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.

 megatrons2nd 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.

I understand what obstacle means, I also understand English sentence structure. The obstacle is not all obstacles. So if you avoid Utheu 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 Uthe obstacleu 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.

One of those three is added because it is inherent to the enemy model and therefore a part of the obstacle you are told to avoid. IE:

1. You are told to get to the other side of a clearing and avoid an obstacle, in this case a wall(impassable terrain). You walk around the wall. Easy. The wall has no way to hinder your progress if you don't run into it.

2 You are told to get to the other side of a clearing and avoid an obstacle, in this case a machine gun nest. You go a long way around because this obstacle can hinder your progress at a distance even though it is not larger than the other.

As you claim to understand English you should know that an obstacle is not limited to something physically in the way.

 DJGietzen wrote:
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.

Which, in the context of the IGS rule, is only the enemy models (Which includes anything linked to the enemy models) and Impassible terrain.

Now remember, my example is ONLY meant to point out that the oxford definition of obstacle is unsuitable for the IGS rule.

It is not unsuitable, as your example ignores context.

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.

Again do not ignore context. If you do then your situation viable, but if you do not ignore context your situation is not viable.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
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.

So what happens, since the is singular, if you land partially on a model and partially on Impassible terrain?

The obstacle has to be anything that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. When looking at enemy models the can't land within 1 inch does in fact block one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. Therefore it has to be included.

I haven't ignored any context. Landing on an enemy will cause a mishap. Landing next to an enemy model will also cause a mishap. Landing on lethal terrain will cause the drop pod to be destroyed. Only the 1st is prohibited by the IGS rule.All three hinder progress. The 1st and the second cannot be the same obstacle because the 1st is prohibited by the IGS rule and the 2nd is permitted. If we presume the IGS will will treat the 2nd additional obstacle as something we must also avoid while we are reducing scatter because it 'hinders progress' then we must also conclude the 3rd is such an obstacle as well.

As a result something that is hindering progress is not a sufficient definition.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Landing next to an enemy model will also cause a mishap.

This is an obstacle, in the context of the IGS rule, as the context deals with models and impassible terrain. This is something that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress in relation to the unit. therefore Obstacle is the correct context.

Landing on lethal terrain will cause the drop pod to be destroyed.

Which is not a model or Impassible terrain, therefore context dictated you do not reduce scatter to avoid this.

You are adding an additional rule by moving outside of 1" that does not apply to any situation other than scattering into enemy models. This is not backed by any rule whatsoever.

GW more clearly defined this type of rule that you are implying and/or are assuming to be intended. It was very clearly written in that way under the Monolith Deep Strike Rules in the 3rd edition Necron Codex. GW choose not to word IGS in this manner. It is not RAW and incorrect to assume the GW intended it to work in such away, when they have proven an example in the past of more specific wording different from that used in IGS.

Your interpretation may very well be RAI, it is not however RAW and until clarified by an FAQ, should be treated in such a manner.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
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.

So what happens, since the is singular, if you land partially on a model and partially on Impassible terrain?

The obstacle has to be anything that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. When looking at enemy models the can't land within 1 inch does in fact block one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. Therefore it has to be included.

Since the 1" bubble is a separate obstacle in the Deep Strike rule, then it is a separate item. There is no "link" to it. As to partially on 2 effected items the rule would kick in, as it covers both instances. How would you do it if it was partially off the board and partially on a friendly model? I'm betting you would choose to use IGS to move off the model, thus saving you from misshaping off the board, as would I as it had a situation happen that activates the rule.

Apart from the Mishap being caused by the same entity, the enemy model. no, no link there.

OK I call shenanigans yet again. Nothing on the list as presented causes a mishap. Only one thing does. Not being able to deploy. You are then told what stops DS from allowing you to deploy. The Mishap is not a cause of anything it is a result of failure to deploy. There is a difference. The Mishap should never even be brought up in this discussion. If you want to say failure to deploy then fine but the mishap doesn't cause you a hindrance nor is it an obstacle, it is a result. Saying a mishap is an obstacle is like saying the resulting explosion is a hindrance not the object you just ran into.

Call what you like. You are trying to claim that the obstacle causing the mishap is NOT the obstacle causing the mishap, but something else entirely. WHen they arent. The 1" bubble IS the same obstacle as the enemy model, as they are intrinsically linked.

Actually, I apologize. It would indeed avoid the Lethal terrain as, and I quote,

BRB 91 wrote:Lethal terrain uses all the normal rules for impassable terrain save that models can never...

Since a drop pod would reduce scatter to avoid impassable terrain it would also reduce scatter to avoid the Lethal terrain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Call what you like. You are trying to claim that the obstacle causing the mishap is NOT the obstacle causing the mishap, but something else entirely. WHen they arent. The 1" bubble IS the same obstacle as the enemy model, as they are intrinsically linked.

They are not, as you can satisfy the rule for IGS and still mishap.

The mishap rule has the 1" from the model separate from the model. As the rule in question has it as a separate entity then it is a separate entity, and not part of the model.

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually, I apologize. It would indeed avoid the Lethal terrain as, and I quote,

BRB 91 wrote:Lethal terrain uses all the normal rules for impassable terrain save that models can never...

Since a drop pod would reduce scatter to avoid impassable terrain it would also reduce scatter to avoid the Lethal terrain.

Thank you for that Rig, I did not know that Lethal terrain was impassible.

I agree with you that "a drop pod would reduce scatter to avoid impassable terrain it would also reduce scatter to avoid the Lethal terrain."

I wonder what would happen if a Drop Pod scattered right on top of some Grey Knights utilizing Warp Quake... would the IGS simply reduce the scatter by the 12" necessary to avoid the mishap then? After all, it's an obstacle.

Or maybe this breaks the IGS rule with the "obstacle is anything that hinders progress" interpretation.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a Drop Pod scattered right on top of some Grey Knights utilizing Warp Quake... would the IGS simply reduce the scatter by the 12" necessary to avoid the mishap then? After all, it's an obstacle.

Or maybe this breaks the IGS rule with the "obstacle is anything that hinders progress" interpretation.

By RAW absolutely not. As it is not included in the IGS. By the way others are arguing it here on Dakka it would have to, as well.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a Drop Pod scattered right on top of some Grey Knights utilizing Warp Quake... would the IGS simply reduce the scatter by the 12" necessary to avoid the mishap then? After all, it's an obstacle.

Or maybe this breaks the IGS rule with the "obstacle is anything that hinders progress" interpretation.

]

This is not possible, as scatter can only be at max 12 inches. To scatter into warp quake and land over a unit means that the Drop Pod was initially placed in the warp quake, and would mishap as IGS only reduces scatter.

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a Drop Pod scattered right on top of some Grey Knights utilizing Warp Quake... would the IGS simply reduce the scatter by the 12" necessary to avoid the mishap then? After all, it's an obstacle.

Or maybe this breaks the IGS rule with the "obstacle is anything that hinders progress" interpretation.

]

This is not possible, as scatter can only be at max 12 inches. To scatter into warp quake and land over a unit means that the Drop Pod was initially placed in the warp quake, and would mishap as IGS only reduces scatter.

So then if it scattered 11" into a warp quake zone, do you contend that the IGS would reduce that scatter and prevent the mishap?

With Warp Quake, you'd move as per the BRB would require it, by not existing in a 1" bubble around enemies, but then special codex rules would take precedent. The Warp Quake rules don't allow you to exist within 1", but then they override the standard mishap rules. It's codex trumping codex trumping BRB.

Standard situation.

TheKbob wrote:With Warp Quake, you'd move as per the BRB would require it, by not existing in a 1" bubble around enemies, but then special codex rules would take precedent. The Warp Quake rules don't allow you to exist within 1", but then they override the standard mishap rules. It's codex trumping codex trumping BRB.

Standard situation.

Either I read that wrong or you missed the context:

Deathreaper's overly broad interpretation of "obstacle" implies that IGS should reduce the scatter of the DP in order to avoid the mishap, not just the physical obstacle. So then with his reasoning, it should follow that IGS should reduce the scatter on the DP in order to land outside of the Warp Quake bubble, or else it has not avoided the mishap, which Deathreaper considers to be an obstacle.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Deathreaper's overly broad interpretation of "obstacle" implies that IGS should reduce the scatter of the DP in order to avoid the mishap, not just the physical obstacle.

Only when the mishap is caused by being within 1 inch of a model.

So then with his reasoning, it should follow that IGS should reduce the scatter on the DP in order to land outside of the Warp Quake bubble, or else it has not avoided the mishap, which Deathreaper considers to be an obstacle.

Not at all. Do not ignore the context of the IGS rule. Warp Quake is a psychic power, not impassible terrain or a model.

IGS only reduces scatter if you scatter onto Impassible terrain or a model.

Scattering into a Warp Quake is neither impassible terrain or a model so you can scatter freely into Warp quake and it will cause a Drop pos to mishap.

Not the same situation at all.

It's the same thing you are arguing with the 1" bubble.

You can't have it both ways. Your argument is that save for drifting off the boards drop pods are immune to mishap, which is false. If you start making exceptions for situations like wrap quake you are ignoring the 1" rule from the brb.

Sounds like the same old Dakka arguments. Argue to you are blue in the face even when you are shown examples that you are wrong until GW FAQs one way or the other.

The problem is that Reaper refuses to uncouple the 1" bubble from the model. He considers both as the exact same thing.

The problem with this view is that the mishap rule has the 1" bubble being a separate entity from the enemy model.

If it were written other wise Reaper would be right, but as written IGS doesn't protect from the 1"bubble.

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Deathreaper's overly broad interpretation of "obstacle" implies that IGS should reduce the scatter of the DP in order to avoid the mishap, not just the physical obstacle.

Only when the mishap is caused by being within 1 inch of a model.

So then with his reasoning, it should follow that IGS should reduce the scatter on the DP in order to land outside of the Warp Quake bubble, or else it has not avoided the mishap, which Deathreaper considers to be an obstacle.

Not at all. Do not ignore the context of the IGS rule. Warp Quake is a psychic power, not impassible terrain or a model.

IGS only reduces scatter if you scatter onto Impassible terrain or a model.

Scattering into a Warp Quake is neither impassible terrain or a model so you can scatter freely into Warp quake and it will cause a Drop pos to mishap.

Not the same situation at all.

It actually is:

1. IGS states that you move the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle.
2. the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle will place the DP immediately beside the obstacle.
3. If the obstacle is an enemy unit, then the DP will be within 1" and will mishap
4. You claim "obstacle" refers to "anything that hinders or impedes progress" and because a mishap hinders or impedes progress, the DP moves the extra 1" to avoid the mishap.
5. Warp Quake effectively extends that 1" bubble to 12".
6. Therefore, according to the reasoning in #4, the IGS rule will cause the DP to reduce scatter such that the DP does not land within the Warp Quake bubble.

It's both or none; you don't get to cherrypick. The problem is...

if the scatter is less than the necessary amount to be reducsed so that the landing spot is outside of the Warp Quake bubble (as in, the player tried to deploy the DP within that bubble), then the rule breaks itself.

Therefore, if it has to be a choice between both or none, and both breaks the game, the answer must be none: the IGS rule does not give you the extra 1" needed to avoid the mishap according to RAW.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The problem is that Reaper refuses to uncouple the 1" bubble from the model. He considers both as the exact same thing.

The problem with this view is that the mishap rule has the 1" bubble being a separate entity from the enemy model.

If it were written other wise Reaper would be right, but as written IGS doesn't protect from the 1"bubble.

I've been reading through this thread and I must say, I agree that this interpretation is the strict RAW of the rule.

Not that it's HIWPI though, as I am convinced this is a case of bad rules writing yet again.

I stated quite clearly how they are still affected by warp quake.

You HAVE to stay 1" away from models per BRB and couple that with IGS and avoiding that specific obstacle, you do so. Then, you kick in Codex: Grey Knight rules. They make the area 1" to 12" away an automishap, not accounted for in Codex: Space Marines IGS rules.

Thus, Codex: GK > Codex: SM (or like) > BRB.

Easy path of logic to follow. You're all really trying WAY too hard to go against an extremely well established grain. Again, when have you ever seen anyone NOT playing it as such? Ever? I'll restate that I have played in tournaments from local to grand tournaments and this has never been addressed in any sort of FAQ or dispute between players/TO.

It really is a non-issue. The small sticking point of landing a drop pod within 1" but not striking any models is so rare that at that point, dice off? I still think IGS would protect them.

Funny as it came up at Adepticon this year in round 1.

couple that with IGS and avoiding that specific obstacle

Stopped reading after that.
Nothing in in IGS mentions that specific obstacle. Several specific obstacles are mentioned, but not 1''.
To include 1'' in obstacles that IGS applies to, one must introduce the notion of some all-encompassing obstacle, that covers thins not mentioned in IGS.

 azazel the cat wrote:
4. You claim "obstacle" refers to "anything that hinders or impedes progress" and because a mishap hinders or impedes progress, the DP moves the extra 1" to avoid the mishap.

This is true, but only in the context of landing on a model or impassible terrain.

Warp Quake is neither of these.

Azazel - you continally misrepresent this argument, and did so in the other thread
The claim is not, as you state "4. You claim "obstacle" refers to "anything that hinders or impedes progress" and because a mishap hinders or impedes progress, the DP moves the extra 1" to avoid the mishap. "
The claim i that the "Obstacle" is related to the enemy model / impassable terrain. Not ANY possible obstacle.

Please correct your error, as you have been asked to in previous threads

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
4. You claim "obstacle" refers to "anything that hinders or impedes progress" and because a mishap hinders or impedes progress, the DP moves the extra 1" to avoid the mishap.

This is true, but only in the context of landing on a model or impassible terrain.

Warp Quake is neither of these.

Yeah, that's cherrypicking. I'm afraid that doesn't work. You don't get to be the arbiter to decide when your rule applies according to your whims. So sorry.