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.

Yes but being instructed to move outside of 1" or a rule stating to avoid mishap are defined in rules. They are not defined in the context of IGS. That is RAW.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

The underscore definitely applies to this situation. Some in this thread are using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner. so rule 6 does not apply.

I am not, and your definition was done in a direct reply to me.

Wow 8 pages!! Great job everybody! Lets shoot for 15!

On the subject at hand: I am for what half of you are against and against what the other half are for!!!

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I am not, and your definition was done in a direct reply to me.

So define Obstacle then.

If yours falls in line with the Dictionary definition of a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress then there is no issue.

If you definition is incorrect in a very obvious manner, then there is an issue.

landing within 1 inch of an enemy model is definitely something that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I am not, and your definition was done in a direct reply to me.

So define Obstacle then.

If yours falls in line with the Dictionary definition of a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress then there is no issue.

If you definition is incorrect in a very obvious manner, then there is an issue.

landing within 1 inch of an enemy model is definitely something that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress.

it does not. You can avoid the obstacle. You have no permission whatsoever to avoid the mishap. RAW

The drop pod rule specifies the obstacles, they are enemy models and impassible terrain. That is the qualifier used in the rule, thus the obstacle has been defined as being these two items, nothing more.

Using the dictionary definition would include table edges, as that is an obstacle by the dictionary definition.

The Deep Strike rules for mishaps include a section defining what causes a mishap, and of these items, the 1" bubble is defined separately, so should be considered separate items when used with other rules.

The obstacle word is not being misused in an obvious manner, it is being used in the context of the rule provided, and some are expanding it marginally to include more than what is specified in the rule, but then go back on their definition the moment someone points out that the Board edge is an obstacle by the dictionary definition provided.

Basically, the definition is being used elastically, to expand beyond the defined model and impassible terrain, but not to include board edges. If used as defined than board edges are included. If used in the context of the rule, the 1" bubble is not included.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I am not, and your definition was done in a direct reply to me.

So define Obstacle then.

If yours falls in line with the Dictionary definition of a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress then there is no issue.

If you definition is incorrect in a very obvious manner, then there is an issue.

landing within 1 inch of an enemy model is definitely something that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress.

it does not. You can avoid the obstacle. You have no permission whatsoever to avoid the mishap. RAW

Only if you use obstacle "incorrectly in a very obvious manner" do you not avoid the mishap for landing near an enemy unit.

Therefore rule 6 does not apply in this situation as some are using obstacle "incorrectly in a very obvious manner"

In the case of an enemy unit the 'landing within 1 inch' is most definitely something that that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress as that is what Obstacle means.

So you are saying that drop pods ignore missing the table. If you are not you are using obstacle incorrectly.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
So you are saying that drop pods ignore missing the table. If you are not you are using obstacle incorrectly.

Please do not misrepresent my position.

Not in context of the sentence, since the sentence mentions two things, then the IGS rule only kicks in when scattering into those two things. It seems like context actually matters.

And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.

 grendel083 wrote:
If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.

Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean. The dictionary definition of the word is useful in these situations but is not the only information we must consult. The context of the words use is also important as is the contextual use of the word in similar writings. The English rules of grammar also way in on the subject but in the end it is a judgment call and as a result is merely an opinion and cannot possibly be correct or incorrect. That's why we have the most important rule.

In this case, obstacle is not defined and its contextual use has resulted to two polarizing different opinions. The only way for us to know what obstacle mean is for games workshop to define it for us through an faq or errata. This is a discussion what is the more reasonable opinion and why.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.

Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.

In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.

The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.

an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path

Using the above definition you only avoid the model as once it is out of the path... you're done.

Gravmyr wrote:
an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path

Using the above definition you only avoid the model as once it is out of the path... you're done.

Did you miss the second part of the definition?

"prevents or hinders progress"

the 1 inch mishap zone definitely "prevents or hinders progress". so it applies and you need to avoid the obstacle.

Did you miss the definition I quoted above?

an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path

That's from merriam-webster so a valid definition. Did you miss the second part of my definition? Is being within 1" of the model having it block your path?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.

Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.

In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.

The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.

in the context of the IGS rule an obstacle cannot be "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" as this definition to broad and/or vague. Here is an example (pictured attached but not drawn to scale. Important distances are noted.) A Salamanders drop pod wants to land on the other side of a lake of lava (lava in this game is lethal terrain) from some thousand sons. The sally player places his drop pod as indicated in the picture and rolls for scatter. To his dismay the drop pod scatters 6 inches over the lava and right on top of an enemy unit. With the oxford definition you have provided we must reduce the scatter to avoid anything (other then the table edge) that hinders progress. A pool of lethal lava hinders progress so we reduce the scatter all the way down to zero. Clearly this was not the intent of the IGS rule.

No, the lethal terrain doesn't hinder progress. There's no mishap, so no reduction of scatter.

Gravmyr wrote:
Did you miss the definition I quoted above?

an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path

That's from merriam-webster so a valid definition. Did you miss the second part of my definition? Is being within 1" of the model having it block your path?

We can evaluate one dictionary definition. Since these books are publish in the UK we should be using the most authoritative UK dictionary. I do not believe merriam-webster counts.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.

Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.

In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.

The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.

With the oxford definition you have provided we must reduce the scatter to avoid anything (other then the table edge) that hinders progress. A pool of lethal lava hinders progress so we reduce the scatter all the way down to zero. Clearly this was not the intent of the IGS rule.

Not true, as in context, the obstacle can only be applied to Units or Impassible terrain, not lethal terrain.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, the lethal terrain doesn't hinder progress. There's no mishap, so no reduction of scatter.

a mishap is not the only thing that hinders progress. All the marines inside being dead surely counts right?

 DJGietzen wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Did you miss the definition I quoted above?

an object that you have to go around or over : something that blocks your path

That's from merriam-webster so a valid definition. Did you miss the second part of my definition? Is being within 1" of the model having it block your path?

We can evaluate one dictionary definition. Since these books are publish in the UK we should be using the most authoritative UK dictionary. I do not believe merriam-webster counts.

That is why I posted the Oxford English version instead of the american english definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, the lethal terrain doesn't hinder progress. There's no mishap, so no reduction of scatter.

a mishap is not the only thing that hinders progress. All the marines inside being dead surely counts right?

Only if you ignore the context of the IGS rule, which states Obstacle = unit or Impassible terrain.

Is lava impassible terrain?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.

Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.

In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.

The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.

With the oxford definition you have provided we must reduce the scatter to avoid anything (other then the table edge) that hinders progress. A pool of lethal lava hinders progress so we reduce the scatter all the way down to zero. Clearly this was not the intent of the IGS rule.

Not true, as in context, the obstacle can only be applied to Units or Impassible terrain, not lethal terrain.

Why? How is lethal terrain any less in context then the single inch bubble. Neither are directly mentioned by the rule.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, the lethal terrain doesn't hinder progress. There's no mishap, so no reduction of scatter.

a mishap is not the only thing that hinders progress. All the marines inside being dead surely counts right?

Why would it? Do the marines have the IGS rule or does the pod?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Why? How is lethal terrain any less in context then the single inch bubble. Neither are directly mentioned by the rule.

Because the rule says "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 in order to avoid the obstacle." P.32 BA codex

You are required to avoid the obstacle in which situations?

When the Drop Pod scatters on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!). That is the only time you are told to avoid the obstacle, so Lava does not count unless you ignore what the rule actually says.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.

Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean.

Short of asking the author there's no way to know the intention. Trying to base a ruling on what you think the intention is (RAI) is all very good, but not everyone will agree with your interpretation.
You could also assume that the author meant the word he used to mean the word he used (hence why there was no rulebook definition). So a dictionary definition would be appropriate.
If the author meant "obstacle" to mean something other than obstacle, how would you suggest we determine what was intended?

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.

Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean.

Short of asking the author there's no way to know the intention. Trying to base a ruling on what you think the intention is (RAI) is all very good, but not everyone will agree with your interpretation.
You could also assume that the author meant the word he used to mean the word he used (hence why there was no rulebook definition). So a dictionary definition would be appropriate.
If the author meant "obstacle" to mean something other than obstacle, how would you suggest we determine what was intended?

With the rest of the post you did not quote. I did not say we cannot use the dictionary definition. I just said that we 'must' is an incorrect statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Why? How is lethal terrain any less in context then the single inch bubble. Neither are directly mentioned by the rule.

Because the rule says "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 in order to avoid the obstacle." P.32 BA codex

You are required to avoid the obstacle in which situations?

When the Drop Pod scatters on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe!). That is the only time you are told to avoid the obstacle, so Lava does not count unless you ignore what the rule actually says.

In my example the drop pod scattered over an enemy model. The IGS rule is now actively reducing the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle. Now remember, my example is ONLY meant to point out that the oxford definition of obstacle is unsuitable for the IGS rule. The argument present to me is that the 1 inch bubble around an enemy model while not the object that caused the scatter reduction, is still an obstacle because it hinders the progress of the drop pod. Lethal terrain does not cause the drop pod to mishap, but does certainly hinder its progress (because it will destroy the drop pod) would also be an obstacle under the oxford definition and if the argument presented to me is correct will also be avoided during the scatter reduction. Since no one can agree this is proper the use of the oxford definition of obstacle in relation to the IGS rule is clearly a mistake.

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.

Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean.

Short of asking the author there's no way to know the intention. Trying to base a ruling on what you think the intention is (RAI) is all very good, but not everyone will agree with your interpretation.
You could also assume that the author meant the word he used to mean the word he used (hence why there was no rulebook definition). So a dictionary definition would be appropriate.
If the author meant "obstacle" to mean something other than obstacle, how would you suggest we determine what was intended?

IMO your argument takes nit-picking to an extreme and I find it grossly absurd. As 'the obstacle' is not defined by the rule, only specifying which obstacle (the one you landed on) it must be applied to it's fullest which would include every manner of obstacle the enemy model presents. After all is said and done if you misshaped because of an enemy model it cannot be said you avoided it as it as an obstacle. That the qualifier for the rule(landing on the model) to be triggered is more specific than the obstacle presented by an enemy model (within 1" of the enemy model) does not mean the effect is limited to only that which triggers the rule and further more, to believe it does is a baseless assumption lacking any support from the text. I've now read 8 pages of misappropriated connections and 'we don't know what they meant by obstacle'.... well they could have meant pink fairies but unless they say that somehow we have to presume it as the common meaning of the term which would indicate any difficulty or hindrance caused by the enemy model that would interfere with the progress of the DS is to be avoided by shortening the scatter distance the minimum length required to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And as the context of the sentence does not include the 1" bubble, then the Drop Pod mishaps, as it is only moved enough to move off the model, the defined obstacle. Going further breaks the rule.

Not at all true if you understand what obstacle means.

In this case obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" (Because the brb does not define obstacle we have to use the common definition of said word) From the Oxford dictionary.

The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units. To say that it is not is to use obstacle incorrectly in a very obvious manner, as I have proven.

I understand what obstacle means, I also understand English sentence structure. The obstacle is not all obstacles. So if you avoid the obstacle, which is the enemy model, you have satisfied the rule. Adding the 1" bubble goes beyond what the rule allows, as it is a not covered obstacle. As you have pointed out the rule only covers friendly and enemy models, and impassible terrain. It does not say and 1" from enemy models. Which is a separate obstacle. The rule ends the moment it has missed the obstacle of the model. The board edge, lava and the 1" bubble are all obstacles by the dictionary definition, yet you seem to add one of the three, and disallow the other two.

You have only proven that "obstacle" covers more items than the rule allows for, nothing more.

 Abandon wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If there's no rules definition of a word, then we have to use a Dictionary definition.
Obstacle is not defined in any rules.

Well actually when a word is not defined by the rules we have to determine what the author intended the word to mean.

Short of asking the author there's no way to know the intention. Trying to base a ruling on what you think the intention is (RAI) is all very good, but not everyone will agree with your interpretation.
You could also assume that the author meant the word he used to mean the word he used (hence why there was no rulebook definition). So a dictionary definition would be appropriate.
If the author meant "obstacle" to mean something other than obstacle, how would you suggest we determine what was intended?

IMO your argument takes nit-picking to an extreme and I find it grossly absurd. As 'the obstacle' is not defined by the rule, only specifying which obstacle (the one you landed on) it must be applied to it's fullest which would include every manner of obstacle the enemy model presents. After all is said and done if you misshaped because of an enemy model it cannot be said you avoided it as it as an obstacle. That the qualifier for the rule(landing on the model) to be triggered is more specific than the obstacle presented by an enemy model (within 1" of the enemy model) does not mean the effect is limited to only that which triggers the rule and further more, to believe it does is a baseless assumption lacking any support from the text. I've now read 8 pages of misappropriated connections and 'we don't know what they meant by obstacle'.... well they could have meant pink fairies but unless they say that somehow we have to presume it as the common meaning of the term which would indicate any difficulty or hindrance caused by the enemy model that would interfere with the progress of the DS is to be avoided by shortening the scatter distance the minimum length required to do so.

Grossly absurd? That's strange as my argument is strangely similar to yours.
Obstacle isn't defined in the rules, so use the standard meaning. A hindrance. I would count the model and it's 1" effect as an obstacle.