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.

Azazel - well, you do when that is what the rule says. Shocked you keep missing that.

If you mean cherry picking, it seems that you agree that IGS rules tell to cherry pick "on top of model (friendly or enemy)" from causes of mishap, but do not pick "in 1'' distance from enemy model" as the obstacles that need to be avoided, yes?

No, it tells you that Enemy models are an obstacle, that causes a mishap. This obstacle must include the 1" field around the enemy model, as the two are instrinsically linked - the 1" only exists because of te enemy model.

Saying they arent linked is a very, very odd argument to make.

Is being within 1" of an friendly or enemy model being on top of a friendly or enemy model? No. Does the rule cover being within 1" of an enemy model? No. The Cherry picking is expanding the rule to include 1" of an enemy model, as an obstacle, and excluding other obstacles.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it tells you that Enemy models are an obstacle, that causes a mishap. This obstacle must include the 1" field around the enemy model, as the two are instrinsically linked - the 1" only exists because of te enemy model.

Saying they arent linked is a very, very odd argument to make.

They may be symbiotic, but they are separated in the deep strike mishap rule, so must be treated as separate entities when applied to other rules.

Except when you are told that an enemy model represents an obstacle, as that enemy model has more than just the "on top" of them that "impedes progress"

The 1" bubble absolutely 100% fulfils the requirements to be an obstacle presented by an enemy model. Do you have a rules argument otherwise? Because the language the game is written in supports the inclusion of the 1" bubble.

Slippery slope fallacies, like azazels, can be ignored.

Black Templar Codex pg. 22:
If this movement (2D6”scatter) would take it into impassable terrain or within 1” of an enemy model, reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them.

Seems clear to me what the RAI for drop pods in Codex Space Marines are.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
Black Templar Codex pg. 22:
If this movement (2D6”scatter) would take it into impassable terrain or within 1” of an enemy model, reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them.

Seems clear to me what the RAI is for Codex Space Marines is.

And the change, via FAQ:

Inertial Guidance System: 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. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the
edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike Mishap as
per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.”

when you are told that an enemy model represents an obstacle

In the IGS you are told that top of the model (friendly or enemy) represents an obstacle, though. Not quite exactly what you are telling.
When you substitute the rule phrases with your own, you may easily derive conclusions you want. Let us not engage in that activity.

This obstacle must include the 1" field around the enemy model, as the two are instrinsically linked - the 1" only exists because of the enemy model.

They are linked, yes. But they are distinct as well. There are situations in which model moves into 1'' area of enemy model, but never on top of enemy model (disregarding wrecked vehicles as they aren't counted as models anymore). A mathematition would say that places on top of the model are subset of places within 1'' of it, but not the other way around and thus they are not equivalent.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
Black Templar Codex pg. 22:
If this movement (2D6”scatter) would take it into impassable terrain or within 1” of an enemy model, reduce the scatter distance by the minimum necessary to avoid it/them.

Seems clear to me what the RAI is for Codex Space Marines is.

And the change, via FAQ:

Inertial Guidance System: 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. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the
edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike Mishap as
per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.”

Main reason to FAQ that particular rule was that it did not have a contingency for when you landed on your own troops, hence the change to: another model (friend or foe). It does not change the fact that the 1” rule was part of the ‘obstacle’ from the get go.

JJust because GW, in their attempt to fix an oversight in their rules did more harm than good does not change the initial intent of the rules.

I thought other friendly units are impassable terrain in 6th. Is that not so?

Not so, as they managed to omit that rule - they have stated you cannot move through other units, but only as a rule in the ASsault section. Bit of a mess.

At least they addressed moving through friendly models in the last FAQ.

Thats a bit of a turn up, that was a stunning omission, especially given how clear it was in 5th

The problem is, the sentence structure itself defines what an obstacle is, and that doesn't include the 1" bubble.

If I were to say, "We are having a race. You must stay on the track. Occasionally, there will be a road block. When there is a road block, you may avoid the obstacle by going around it on the track."

This says nothing about being able to leave the track, or drive off the track to avoid spike strips. The word "obstacle" is specifically referring to the road block, and nothing else. Spike strips next to a road block would be the equivalent to the 1" bubble. You have permission to avoid the road block, but not the spike strips. Same with the 1" bubble.

RAI? Probably not. But it is current RAW. If you added the 1" bubble for IGS, you'd basically have to assume that skimmers would get the 1" bubble as well, but that's another debate. Neither one says that.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The problem is, the sentence structure itself defines what an obstacle is, and that doesn't include the 1" bubble.

This is not at all true.

As nos correctly stated:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
you are told that an enemy model represents an obstacle, as that enemy model has more than just the "on top" of them that "impedes progress"

The 1" bubble absolutely 100% fulfils the requirements to be an obstacle presented by an enemy model. Do you have a rules argument otherwise? Because the language the game is written in supports the inclusion of the 1" bubble.

Do you have a rules argument otherwise?

Betray - it specifically states the enemy model is an obstacle. An enemy model impedes progress in 2 ways - one by directly landing on top, and the other by landing within 1". You are artificially limiting the rules text by stating only the former is the obstacle, when this is not supportd by the language the game is written in.

To correct your imprecision: the rules text does not "define" obstacle, but it sels the context that Obstacles are considered in- those Obstacles derived from enemy,friendly and impassable terrain.

 Bausk wrote:
Deepstriking is a form of movement, following both the drop pods rules and the rules for movement you would need to place the drop pod out side of an inch. Simple.

Except that Deepstriking is not a form of movement, it is a form of deployment. Deepstriking only occurs when moving units from off board to on board. As such it precedes the movement phase and is not part of it. There are a few limited examples of movement mechanics that work like Deepstriking and they are specifically referred to, i.e. Gate of Infinity, The Summoning.

I do agree however that the Inirtial Guidance System prevents the Drop Pod from a mishap deployment by stopping the Pod 1 inch from an enemy unit or impassable terrain. It is possible to deploy into difficult terrain and would neccessitate a dangerous terrain check in that instance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - well, you do when that is what the rule says. Shocked you keep missing that.

The 1" extra is entirely based on the definition of "obstacle" as being "anything that hinders or impedes progress". Please tell me how to use that stupidly-broad definition in such a way that it gives you 1" from an enemy model, but not 12" from a Warp Quake libby.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except when you are told that an enemy model represents an obstacle, as that enemy model has more than just the "on top" of them that "impedes progress"

The 1" bubble absolutely 100% fulfils the requirements to be an obstacle presented by an enemy model. Do you have a rules argument otherwise? Because the language the game is written in supports the inclusion of the 1" bubble.

Slippery slope fallacies, like azazels, can be ignored.

Oh, great. You don't know what a slippery slope is.

My situation is an actual, in-game situation, that causes a rule to break due to your RAI argument, which on its face, invalidates your interpretation.

Azazel - because Warp Quake has nothing to do with the enemy models mishap, but a psychic power from that enemy model. Your failure to use context isnt our issue here, but yours.

No, I know what a slippery slope is. You're changing the argument to bring in a slope of other things that it "breaks" You did this in the other thread as well.

If you avoid altering peoples arguments you can avoid your fallacies. That would be a start.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - because Warp Quake has nothing to do with the enemy models mishap, but a psychic power from that enemy model. Your failure to use context isnt our issue here, but yours.

No, I know what a slippery slope is. You're changing the argument to bring in a slope of other things that it "breaks" You did this in the other thread as well.

If you avoid altering peoples arguments you can avoid your fallacies. That would be a start.

Deathreaper's argument is this:
"the definition of obstacle is 'anything that hinders or impedes advancement', a a mishap qualifies as such, therefore IGS moves the extra 1" to prevent the mishap"

And my argument is this:
"that interpretation of 'obstacle' is far too broad, because using that definition consistently treats the mishap caused by Warp Quake as an obstacle, therefore IGS moves to avoid the Warp Quake bubble"

You need an extreme level of cognitive dissonance to claim one but not the other.


EDIT: if the language in the game supports 1", then it also supports 12" when Warp Quake is in effect. RAW.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Deathreaper's argument is this:
"the definition of obstacle is 'anything that hinders or impedes advancement', a a mishap qualifies as such, therefore IGS moves the extra 1" to prevent the mishap"

Why do people keep doing this?

Please stop misrepresenting me and retract that statement.


This is not my argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Your view of my argument ignores context. my argument does not ignore context.

Thanks.

it specifically states the enemy model is an obstacle

You keep saying this.
But that's not how it is
Specifically, droppod landing on top of model (friendly or enemy!) is mentioned, which isn't how you describe it at all.
In fact, enemy models are mentioned in the rule only as throwaway clarification, and the rule would function exactly the same if (friendly or enemy!) clarifier was not included.

Azazel - and despite us pointing out your misrepresentation multiple times, you continue to repeat it.

Correct it.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Funny as it came up at Adepticon this year in round 1.

.... And?

Also love how my explanation for how warp quake works with IGS is ignored. Good times.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Deathreaper's argument is this:
"the definition of obstacle is 'anything that hinders or impedes advancement', a a mishap qualifies as such, therefore IGS moves the extra 1" to prevent the mishap"

Why do people keep doing this?

Please stop misrepresenting me and retract that statement.


This is not my argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Your view of my argument ignores context. my argument does not ignore context.

Thanks.

Would it be more accurate to say your argument is "Any object of effect emanating from impassible terrain or another model (friend or foe!) that hinders progress is an obstacle." ?

 TheKbob wrote:

Also love how my explanation for how warp quake works with IGS is ignored. Good times.

not ignored, just over looked. Have a link?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or option X, the rules work perfectly well, as "Obstacle" is made equivalent to Mishap, as that is what it is telling you you are avoiding.

Maybe it would be easier if you both stopped using mishap.

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Deathreaper's argument is this:
"the definition of obstacle is 'anything that hinders or impedes advancement', a a mishap qualifies as such, therefore IGS moves the extra 1" to prevent the mishap"

Why do people keep doing this?

Please stop misrepresenting me and retract that statement.


This is not my argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Your view of my argument ignores context. my argument does not ignore context.

Thanks.

I'd rather double down, thanks:

Deathreaper wrote:No you have not, as obstacle is defined as "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress" From the Oxford dictionary. The 1 inch no fly zone is an obstacle when dealing with enemy units.

RAW tells us to avoid the obstacle, if you do not avoid the obstacle when dealing with an enemy unit you have not followed the rules. this is RAW.

The basis is you need to avoid the obstacle, which you have not done unless you move an additional 1" away from an enemy unit

source

Deathreaper wrote:Because you do not use the dictionary definition of Obstacle.

If you know what Obstacle means, then you would agree.

Obstacle from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a thing that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress:"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/obstacle

source

Deathreaper wrote: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

source

Deathreaper wrote: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.

source

Deathreaper wrote: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

source

There's actually a lot more of these, but I think everyone gets the point by now. You lost this one, friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - and despite us pointing out your misrepresentation multiple times, you continue to repeat it.

Correct it.

Given the above instances, please feel free to apologize anytime, Nos.

Did you see the wording "Anything" in any of my quotes?

My quotes reference enemy units, and not just simply "anything that hinders or impedes advancement" as you stated

Please feel free to apologize anytime

Azazel - nope, you still owe DR an apology as despite going to all the effort to find the posts, you still didnt bother to read them

"when dealing with an enemy unit", from the very first quote you gave.

Do you see how that isnt your "anything is an obstacle" claim of DRs argument? Do you now, possibly, see the context to which "obstacle" has been applied by DR>

Will you now stop misrepresenting, and actually apologise?

You lost this one, a long time ago.

...This is insane!

Why would they write this rule to have no effect whatsoever?

Why would they list models (friend or foe!) as reducing the scatter distance to avoid a mishap if they could have just NOT listed models?

I don't play drop pod lists, but I would never ever try this WAAC "rule" on my friends that do. It's just ugly. If someone did this to me, this would be a model scoop and walk away.