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.

You can't disembark from a zooming flyer per the brb pg 80. They had to add rules to fliers to make it possible like invasion beams for the nightscyhte.

Yes, they have a functional method of disembarking. As do all Flying Transports (through extra rules, and/or Hover). So the disembark rules are in no way rendered non-functional.

The point being that this...

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's a nonfunctional interpretation. When your interpretation renders half of a rule meaningless, that's a good sign of a bad interpretation.

Is very sound advise.

DJGietzen wrote: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?

I'd answer this, DJGietzen, but . . .

BetrayTheWorld wrote: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.

BetrayTheWorld already did for me. Deep Strike is an advanced rule for the Movement Phase, it trumps the normal movement rules by opening up the possibility that you'd be within the 1" buffer zone. So they added a piece to the advanced rule to make it so you end up having problems (a Mishap) if you do.

Anyways, judging by the vote thread the majority of people (nearly overwhelming, but I'll wait for there to be more than 100 votes before saying that) seem to agree here. Only 6-8 people think Gravmyr is on to something and 60+ don't, so I think I'll drop out now. Can't explain why I think the argument is flawed more clear than I have.

It may be a more advanced rule, but unless it explicitly overrules the restriction on being within 1" of an enemy model, the basic rule still wins out.

Just to clarify grrrfranky: Deep Strike does not have to explicitly state anything of the sort. Under the basic rules it is impossible to move within 1" of an enemy model. Deep Strike throws in Scatter Dice however, so mere chance can mean you end up within 1". This makes the advanced rules of Deep Strike trump the basic rules forbidding such a thing. This is why they added a specific clause about you suffering a Mishap if you would end up within 1" of an enemy model. That makes it so that its impossible for you to break their "one inch buffer" rule.

So again, advanced rule > basic rule.

cowmonaut wrote:
So again, advanced rule > basic rule.

Might want to re-read that rule.
In order for an Advanced rule to Override a Basic one they must contradict each other.

One one rule says you can't, and another says you can, they contradict. In this case the advanced rule wins out.

Here there is no contradiction. The Advanced rule doesn't say it allows you to move with 1", so it does not, cannot, override the basic rule. I'm afraid it really does need to specify.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. My take is that the rules state you can not purposely and willingly move a model within 1" of an enemy model, but that Deep Strike gives you a situation where you can unintentionally end up within 1". The various other situations where you can unintentionally be within 1" generally give you a free move so you can be 1" away from the enemy (see the dozen or so pages I listed previously in this thread). Deep Strike is different in that they don't do that, they tell you specifically its a Mishap.

And then you have the Codex rule that trumps the Deep Strike advanced rule in that IGS tells you to move to avoid the problem, putting you outside the 1" buffer.

Again, that's all my take on it. I'm not sure how to clarify it much further than that.

What grendel083 said. It's only where the rules contradict each other that advanced beats out basic, and as there's no reference to the 1" in the advanced rule, the basic one still holds true.

cowmonaut wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree there. My take is that the rules state you can not purposely and willingly move a model within 1" of an enemy model, but that Deep Strike gives you a situation where you can unintentionally end up within 1". The various other situations where you can unintentionally be within 1" generally give you a free move so you can be 1" away from the enemy (see the dozen or so pages I listed previously in this thread). Deep Strike is different in that they don't do that, they tell you specifically its a Mishap.

Well that's fair enough, and a valid interpretation.
I'm currently undecided in this debate, and can see the point on both sides.

My point being that the "Basic Vs. Advanced" rule has been brought up a couple of times in this thread, and was being applied incorrectly. It really isn't a rule that can be applied in this situation for the reasons I posted above.

Unintentional movement however, is a valid point. Gentlemen, please continue to debate!

 grrrfranky wrote:
What grendel083 said. It's only where the rules contradict each other that advanced beats out basic, and as there's no reference to the 1" in the advanced rule, the basic one still holds true.

But there IS a reference to it in the advanced rule. It tells you to scatter, then says if you scatter within 1" of an enemy, you mishap.

Yes, and if your contention is that Scatter is movement, NOTHING in the scatter rule actually allows you to move within 1", because the scatter rules do NOT override this.

Which is one way of showing you that scatter isnt movement....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and if your contention is that Scatter is movement, NOTHING in the scatter rule actually allows you to move within 1", because the scatter rules do NOT override this.

Which is one way of showing you that scatter isnt movement....

Actually, it doesn't work that way. There are other rules that can cause compulsory movement, and that have rules stating that if this causes you to move within 1" of an enemy unit, move the minimum distance so that you're no longer within that range, remove the model as being unable to place them, or, in the case of deep strike, mishap. There are SEVERAL rules that cause units to violate the 1" bubble, and all of them tend to have contingencies for when that happens. Deep strike scatter is no different, and DOES override that basic rule.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Now, there, right there, is the problem I keep trying to point out. The IGS rule does not say it will kick in if the drop pod would mishap. It only kicks in if you are going to land smack dab on top of another model or in impassible terrain. This leaves us with TWO possible drop pod mishap events. A) Landing partially or completely off the table edge and B) Landing within one inch, but not on top of, and enemy model.

How can you suggest anything else? If you assume that drop pods only mishap at the table edge and that nothing else can cause a mishap then you can read between the lines here and give your self permission to avoid the second form of mishap I mentioned above. Other then your belief in what the IGS rule is meant to do, what what proof is there that a drop pod landing half an inch away from an enemy model does not mishap?

Like you said, it shouldn't make any difference if you land on them or beside them. You don't have permission to not land beside them when you scatter, why would you have permission to not land beside them when you adjust the scatter via IGS?

Betray - so as your contention is that scatter is movement, provide the rule that states you may move within one inch. Page and para

You will find a rule stating what happens IF you end up within an inch, however that is not the same as having a rule allowing you to actually perform that action
Additionally I assume you take dangerous terrain tests for scattering through terrain as well?

Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - so as your contention is that scatter is movement, provide the rule that states you may move within one inch. Page and para

You will find a rule stating what happens IF you end up within an inch, however that is not the same as having a rule allowing you to actually perform that action
Additionally I assume you take dangerous terrain tests for scattering through terrain as well?

Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT.

You WOULD take a dangerous terrain test for scattering onto dangerous terrain, if there weren't already a rule that says if you would do so, you mishap. The rules for scatter say that you place the marker where scatter would take you, and resolve according to the rules. You aren't given permission to NOT penetrate the 1" bubble. Under that line of thought, no units could mishap ever by scattering to within 1" of an enemy unit. The 1" buffer is a basic rule. If an advanced rule has mechanics that can come in conflict with that, the advanced rule takes precedence.

Basic rule - You aren't allowed to move within 1" of an enemy unit unless you're charging.

Advanced rule - Roll dice for scatter, and place your model where the scatter dice indicates. Anything that prevents you from being able to deploy your model there(ie, being within 1" of an enemy) causes you to suffer a mishap. Roll on the deep strike mishap table.

There's no rule that causes a mishap for a dangerous terrain test.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The rules for scatter say that you place the marker where scatter would take you, and resolve according to the rules.

The underlined is not what the rules for scatter say.

The actual rules state "First, place one model frorn the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and ro11 for scatter to determine the model's final position." P.36

You place a model.

You WOULD take a dangerous terrain test for scattering onto dangerous terrain, if there weren't already a rule that says if you would do so, you mishap.

This really does not address what Nos was saying. Plus you do not mishap for landing on dangerous terrain, no such rule exists.

5th edition deep strike "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice."

Same wording.

No rule to mishap on dangerous terrain, scroll back to check this in this thread as well.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - so as your contention is that scatter is movement, provide the rule that states you may move within one inch. Page and para

You will find a rule stating what happens IF you end up within an inch, however that is not the same as having a rule allowing you to actually perform that action
Additionally I assume you take dangerous terrain tests for scattering through terrain as well?

Scatter is NOT MOVEMENT.

You WOULD take a dangerous terrain test for scattering onto dangerous terrain, if there weren't already a rule that says if you would do so, you mishap.

No such rule exists. You may want to recheck your rulebook.

Again: your contention is that SCATTER == MOVEMENT. Please find a rule stating this.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:The rules for scatter say that you place the marker where scatter would take you, and resolve according to the rules. You aren't given permission to NOT penetrate the 1" bubble.

There is a specific restriction stating you may not MOVE within 1" of an enemy model. Find PERMISSION in the scatter rule (which you are stating is movement) to violate that restriction. Specific rule.

BetrayTheWorld wrote: Under that line of thought, no units could mishap ever by scattering to within 1" of an enemy unit.

Yeah, you still havent understood the point I am making

Your contntin: scatter is movement
My rules based argument: scatter is NOT movement, because the ruls for scatter never invoke the movement rules. My hints to you were to point out that for it to be scatter you could never mishap, and you woudl take dangerous terrain tests for passing THROUGH (see, reading is key!) dangerous terrain, not just landing in the terrain (and not mishapping due to other elemtns, such as enemy models)

The point I am making, to reiterate, is that Scatter is NOT movement. Any attempt to claim it is movement suffer a burden of proof you will be unable to pass.

In 5th you placed a model as a marker.

"in the position you would like the unit to arrive"

Gravmyr - that is the bit that makes it a marker. The unit has explicitly NOT arrive

Gravmyr wrote:

 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.

It mentions nothing of the bubble which is unarguably part of the obstacle the enemy model presents and is avoided given the wording of the rule. The distinction you are drawing comers from the qualifier for the rule to be invoked which you are misinterpreting as part of the effect. If you would land on an enemy model you avoid the obstacle entirely(bubble included). If you do not land on it but are within 1" of the enemy model then you mishap since you have not met the qualifications for the rule.

I'm not arguing for scatter or DS either way. We know DS is movement. If you search you will see a thread, which I started, where I agreed that skimmers could not use their rule for DS. I was simply pointing out the beginning line for DS in 5th and 6th is virtually identical. If it was a marker in 5th it is still a marker in 6th.

5th "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice." BRB small edition pg 95
6th "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." BRB pg 36

I can't seem to find the part that made it a marker in 5th. Can you quote me the part that makes it a marker out of 5th?

Edit: I agree it is a marker BTW.

Abandon wrote: It mentions nothing of the bubble which is unarguably part of the obstacle the enemy model presents and is avoided given the wording of the rule.

My point exactly see previous posts.

They are both a marker, as when placing a model you put it "in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position." 36

In 6th its a marker as well (Edited my previous posts).

rigeld2 wrote:
There's no rule that causes a mishap for a dangerous terrain test.

You're right, my mistake. So yeah, you'd take a dangerous terrain test for landing in dangerous terrain.

So you missed his point entirely. Well done.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you missed his point entirely. Well done.

No, I'm just not going to rekindle the argument about scatter being movement, because it doesn't matter. DS is movement, and scatter is simply the mechanic that tells you where that movement is directed. Rolling for scatter on DS is the same as rolling run distance for a run move. It's just rolling dice to see where you end up.

It's really not - or you would roll for dangerous terrain for scattering through it, and not just ending there.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's really not - or you would roll for dangerous terrain for scattering through it, and not just ending there.

There is no "scattering through it". You just change the position that your deep strike occurs at.

So.. It follows none of the rules for movement, but its movement.
Cool story.