Guidance System special rule for Drop Pods doesn't explicitly list everything the way the Deep Strike Special Rule does that you mishap if you are within 1" of an enemy model.

This is a stupid argument.

Look, the IGS special rule tells you to reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle, yes? The rules of the game do not let you be within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging it in the Assault Phase. Ergo, if you are avoiding an enemy model/unit, you have to maintain the minimum distance allowed by the rules.

MODELS IN THE WAY
A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they
are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move
past,they must go around.

Page 10, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book(6th Edition)

Starting here, and continuing on pages 21, 27, 30, 36, 38, 79, 80, 85, 86, 95, and 98, one of the core constants of the entire game: You cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of Close Combat.

The IGS special rule doesn't need to explicitly state this. It is already a well established fact. If you are going to reduce the distance to 'avoid the obstacle' that is the enemy model, you implicitly have to move so you are 1" away from the enemy model in question.

Any arguments otherwise are disingenuous IMO.

cowmonaut wrote:

Gravmyr is arguing that because the Inertial Guidance System special rule for Drop Pods doesn't explicitly list everything the way the Deep Strike Special Rule does that you mishap if you are within 1" of an enemy model.

This is a stupid argument.

Look, the IGS special rule tells you to reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle, yes? The rules of the game do not let you be within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging it in the Assault Phase. Ergo, if you are avoiding an enemy model/unit, you have to maintain the minimum distance allowed by the rules.

MODELS IN THE WAY
A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they
are charging into close combat in the Assault phase. To move
past,they must go around.Page 10, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book(6th Edition)

Starting here, and continuing on pages 21, 27, 30, 36, 38, 79, 80, 85, 86, 95, and 98, one of the core constants of the entire game: You cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of Close Combat.

The IGS special rule doesn't need to explicitly state this. It is already a well established fact. If you are going to reduce the distance to 'avoid the obstacle' that is the enemy model, you implicitly have to move so you are 1" away from the enemy model in question.

Its not a stupid argument. Its actually quite reasonable. Stupid is rude to say btw. I think you mean flawed.

You are reasoning that we cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of close combat so no model could ever deep strike within 1 inch of an enemy model and the IGS rule does not need to repeat this information. This simply cannot be true.

Deep Strike Mishaps
Deep striking onto a crowded battlefield may prove
dangerous, as one may arrive miles from the intended
objective or even materialize inside solid rock! 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 model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.
The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap
table and apply the results. If the unfortunate unit is also a
Transport, the Deep Strike Mishap result applies to both the
unit and anything embarked within it.

Page 36, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book (6th Edition)

If your reasoning is correct the highlighted portion would have no meaning. Terminators would never mishap from being to close to an enemy model, nothing would because it is impossible with your reasoning.

Are you saying nothing can mishap because it is within 1 inch of an enemy model?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its not a stupid argument. Its actually quite reasonable. Stupid is rude to say btw. I think you mean flawed.

No, I meant stupid. The argument is lacking common sense and intelligence IMO. Flawed is just a PC way of saying stupid. I've made stupid arguments before that I thought weren't stupid at the time. I'm not going to coddle someone just because they might be easily offended by a word. It isn't like I called Gravmyr stupid. I don't think he is, I just think he's wrong.

I also think the argument is unreasonable. It is just grasping too much at straws and relying too much on assumptions that don't jive with the rest of the rules in the BRB.

 DJGietzen wrote:
You are reasoning that we cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of close combat so no model could ever deep strike within 1 inch of an enemy model and the IGS rule does not need to repeat this information. This simply cannot be true.

Why not, pray? The rules do not let you, willingly or unwillingly, move within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging them in the Assault Phase. For crying out loud, if your unit falls back in the Assault Phase and doesn't get the minimum distance necessary to be farther than 1" from an enemy model the rules tell you to move the minimum distance for all your models to be more than 1" from an enemy model! Check out all those page numbers I listed. Every single one of them has a rule where either it says you can't be within 1" of an enemy, or that if some sort of movement or result would leave you within 1" of an enemy that you get automatically moved for free so you are more than 1" away.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Deep Strike Mishaps
Deep striking onto a crowded battlefield may prove
dangerous, as one may arrive miles from the intended
objective or even materialize inside solid rock! 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 model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.
The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap
table and apply the results. If the unfortunate unit is also a
Transport, the Deep Strike Mishap result applies to both the
unit and anything embarked within it.

Page 36, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book (6th Edition)

If your reasoning is correct the highlighted portion would have no meaning. Terminators would never mishap from being to close to an enemy model, nothing would because it is impossible with your reasoning.

Are you saying nothing can mishap because it is within 1 inch of an enemy model?

Not at all! If a normal unit Deep Strikes and scatters within 1" of an enemy unit, they definitely mishap. The model you place before you roll to scatter also cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model. But we are not talking about a normal unit. We are talking Drop Pods with Inertial Guidance Systems. IGS forces you to move your Drop Pod so you don't land on an enemy model, rather than mishap. You are not allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model outside of specific circumstances in the Assault Phase. So again, the basic rules of the game are what keep Drop Pods from having a mishap.

 DJGietzen wrote:
If your reasoning is correct the highlighted portion would have no meaning.

Which proves nothing more than that GW sometimes include superfluous text.

I would suggest, though, that it's there for clarity. IIRC, at least some previous editions didn't include specific mention of the 1"... which sparked the exact same discussion we're having now, just for regular Deep Striking rather than for drop pods specifically.

Are you saying nothing can mishap because it is within 1 inch of an enemy model?

Nobody is saying that, no.

The Deepstrike Mishaps rule has a list of obstacles. IGS has a very limited list, as in it has two of the six mentioned. This is the definition of Deepstrike obstacles. Using obstacle by the English language would then remove all of these, to include missing the table. Using the parameters set in the rule only has two of these items being protected against.

For ease, a list of obstacles:
Partially off the Table
Fully off the Table
In Impassible Terrain ****
On top of a Friendly Model ****
On top of an Enemy Model ****
Within 1" of an Enemy Model

**** protected by IGS

And to the poster who says GW doesn't waste ink on pointless rules, please read the skimmer rules. As they have a rule that might have an effect in 1 out of every 1000 games, unless it includes deepstrike. As forcing a skimmer to stop on top of a model can only very rarely happen, and is highly improbable when tank shocking.

No, stupid is the correct phrasing here. Asinine works quite well, too. Someone just posted the rules verbatum.

You don't avoid an obstacle by still being affected by it, now do you?

Make another thread, put a poll, and allow the same inane discourse to continue, but don't be surprised when a small handful votes "IT MISHAPS!" and the rest of the universe rules it the way it's been played for years.

It doesn't mishap. Avoid the obstacle. If I'm within 1" of the enemy model, I'm not avoiding the obstacle, now am I?

The landing within 1" of enemy models but not on enemy models may be debatable, but the rare instance this happens, I'd rather say w/e, back up 1/4" of an inch and go on. At the end of day, it's not that big of deal for the low odds of that happening (and the ensuing rules debate you're seeing here.) The accuracy of our measuring devices, viewing angles, etc. make that sort of nonsense not really worth it in my books, more so given IGS exists.

Edit: I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm sure the skimmer rule is there for a reason or will be given a codex update. Most of the new 6E stuff falls right in line with 6E rules. A lot of the special rules outlined in the BRB were not used until subsequent codex updates. A better wording of the phrasing would be then: outside of things made irrelevant by a FAQ or edition update (which in this case, drop pods still exist and IGS is still quite relevant), GW doesn't waste ink on rules. What's IGS say for the new DA codex? If it's the same, then case definitively closed.

And yea, if anything else lands within 1", it mishaps, unless it too has some special rule that pulls it's butt from the fryer. Never argued that because I'm talking about Drop Pods (and not skimmers, either...)

Gentlemen, Lets not sling around deragatory comments about others arguments, it's bad form.

Stupid, Assinine, dumb...etc, are not needed.

It's a disagreement about wording.

Once again, it's a RAW argument vs a RAI argument.

That being said. The RAI to me is clear and could be evidenced by prior rules and the understanding of what an obstacle is. Drop Pods don't mishap unless they scatter off the table. (There is that odd time where it will both land on models and would have scattered off the table, I believe that it should mishap in those casses, but I have no hopes of persuading anyone to that point of view.)

The RAW could go either way as there is ambiguity and proves again that RAW arguments just don't work all that often.

 Idolator wrote:
Once again, it's a RAW argument vs a RAI argument.

That sort of depends on your interpretation of the RAW. To my mind, both the RAW and the RAI on this are the same. For those who feel that landing within 1" is not the same as landing on the model, not so much.

Drop Pods don't mishap unless they scatter off the table.

Or their initial landing point is on something that causes a mishap, and they don't scatter.

cowmonaut wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
You are reasoning that we cannot be within 1" of an enemy model outside of close combat so no model could ever deep strike within 1 inch of an enemy model and the IGS rule does not need to repeat this information. This simply cannot be true.

Why not, pray? The rules do not let you, willingly or unwillingly, move within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging them in the Assault Phase. For crying out loud, if your unit falls back in the Assault Phase and doesn't get the minimum distance necessary to be farther than 1" from an enemy model the rules tell you to move the minimum distance for all your models to be more than 1" from an enemy model! Check out all those page numbers I listed. Every single one of them has a rule where either it says you can't be within 1" of an enemy, or that if some sort of movement or result would leave you within 1" of an enemy that you get automatically moved for free so you are more than 1" away.

Some might argue that arriving via deep strike is movement, others might claim it only counts as movement. Either discussion would be irrelevant as you pointed out (quoted below) that you cannot intentionally place the drop pod within 1 inch of the enemy model and the only way for it to get there is to scatter. You have claimed that the rules prohibiting a model moving within 1 inch of of an enemy model apply to the re-positioning of the drop pod via the IGS rule because you are instructed to 'move' the drop pod. Page 6 of the BRB also instructs us to 'move' the object that has been re-position via scatter.This means that models are prohibited from scattering within 1 inch of an enemy model.

cowmonaut wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Deep Strike Mishaps
Deep striking onto a crowded battlefield may prove
dangerous, as one may arrive miles from the intended
objective or even materialize inside solid rock! 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 model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.
The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap
table and apply the results. If the unfortunate unit is also a
Transport, the Deep Strike Mishap result applies to both the
unit and anything embarked within it.

Page 36, Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book (6th Edition)

If your reasoning is correct the highlighted portion would have no meaning. Terminators would never mishap from being to close to an enemy model, nothing would because it is impossible with your reasoning.

Are you saying nothing can mishap because it is within 1 inch of an enemy model?

Not at all! If a normal unit Deep Strikes and scatters within 1" of an enemy unit, they definitely mishap. The model you place before you roll to scatter also cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model. But we are not talking about a normal unit. We are talking Drop Pods with Inertial Guidance Systems. IGS forces you to move your Drop Pod so you don't land on an enemy model, rather than mishap. You are not allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model outside of specific circumstances in the Assault Phase. So again, the basic rules of the game are what keep Drop Pods from having a mishap.

Actually, for this part of the discussion we ARE talking about a normal unit. Lets use a specific normal unit. I have a Dark Angels Chapter Master in Terminator armor arriving via Deep Strike. If he scatters to half an inch away from an enemy model does he mishap or is he prohibited from moving with 1 inch of the enemy model?

Deep strike is an advanced rule, which overrides the basic rule that you cannot move within 1" of an enemy. Of course, deep strike goes on to tell us that if you WOULD scatter to within said distance, you mishap.

Playing that Drop Pods can land within 1" of enemy models and immediately mishap renders the inertial guidance system's mention of enemy models meaningless. It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Playing that Drop Pods can land within 1" of enemy models and immediately mishap renders the inertial guidance system's mention of enemy models meaningless. It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.

Half the rule is landing in impassible terrain. The other half is landing on top of another model (friend or foe!). Neither half is meaningless. Very little of the rule has to do with enemy models specifically.

If you land close to an enemy model, less then an inch, but not on top of it you would mishap. Why should landing smack dab right on top of an enemy model put you in a better position?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Why should landing smack dab right on top of an enemy model put you in a better position?

Uh, that's exactly the point, though... Arguing that IG only works if you actually land on the model, and not if you land right beside them, means that landing on the model is the better proposition.

What is being argued is that it shouldn't make any difference. If the enemy model would cause you to mishap, then IG kicks in and reduces the scatter to avoid them.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Playing that Drop Pods can land within 1" of enemy models and immediately mishap renders the inertial guidance system's mention of enemy models meaningless. It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.

and yet GW does this ALL the time. See disembarking from a flyer for example, which GW chooses to totally ignore in the case of Nightscythes. There are literally dozens of examples of rules like this.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Playing that Drop Pods can land within 1" of enemy models and immediately mishap renders the inertial guidance system's mention of enemy models meaningless. It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.

and yet GW does this ALL the time. See disembarking from a flyer for example, which GW chooses to totally ignore in the case of Nightscythes. There are literally dozens of examples of rules like this.

How so? They can disembark just fine, it's one of the best transports and flyers around.
Or are you talking about disembarking in general being a redundant rule on flyers? In that case it's a function of two rules (transport and flyer), and has a fully working rule to allow for disembarking. So it's in no way non-functional.