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.

 juraigamer wrote:
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.

Or want them to stay in Reserves badly enough that you're willing to take the 50-50 chance of getting a Delayed result on the mishap table, and so are trying to deliberately provoke a mishap.

But, point being, yes, and speaking as a Pods player myself, if you place the pod in a mishap-able position, and get a hit on the scatter dice, you mishap.

In addition, attempting to claim the inertial guidance system lets you go in the opposite direction doesn't hold. You aren't decreasing your scatter into negatives, you are just INCREASING it while simultaneously changing directions. The only thing the IGS lets you do is decrease, to a maximum of the starting position.

Simple solution for this type of DBgery: When our opponent tries to drop right on your unit, you follow the Monolith guidelines (yeah, I know...not legal or relevant for pods) and move your models aside just enough to create a space where the pod can legally land.
Then just look at your opponent all innocent while he tries to figure out how to disembark from the pod while remaining >1" from your models that are surrounding the pod.

And we all know what happens to a unit that can not disembark from a transport that is surrounded when they are required too...

Wouldn't the simpler solution just be to follow the rules and mishap the pod?

"Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table."
Putting the DSing model onto an enemy model is not on the table, it's on a model. You aren't given permission to scooch your opponent's models out of the way, nor are you given permission to ignore the normal rules for avoiding enemy models. Thus, your model isn't touching the table and is not following the rules for DS.

How, then, is it legal to place the Pod (or whatever) on top of enemy models?

Edit: the "whatever" does not include Mawlocs or Monoliths

I agree with the title of this thread, it's stupidity. Why on earth would anyone deliberately mishap?

Also, with regard to negative distances in the 'Cartesian game table', that's non-sense in gaming terms. Negative coordinates are only negative if something moves relative to a stationary origin point. Move zero and that distance won't be negative except to where zero used to be.
Besides, all distances in 40k are clearly to be thought of in a polar coordinate system, with each model at any time being its own origin point. Look at how flyers have to move and arcs of fire on vehicles and stuff like that. This way, all distances can only be positive numbers. Angles could be negative IF you define which side is zero, which could change every turn, or phase, if the player wants it to do so.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
"Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table."
Putting the DSing model onto an enemy model is not on the table, it's on a model. You aren't given permission to scooch your opponent's models out of the way, nor are you given permission to ignore the normal rules for avoiding enemy models. Thus, your model isn't touching the table and is not following the rules for DS.

How, then, is it legal to place the Pod (or whatever) on top of enemy models?

Edit: the "whatever" does not include Mawlocs or Monoliths

Two things
- as already pointed out, the Mawloc's FAQ entry clarifies that deep striking onto enemy models is fine and
- your argument would also prevent players from deep striking onto terrain, which the rules also make quite clear is supposed to be allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
I agree with the title of this thread, it's stupidity. Why on earth would anyone deliberately mishap?.

As somebody already mentioned, it's a risky way of potentially holding your unit in Reserve a little longer if you want to.

As per the original question, it would also be useful if you misunderstood the drop pod rules...

 insaniak wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
"Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table."
Putting the DSing model onto an enemy model is not on the table, it's on a model. You aren't given permission to scooch your opponent's models out of the way, nor are you given permission to ignore the normal rules for avoiding enemy models. Thus, your model isn't touching the table and is not following the rules for DS.

How, then, is it legal to place the Pod (or whatever) on top of enemy models?

Edit: the "whatever" does not include Mawlocs or Monoliths

Two things
- as already pointed out, the Mawloc's FAQ entry clarifies that deep striking onto enemy models is fine and
- your argument would also prevent players from deep striking onto terrain, which the rules also make quite clear is supposed to be allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
I agree with the title of this thread, it's stupidity. Why on earth would anyone deliberately mishap?.

As somebody already mentioned, it's a risky way of potentially holding your unit in Reserve a little longer if you want to.

As per the original question, it would also be useful if you misunderstood the drop pod rules...

Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special
rule? (p51)
A: Yes.

Im sorry but that doesnt say that deep striking onto a enemy model is fine, its states that it is allowed "in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule". That is not a precedent to overide BRB (errata), this is a specific FAQ to handle the interaction of a special rule that IS IN CONFLICT with the rules for deep strike from the BRB. Quit trying to use only part of the explanation in the FAQ.

 insaniak wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
"Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table."
Putting the DSing model onto an enemy model is not on the table, it's on a model. You aren't given permission to scooch your opponent's models out of the way, nor are you given permission to ignore the normal rules for avoiding enemy models. Thus, your model isn't touching the table and is not following the rules for DS.

How, then, is it legal to place the Pod (or whatever) on top of enemy models?

Edit: the "whatever" does not include Mawlocs or Monoliths

Two things
- as already pointed out, the Mawloc's FAQ entry clarifies that deep striking onto enemy models is fine and
- your argument would also prevent players from deep striking onto terrain, which the rules also make quite clear is supposed to be allowed.

I'm not sure I quite buy this yet, but I'm willing to be convinced. From a cursory look over the Deployment section and how to place terrain, it looks as if the word "board" refers to the piece of wood/ground that you play on, while "table" means the entire, including terrain. If this is true, then saying, "Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" would include pieces of terrain.

Edit: and as to the Mawloc, the Tyranid FAQ gives permission for the Mawloc to DS onto an enemy model. No permission is given for any other unit/model to do so.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'm not sure I quite buy this yet, but I'm willing to be convinced. From a cursory look over the Deployment section and how to place terrain, it looks as if the word "board" refers to the piece of wood/ground that you play on, while "table" means the entire, including terrain. If this is true, then saying, "Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" would include pieces of terrain.

By that logic, why wouldn't the 'table' include the models on it as well?

Edit: and as to the Mawloc, the Tyranid FAQ gives permission for the Mawloc to DS onto an enemy model. No permission is given for any other unit/model to do so.

The FAQ doesn't give permission to do anything. It's a clarification, not a rule. It clarifies that deep striking onto another model is perfectly acceptable, which allows the Mawloc to use its special rule.

The real argument for doing this would be can you choose to place a single model from inside the Drop pod (are they considered a single unit?) There is nothing that says the model placed prior to scatter must follow the 1" rule, only after the location is determined is that you must be able to fit all models legally. But once scatter is determined to be a hit, the drop pod would have to be placed (which it wont fit) and hence a mishap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'm not sure I quite buy this yet, but I'm willing to be convinced. From a cursory look over the Deployment section and how to place terrain, it looks as if the word "board" refers to the piece of wood/ground that you play on, while "table" means the entire, including terrain. If this is true, then saying, "Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table" would include pieces of terrain.

By that logic, why wouldn't the 'table' include the models on it as well?

Edit: and as to the Mawloc, the Tyranid FAQ gives permission for the Mawloc to DS onto an enemy model. No permission is given for any other unit/model to do so.

The FAQ doesn't give permission to do anything. It's a clarification, not a rule. It clarifies that deep striking onto another model is perfectly acceptable, which allows the Mawloc to use its special rule.

No it doesnt, it doesnt say that deep striking onto another is fine for EVERYONE, it doesnt say this allows him to use his rule, it specifically states that it is "allowed in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule".....it even says "special rule"...meaning not a normal occurance.

 quickfuze wrote:
No it doesnt, it doesnt say that deep striking onto another is fine for EVERYONE, it specifically states that it is allowed "in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule".....it even says "special rule"...meaning not a normal occurance.

Sure. And I already addressed this.

The thing is, there is no allowance in the Mawloc's rules for it specifically to Deep Strike on top of other models. It just has a special rule that kicks in when it does.

The FAQ clarifies that it's ok for the Mawloc to Deep Strike onto another model so it can use that special rule. Since there is no corresponding rule that would allow deep striking onto other models in the Mawloc's entry for that clarification to be clarifying, that permission to deep strike onto other models has to be inherent to the general deep strike rules. Otherwise, the clarification in the FAQ makes no sense... because if the general deep strike rules don't allow the Mawloc to deep strike onto other models, and the Mawloc's own rules don't allow it to deep strike onto other models, then the FAQ clarifying that it can in fact do so is in error.

Hence why it is a special allowance for that model only via a FAQ and not an Errata to the BRB (that says that after scatter you must be able to legally place all models). I am not arguing with you here in that you cant choose your initial target to be on top of another unit, but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? There is no allowance for moving other models out of the way, and it states to place a model from the unit on the table. The only argument I could think of here would be saying that one transported model is part of the unit and use him as a marker, but a ZERO scatter (hit) would still result in a mishap.

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

he did place the model, the rules doesn't say he has to leave it there

 insaniak wrote:
Wouldn't the simpler solution just be to follow the rules and mishap the pod?

Yeah...but some people need a special level of punishment before the self awareness of their TFGery finally dawns on them. Using the "unable to disembark" rules (killing whatever was in the pod) would be a delicious counter to someone insisting on playing MyPod 40K trying to game the rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

Or you place it, and then remove it. You have complied with the rule as the rule does not require you to keep it in place while you roll scatter, etc.

sirlynchmob wrote:
But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

Yes, RAW we know that you can Deep Strike on top of other models, but actually doing so is problematic.

Although, for fear of dredging up the whole circus again, this would seem to be another perfect application of WMS...

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.

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 play DS list quite often (see sig). Your opponent is correct. Have you read the DP and DS rules? I'm not sure what the issue is here. If it was you placing the pods, sorry, but you're wrong. The best argument is that you've seen others do it wrong too. Understandable, but hardly a good counter point. If you were playing me, I'd let you replace and reroll as it was an honest mistake... But certainly your opponent doesn't have to.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Fair enough. Probably a good idea for me to read the rulebook myself so I can conform my own opinion.

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.

It doesnt have a special rule stating it can be placed over another model during DS; it has a special rule stating what happens if it would mishap from doing so.

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

You have to place the model on the table first though using the deep strike rules. I believe page 14 of the BRB tells us that a model cannot be placed in impassable terrain and also page 13 of the BRB tells us that other models count as impassable terrain. i.e. you cannot place another model over another model.

This means that the terror of the deep special rule is a rule which negates this. Probably the reason why it needed to be FAQd in the first place since everything else is abundantly clear on how to proceed. i.e. you place a template on the table, move all the other models and you place the Mawloc while the unit takes hits from this process.

I will post the Terror from the Deep special rule for clarrification of what is mentioned.

"Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Place a large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from. Every Unit under the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template. Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour. If any unit still has surving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassable terrain. Units that were locked in combat prior to the Mawloc's attack must remain in base combat if possible, but otherwise models cannot be moved within 1" of an enemy model. Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their orginial facing if they are moved. Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesnt have a special rule stating it can be placed over another model during DS; it has a special rule stating what happens if it would mishap from doing so.

I suppose that is technically true as worded in the codex but the FAQ gives permission to do it, so the special rule does have permission to do it from a combination of both the codex and the FAQ.

Codex rule: "Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Place a large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from. Every Unit under the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template. Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour. If any unit still has surving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassable terrain. Units that were locked in combat prior to the Mawloc's attack must remain in base combat if possible, but otherwise models cannot be moved within 1" of an enemy model. Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their orginial facing if they are moved. Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."


FAQ Rule: Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special
rule? (p51)
A: Yes.

 DarthOvious wrote:
So when a Tyranid player is placing his Maloc over another unit he should mishap then?.

Of course not. The issue is whether or not he is allowed to place the Mawloc over another unit.

Terror gives him a special rule that applies if he would mishap due to other models, but there is no permission granted within that rule to choose to deep strike on top of another model.

Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthOvious wrote:
I believe page 14 of the BRB tells us that a model cannot be placed in impassable terrain and also page 13 of the BRB tells us that other models count as impassable terrain. i.e. you cannot place another model over another model.

Which rulebook are you looking at? Because in the 6th edition rules, pages 13 and 14 are in the Shooting section.

And enemy models don't count as impassable terrain in this edition.

As above. Youre looking at 5th edition.

It states models cannot move into impassable terrain, and DS PLACEMENT is not MOVEMENT.

 insaniak wrote:
Of course not. The issue is whether or not he is allowed to place the Mawloc over another unit.

How do you place it?

Terror gives him a special rule that applies if he would mishap due to other models, but there is no permission granted within that rule to choose to deep strike on top of another model.

Thats becase you don't place the model until after you do the template hits and then move the other models out the road. So it has a different placing mechanism for that model.

Deep Strike likewise doesn't explicitly say 'Your initial placement can be on top of another model'... but does grant permission to place the initial model anywhere on the table, and the FAQ for the Mawloc clarifies that placing the deep striker on another model is fine.

No. It changes the placement rules entirely for that model.

Which rulebook are you looking at? Because in the 6th edition rules, pages 13 and 14 are in the Shooting section.

And enemy models don't count as impassable terrain in this edition.

Ah you're correct, this was last edition when I saw this. My mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Youre looking at 5th edition.

Yes, my mistake. I was thinking of a convo from last edition.

It states models cannot move into impassable terrain, and DS PLACEMENT is not MOVEMENT.

Yes, but you can't place a model over another model and you need to place the model first. The Mawloc rules are different because it changes the way you place the model.

"Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Place a large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from. Every Unit under the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template. Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour. If any unit still has surving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassable terrain. Units that were locked in combat prior to the Mawloc's attack must remain in base combat if possible, but otherwise models cannot be moved within 1" of an enemy model. Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their orginial facing if they are moved. Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."

Notice that the Mawloc isn't placed on the table until you have done all your template hits and moved all the other models out the road. In normal deep strike you don't do this. You have to place the model on the table first.

"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Yes, but you can't place a model over another model"
Do you have a rule for that? As I have a rule saying I can place the model ANYWHERE on the table.

So when you roll a mishap for a unit and then you roll a result that lets me place your unit "ANYWHERE on the table" I can then choose to place them over another unit and instantly cause another deep strike mishap?

Ah, so the answer is NO, you dont have a rule saying that/. You can just say that.

Read the rest of the mishap result, and note it requires them to be in a valid location. Causing a mishap is not a valid location.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so the answer is NO, you dont have a rule saying that/. You can just say that.

Read the rest of the mishap result, and note it requires them to be in a valid location. Causing a mishap is not a valid location.

I thought that you has just clarrified that placing them over another unit was a valid location. Now I'm confused.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
... but how do you place the model (in the event of a drop pod due to size) to mark before scatter? .

Common practice from my experience is just to say 'I'm centering it right on that guy's head' rather than actually placing the model before rolling scatter.

But you see why RAW, that's wrong right?

you're told to place the model. You admit you didn't place the model.

Or you place it, and then remove it. You have complied with the rule as the rule does not require you to keep it in place while you roll scatter, etc.

since when do you support allowing extra words to a rule to change it's meaning? The rule says to place the model. Where is this rule that you can then move the model before the scatter movement?

Why don't you correct yourself here

nosferatu1001 wrote:
the clue is, you have to add additional words to get to the phrase you are claiming is written.

So you should label your argument HYWPI as it is clearly not RAW. the rule is you place the model and have no permissions to do anything else with it til after the scatter role.