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.

katfude wrote:
...This is insane!

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

Well, it would still protect you from Impassible Terrain and the like?? That's more than any other deep striking unit gets...

Iranna

katfude wrote:
...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.

I love this one. It does more than the skimmer moving off of models it is force to end on top of rule. Why did they wright such a pointless rule that might come up in one out of a hundred games? It does next to nothing, Tank shock moves models out from under the tank, and it doesn't help for deepstrike(as written but I think it was meant to, just like I think it was intended for the drop pod) and it only might have an effect from 2 weapons in the game. If IGS is so useless, then the skimmer forced to end over a model rule is a waste of ink, and time of reading/writing.

Next to nothing != nothing.

katfude wrote:
...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.

GW has done that repeatedly in the past, but in this situation it still has an effect as it prevents the player who controls the Drop Pods from pushing opposing models around as you were able to do with the Monolith from 3rd edition. That rule also created situations were you could push models into other situations, potentially creating a domino effect of model movement that was just impossible to actually physically do. The new IGS rules simplify this type of rule by eliminating the push, but it does not create immunity to mishap.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

So how exactly, (other than cherrypicking) does the 12" bubble around a libby caused by Warp Quake differ from the 1" bubble, according to Deathreaper's interpretation?


I've got nothing more to contribute other than repetition now; my RAW explanation is a few pages back, and just like the last thread about this, everything has become repetitive.

 azazel the cat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

So how exactly, (other than cherrypicking) does the 12" bubble around a libby caused by Warp Quake differ from the 1" bubble, according to Deathreaper's interpretation?


I've got nothing more to contribute other than repetition now; my RAW explanation is a few pages back, and just like the last thread about this, everything has become repetitive.

Context.

That is how.

The context of the IGS rule mentions models. Enemy models are models. when dealing with an enemy model if you DS within 1 inch, that is an obstacle.

The IGS rule does not mention psychic powers or warpquake.

Please feel free to apologize anytime.

And you can still avoid a model and land within 1" which triggers a mishap. IGS does not give you immunity to mishap and it does not give you permission to place a model out side of 1". It prevents you from placing the model in such a way that it is physically impossible to do or in such a way that would be illegal. Whether you mishap or not is not cover under the rule and was FAQ'd in some codexes to remove context relating to the 1" rule.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
And you can still avoid a model and land within 1" which triggers a mishap. IGS does not give you immunity to mishap and it does not give you permission to place a model out side of 1". It prevents you from placing the model in such a way that it is physically impossible to do or in such a way that would be illegal. Whether you mishap or not is not cover under the rule and was FAQ'd in some codexes to remove context relating to the 1" rule.

It tells you to reduce the scatter to avoid the obstacle if you land on a model or impassible terrain.

In the case of an enemy model the 1" no land zone is a part of the obstacle. If you follow the context and know what obstacle means.

1" is the area in which a mishap occurs. The rules do not make any reference to the effects of mishap. It would clearly state so in the rules. You can avoid the object and not the mishap. It physically avoids the object but not the effect of being placed within 1" of an opposing model. The 1" buffer is not a concept associated with any other effects of deep striking. Assuming that RAI are to avoid the mishap, is just that an assumption and not RAW.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
1" is the area in which a mishap occurs. The rules do not make any reference to the effects of mishap. It would clearly state so in the rules. You can avoid the object and not the mishap. It physically avoids the object but not the effect of being placed within 1" of an opposing model. The 1" buffer is not a concept associated with any other effects of deep striking. Assuming that RAI are to avoid the mishap, is just that an assumption and not RAW.

If your argument continues to ignore the context then there is no reason to continue.

Good Day.

You are ignoring the context when you include the 1" bubble. It is not a model, any more than the Warpquake power is.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
You are ignoring the context when you include the 1" bubble. It is not a model, any more than the Warpquake power is.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means (Emphasis mine).

The context of the IGS rule tells us that when we are dealing with impassible terrain or models (remember that enemy models are still models) that we reduce the scatter to avoid these obstacles.

The reason we need to avoid the obstacles is because if the Drop Pod tried to land on them the pod would mishap. This is something that blocks one’s way or prevents or hinders progress. Therefore the IGS rule prevents a Drop Pod, when landing on models or Impassible terrain, from mishaping by reducing the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle. In the context of an enemy model this includes the 1 inch mishap zone around the models.

There are two types of context, the one based upon the language that is used and that of the setting. DR is using the context based on the setting of the rule. Myself and others are using the one based off the rules that are written. The reason most of us are using the ones based solely of the sentences as they are written is that we cannot know the full context of the rules as we did not write them. We only have what is in front of us. I cannot make the assumption that they wanted to avoid the 1" bubble based off what is written. I have to go on what is written which does not include the 1" bubble.

I've asked several times what other word could they have used to replace obstacle that does not have any additional connotations but have not received any response. There really is no other word that could be used to replace both a physical object such as a model as well as the representation of abstract concept like impassable terrain. Should we read more into it then that? I would say no.

Page 36 Deepstrike mishaps define what cause mishaps to occur, listing them as:

- Landing fully or partially off the table
- In impassible terrain
- On top of a friendly model
- On top of or within 1" of an enemy model

These are four separate base causes of mishaps. IGS avoids impassible terrain, friendly models and enemy models. So by extension IGS would reduce the scatter the minimum distance needed for the Drop pod to be outside the 1" from an enemy model as well to avoid the enemy model completely.

I think this thread has gone as far as it can constructively go. The arguments have presented and we're going around in circles at this point. Time to let it go.