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.

I had an argument with a player from the FLGS the other day that is bugging the heck out of me. The argument was with drop pods and how the scatter system works with them. I have seen people drop pod on the middle of a unit as placement and then just move it to the closest side that the pod would land safely. This is where the argument began.

1. He was saying if you placed the drop pod in this situation and rolled a to hit your pod would immediately mishap on the basis that a to hit is not a scatter. I countered with the wording on PG. 6 of the BRB that a scatter is whenever you roll the scatter dice even if it came up as a hit you're still technically scattering. He then argued that if the drop pod would still mishap because you must reduce the scatter by minimum amount possible so that the pod couldn't go anywhere since it reduces itself to 0 and is still on the unit and thus mishaps.

I agree with you, FTR.

One of the reasons I stopped playing the game, though - is stupid arguments like that. I don't miss them.

icefire78 wrote:
I had an argument with a player from the FLGS the other day that is bugging the heck out of me. The argument was with drop pods and how the scatter system works with them. I have seen people drop pod on the middle of a unit as placement and then just move it to the closest side that the pod would land safely. This is where the argument began.

(Emphasis mine)


The underlined is not the correct way to do it.

1. He was saying if you placed the drop pod in this situation and rolled a to hit your pod would immediately mishap on the basis that a to hit is not a scatter. I countered with the wording on PG. 6 of the BRB that a scatter is whenever you roll the scatter dice even if it came up as a hit you're still technically scattering. He then argued that if the drop pod would still mishap because you must reduce the scatter by minimum amount possible so that the pod couldn't go anywhere since it reduces itself to 0 and is still on the unit and thus mishaps.

The IGS for the DP's state that you reduce the scatter. If you place the model where it will mishap, it does not say to increase the scatter to avoid it, only to reduce the scatter.

Therefore if you scatter onto a unit or impassible terrain you will reduce the scatter distance to avoid the obstacle.

If you place the DP on top of a unit and it does not move you will mishap as you only reduce scatter to avoid obstacles.

Basically he was correct, the pod would mishap.

 chromedog wrote:
I agree with you, FTR.

One of the reasons I stopped playing the game, though - is stupid arguments like that. I don't miss them.

Well considering the OP was incorrect, his opponents argument was not really all that stupid...

By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches? Since the whole board by technicality is a x / y grid, with some z in it if you count raised terrain. Wouldn't I just reduce my scatter of 0 inches the opposite direction of the arrow and land safely. I am still reducing my number

icefire78 wrote:
By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches?

If you have to bring out some convoluted argument for suddenly counting negatives then you're probably doing something wrong. It would be like saying a hypothetical unit that's unaffected by Blessings is also unaffected by Maledictions since they're basically negative Blessings, right?

icefire78 wrote:
By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches? Since the whole board by technicality is a x / y grid, with some z in it if you count raised terrain. Wouldn't I just reduce my scatter of 0 inches the opposite direction of the arrow and land safely. I am still reducing my number

No where in the rules does it say you treat the board like a cartesian graph

also reducing tends to mean towards 0, not just subtraction

well no, convoluted though it may be, there is nothing stating negatives exist for this. A reduction into negative numbers is still a reduction unless it requires me to stop at 0. This player in question was arguing every rule possible so I'm trying to work up the counter argument to it. I won't be playing him again either way, but this part is of valid concern for me because it was an idea to drop a pod into the middle of a unit as the safest way to not scatter to far away from said unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also if you roll a to hit on the scatter dice is it still considered a scatter is the other big question.

'Reducing scatter' IMO is there for the express purpose of stopping this kinda thing.

You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

icefire78 wrote:By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches? Since the whole board by technicality is a x / y grid, with some z in it if you count raised terrain. Wouldn't I just reduce my scatter of 0 inches the opposite direction of the arrow and land safely. I am still reducing my number

If you don't roll any scatter distance, there is no 'negative' distance to scatter. Any direction you move the pod is scattering further than it should have, not less.

sam918 wrote:You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

This is incorrect. Placing a Deep Striking unit on top of another unit is perfectly legal (see the FAQ entry for the Mawloc, whose special Deep Strike rule would be useless if you couldn't aim him at a unit)... it's just normally unwise, since in most cases would result in a mishap unless you roll a decent scatter.

Think this has come up in the past as well, but lets go again

You need to place the model on the table according to the deepstrike rules. Since you can't place it on top of other models your "strategy" of placing it on top of the unit you want to fire at is illegal (unless you think magically levitating above the table is the same as placing on the table).
In addition to this the movement phase spells out that you cannot move within 1" of an enemy except when charging. Now there is some discussion onto whether or not arriving via deepstrike constitutes moving, but the phrase "In the movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further,." at the very least implies it is a movement.

Edit:
@ Insaniak: While it is a FAQ on how to apply the Mawlocs deepstrike, it feels more like an explanation on the "Terror from the Deep" special rule. If it had been a FAQ for deepstrike in general it should have been in the rulebook FAQ.

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

/Agree this is correct. Drop Pods and all Deep Strike actions must be placed legally before you can roll for scatter.

I'll take a crack at this.


First hurdle is if placing a deep strike point with anything other than a mawloc or monolith over a unit is legal.

Depends most likely on your playgroup and if they determine if arrive by deep strike is a movement or not.

Most playgroups avert this whole argument by saying that anything other than items with special rules will not be able to attempt to deep strike on top of other units and or don't have players that attempt this.

Lets assume its not a movement and its a special item that allows you to put the marker wherever you want.

So you have your deep strike target over another unit with a drop pod and you roll a hit, what happens.

You mishap, straight forward, you can't reduce scatter to get out of it because there is no reduction possible.

There is no rule that says a drop pod can't mishap, if you can't fulfill the requirements to avoid mishap from reducing the scatter due to the codex rules you go back to the rulebook saying you mishap.

Your whole playgroup can always decide to play the rules however it likes, but if your going to ask the general public your either going to get shot down at either that is not a legal place to deep strike, or there is nothing saying you can scatter however far you want to avoid mishap.



I'm going to give you a situation that shows you that the way its being playing is fairly broken, what if your opponent had a blob army and covered his deployment zone, someone in your play group decided he will send all his drop pods somewhere deep in his opponents deployment zone on top of his units, does the drop pod magically move 12+ inches to avoid mishapping, there is nothing in the rulebook to support this.

Again to sum up your FLGS may play however it likes, but to the average player either, its illegal to try to deep strike on top of a unit because you can't place the model there, or you mishap.

icefire78 wrote:
By argument couldn't you scatter negative inches? Since the whole board by technicality is a x / y grid, with some z in it if you count raised terrain. Wouldn't I just reduce my scatter of 0 inches the opposite direction of the arrow and land safely. I am still reducing my number

Not really since in the world of maths negative numbers are imaginary numbers and are not real numbers.

Placing a drop pod in the middle of a unit is certainly not within the spirit of the game. I doubt its even legal RAW anyway as I'm sure the deepstriking rules will say that you're not allowed to place a deepstriking unit over another unit already on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
This is incorrect. Placing a Deep Striking unit on top of another unit is perfectly legal (see the FAQ entry for the Mawloc, whose special Deep Strike rule would be useless if you couldn't aim him at a unit)... it's just normally unwise, since in most cases would result in a mishap unless you roll a decent scatter.

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway. Not sure if there is a rule or not otherwise but I wouldn't be surprised if there was.

The mawloc is a special case, and really shouldn't be used to set precedents for a 100% different model.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Not really since in the world of maths negative numbers are imaginary numbers and are not real numbers.

No they are not. Negative numbers are real numbers, and the distinction between imaginary numbers, real numbers and irrational numbers is not the same as "dose not exist".

However, if anyone tries to scatter a negative distance on your next turn turn all of your models backwards, move them anywhere you want on the board. If your opponent argues point out to them that under the same logic they used for scatter you have moved -50", which is less than +6".

Also, the board is not on an X/Y axis. The game dose not use Cartesian coordinates. The measurements are from a point outwards.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway. Not sure if there is a rule or not otherwise but I wouldn't be surprised if there was.

I agree. Specific rules for specific units don't really help answer the question.

I would say, no you can't. You scatter less than the maximum. If the maximum is 0 then you move less than that.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Not really since in the world of maths negative numbers are imaginary numbers and are not real numbers.

No they are not. Negative numbers are real numbers, and the distinction between imaginary numbers, real numbers and irrational numbers is not the same as "dose not exist".

My apologies, you are right. Something I misremembered about imaginary numbers from when I was younger.


[

disdamn wrote:

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

/Agree this is correct. Drop Pods and all Deep Strike actions must be placed legally before you can roll for scatter.

That is not true, there is no requirement to place the DSing models in a legal position before you roll scatter.

The problem with negative scatter is scatter is a direction and a distance. You can go left 0" but you can't go left -1" because now you are going right 1".
The drop pod IGS does not give you permission to change the scatter direction, only reduce the scatter distance.

My question is this: If a zooming flyer can't be placed where an enemy model is present than why would it legal to "target" your deepstrike location so that it is on an enemy model?

The flyer is not "technically" sharing the same table space as the other model so why can't it be said that the flyer is above the enemy model and therefore you place the flyer?

@icefire78

You are told to place the model on the table though. sitting on top of another model, is not on the table.

If you are holding the model deep striking over a unit, you did not place it as you are still holding onto it.

so your friend was right on this one.

and I agree with you can't scatter a negative amount.

disdamn wrote:

sam918 wrote:
You can't place the DP on top of the opponents units before you roll to shatter. You need to place it in a legal position (1" from his units) before you roll. So that argument was pointless.

/Agree this is correct. Drop Pods and all Deep Strike actions must be placed legally before you can roll for scatter.

Yet the written rules state you can place the unit anywhere on the table.

There is no such concept of illegality here; you can indeed place it such that it automatically mishaps if you "hit"

 DarthOvious wrote:
... as I'm sure the deepstriking rules will say that you're not allowed to place a deepstriking unit over another unit already on the table.

They don't.

Not saying I disagree with you but the Mawloc does have a special rule which states that it can do this anyway..

No it doesn't.

Distances cannot be negative.

The mawlac FAQ gives specific permission to deep strike within 1", it really has little relevance as its sepcific to the one model and moves the things it comes in on top of after it deep strikes.

Either deep striking models must be placed validly, arguments are that the placement is a move in the movement phase therefore subject to movement rules, or that since you cannot place your model onto of another model and still have it be on the table than it isn't valid. Or you play that you can designate any point anywhere for deep stricking in which case to go onto question two, which is can you add inches to your scatter to avoid a mishap.

The scattering thing is just silly, the drop pod doesn't magically move unlimited inches to avoid mishaps, if you can't reduce the scatter to avoid the mishap, its going to mishap.

tiber55 wrote:
The mawlac FAQ gives specific permission to deep strike within 1", it really has little relevance as its sepcific to the one model and moves the things it comes in on top of after it deep strikes.

It's an FAQ, not an errata. As such, it doesn't grant permission, it clarifies that permission is there.

Since there is nothing in the Mawloc entry that specifically allows this, it therefore must be inherently allowed by the Deep Strike rules.

However if it was inherently allowed in the Deep Strike rules it had no business being in the Tyranid FAQ, since Deep Strike is a core rulebook rule and a clarification should refer to the place where the rule comes from.

Unfortunately GW is not known for actually using logic in their Errata's/FAQ, so often these clarifications lead to more questions than answers.

DutchSage wrote:
However if it was inherently allowed in the Deep Strike rules it had no business being in the Tyranid FAQ, since Deep Strike is a core rulebook rule and a clarification should refer to the place where the rule comes from.

It's in the Tyranid FAQ because the Mawloc is the only unit that really has any particular reason to want to be deep striking on top of another unit.

Surely the deep strike rules don't care where you target, just where you end up, and whether the model can be legally placed (marlocs aside). Anything else is just arguing semantics.

As for reducing the distance a negative amount, that's just hilarious! Reducing the distance from the target point can't go into negatives, as then you would just be moving it further away again in another direction!

Unless of course your talking about 4 dimensional space? Perhaps going back in time?

A pod that gets a direct hit within 1 inch of enemy models, while off the table edge, and/or on an illegal placement can't scatter so you roll on the mishap chart. Plain as day.

With pre-measuring now in 6th, there's no reason to make a mistake with your drop pods and no way to mishap outside of board edges and GK strike squads unless you're being a... fool.