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.

The 6th edition IGS rule says if you scatter off the table you mishap. The 5th(?) edition codex is silent on the matter.

You reduce scatter after you scatter, obviously. Which means they scatter off the board, which incurs a mishap, then reduces it. IGS makes you take the mishap.

2 things are happening at once. The players who turn decides which happens first. if it were my turn I would choose to have the distance reduced and not mishap.

 Mythra wrote:
2 things are happening at once. The players who turn decides which happens first. if it were my turn I would choose to have the distance reduced and not mishap.

This only applies when both players have something to do at the same time. This is not the case here.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Only if you ignore the rule that says that if you scatter off the board, you mishap. That is also part of the IGS rule.

That's not a rule...

At least not one I am seeing in the Space Wolves codex.

Because space wolves are AWESOME!

I would side that it reduces the scatter from being over the tank, The rule doesn't say the Initial scatter just the scatter, so to me that means where it eventually lands after IGS. But probably a roll off is best till the sucker is FAQ'ed

Ok,

So the drop pod is both on another unit, where it cannot land it's also scattered partially off the table. Both have happened simultaneously.

It's both scatter reduced and mis-happed.

Schrodinger's Drop pod.

I do not use Drop pods but if this were to come up when playing against someone who does, I would suggest that if it is over a tank and can not be deployed (set on the table) then you reduce the scatter. If it could be deployed (actually set on table) and it breaks the plane of the edge of the table it would be a mishap.

What we have here guys is an order of operations issue. I can't see any rules anywhere that state which order you check the conditions in.

For example, we have said that the pod is both on an enemy model AND off the table, so the question should be which condition is checked first, wouldn't it?

If you check for off the table first, then it mishaps. If you check for impassable/other models first, then you reduce the scatter.

I play pods a lot too and I have to admit I have never had this come up so I am curious to see if there is an official ruling myself....

Only thing that I can see for order of operations is that in the book, it has it written to reduce scatter in the first sentence, the second sentence covers the mishap.

 Gideon999 wrote:
What we have here guys is an order of operations issue. I can't see any rules anywhere that state which order you check the conditions in.

For example, we have said that the pod is both on an enemy model AND off the table, so the question should be which condition is checked first, wouldn't it?

If you check for off the table first, then it mishaps. If you check for impassable/other models first, then you reduce the scatter.

I play pods a lot too and I have to admit I have never had this come up so I am curious to see if there is an official ruling myself....

If this is a case, then a D6 should be rolled to decide which takes precedence each time and it therefore mishaps on a 4+, is scatter reduced otherwise.

Neither takes precedence; you have 2 rules one of which leads to a mishap, the other to no mishap

You, either way, have a mishap

Final position (scatter was lowered to no longer end up of the table) is not of table.
No way in hell I would call that a mishap no matter on which side of the game I was on!

As far as RAW is concerned, I was in the mishap camp at first, but now I'm leaning the other way.

RAW - The way I see it, a deep strike mishap can logically only occur after the final placement of the model (or models) has been established. This must happen after the scatter has been fully determined or any rule that reduced or modified the scatter would be pointless (we don't determine if a blast template hits until we reduce the scatter by the BS of the firer, for example).

In the OP's example, the DP's initial placement was both on impassable terrain and off the table. Since the IGS rule specifically addresses the issue of impassable terrain, this rule comes into effect and the DP's scatter distance is reduced until it can be legally placed (or not, as the case may be, depending on your view of the initial DS placement rules). Once the final placement it determined, the check to see if the DP is still either in impassable terrain or off the table is made and a determination is made on whether a mishap occurred or not.

I don't believe this 'violates' a rule because both the IGS and the mishap rules have been satisfied (the former due to the initial scatter of the pod and the latter due to the final determination of the scatter).

HIWPI - The DP should probably mishap despite the wording of IGS. Anyone who manages to place a DP such that it scatters off the table—especially with pre-measuring and the IGS rule to protect them—really deserves to mishap... but that's another discussion.

DoW

 davou wrote:
yeah, The scatter was about 9 inches. At around 4 I hit the russ, then at 8 I was partially off the table, but still sitting well on top of the russ, if I reduced to get 'off' the tank, I would have been completely on the table.

It's a mishap.
Look at the distances.... there is a scatter of "about 9 inches", at 8 inches, it is "partially off the table". There is one more inch to go on the scatter before determining the final position. Since the Russ is hit at 4 inches, the table edge at between 6 and 8, the final inch would move the pod off the table by more than half its footprint..... thus mishap.

In the end it all boils down what occurs first. The mishap for being off the table or reducing the scatter because you're over another unit. Also the wording of the IGS rule will be important as well where it mentions a mishap for being off the table.

 Mywik wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
2 things are happening at once. The players who turn decides which happens first. if it were my turn I would choose to have the distance reduced and not mishap.

This only applies when both players have something to do at the same time. This is not the case here.

Nope sorry this is wrong. When numerous things go off in your turn at the same time you decide the order of opperations. That way I can choose in what order I bring in reserves, cast maledictions and blessings and roll for outflank. There is a clear part in the rules on it and even an FAQ to boot.

 Pyriel- wrote:
Final position (scatter was lowered to no longer end up of the table) is not of table.
No way in hell I would call that a mishap no matter on which side of the game I was on!

Thats the thing; final position is not 'scatter'.

its another one of those words that need a definition.

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, it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as
per the Warhammer 40,000 rule book.

Directly from the new marine book. Following this rule because you do have to follow it in its entirety and not just the parts you like you will need to first check if it is on top of an enemy model and then before you do anything the rest of the rule would kick in and tell you you misshape. The mishap must still happen. This is not a case of two rules interacting and trying to figure out which goes first this is a case of one rule with two clauses triggering and since the second has triggered it must be resolved.

Guys, if it cannot be placed (IE, its partly on top of the tank) then it does NOT LAND THERE. you reduce the scatter, then see if it is off the board (most likely not) its really not that hard. you determine mishaps after IGS takes effect, otherwise their is no real point to IGS. if you scatter off the board, or on board edge w/out landing on another model, THEN you mishap as IGS does NOT take effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

 Pyriel- wrote:
Final position (scatter was lowered to no longer end up of the table) is not of table.
No way in hell I would call that a mishap no matter on which side of the game I was on!

Thats the thing; final position is not 'scatter'.

its another one of those words that need a definition.

as I said, you determine "scatter" results after IGS takes effect.

Raided - retread, note that scattering off the board triggers a mishap, regardless of the presence of other models

It isn't that hard when you read ALL the rule.

If you go off the board, unless it reduces scatter when you do that, you mishap. You can't have 1/2 of a rule work.

but its not the actual scatter, because IGS takes effect before mishaps do (via REDUCING) the scatter.

 raiden wrote:
but its not the actual scatter, because IGS takes effect before mishaps do (via REDUCING) the scatter.

So you're just ignoring half of the quoted rule then?
Cool story.

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
but its not the actual scatter, because IGS takes effect before mishaps do (via REDUCING) the scatter.

So you're just ignoring half of the quoted rule then?
Cool story.

no, if the pod scatters off the table it takes a mishap, but because it landed half on a model (the tank in the OP situation) IGS takes effect reducing the pods scatter so it does not scatter off the table edge. because it CANNOT land on another model therefore would not even be ALLOWED to land their to begin with.

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
but its not the actual scatter, because IGS takes effect before mishaps do (via REDUCING) the scatter.

So you're just ignoring half of the quoted rule then?
Cool story.

no, if the pod scatters off the table it takes a mishap, but because it landed half on a model (the tank in the OP situation) IGS takes effect reducing the pods scatter so it does not scatter off the table edge. because it CANNOT land on another model therefore would not even be ALLOWED to land their to begin with.

If it scatters on top of a model, reduce.
If it scatters off the table, mishap.

The same wording is used for both. You're attempting to follow one and not the other. Please explain why.

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
but its not the actual scatter, because IGS takes effect before mishaps do (via REDUCING) the scatter.

So you're just ignoring half of the quoted rule then?
Cool story.

no, if the pod scatters off the table it takes a mishap, but because it landed half on a model (the tank in the OP situation) IGS takes effect reducing the pods scatter so it does not scatter off the table edge. because it CANNOT land on another model therefore would not even be ALLOWED to land their to begin with.

If it scatters on top of a model, reduce.
If it scatters off the table, mishap.

The same wording is used for both. You're attempting to follow one and not the other. Please explain why.

the reason it doesn't mishap, as I have said several times now.. is because the IGS takes effect for it being on top of a model and therefore reduces the scatter, before determining mishaps. if, the pod goes off the edge w/out landing on a model. it mishaps as no IGS takes place. If pod reduces its scatter, and lands off the edge, it mishaps. the OP situation doesn't trigger the mishap because 1) it is on top of a model, which is not allowed, 2) IGS takes place reducing the scatter because it is on top of the model after reducing scatter if it is still over the board edge, it mishaps.

are you trying to say that mishaps happen before scatter is reduced?

 raiden wrote:
are you trying to say that mishaps happen before scatter is reduced?

I'm trying to say that the IGS rule says, and I'll quote it again so you hopefully see it this time:

Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the edge of the board, it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as per the Warhammer 40, 000 rule book.

The mishap for scattering off the table does, yes, because it states so. Scattering off the table, at all (it does not state before or after igs, so it is for both), means you kishap

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
are you trying to say that mishaps happen before scatter is reduced?

I'm trying to say that the IGS rule says, and I'll quote it again so you hopefully see it this time:

Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the edge of the board, it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as per the Warhammer 40, 000 rule book.

okay, so if it ends up off the board or halfway off it mishaps... its clarifying that you DO mishap. order of operations, its on top of a model therefore IGS takes effect before determining ANY mishaps. it reduces the scatter (note this is NOT A SEPERATE SCATTER) If it still winds up off the table edge it mishaps, if not, nothing happens, as the pod was never in the earlier position to begin with.

 raiden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
are you trying to say that mishaps happen before scatter is reduced?

I'm trying to say that the IGS rule says, and I'll quote it again so you hopefully see it this time:

Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the edge of the board, it suffers a Deep Strike Mishap as per the Warhammer 40, 000 rule book.

okay, so if it ends up off the board or halfway off it mishaps... its clarifying that you DO mishap. order of operations, its on top of a model therefore IGS takes effect before determining ANY mishaps. it reduces the scatter (note this is NOT A SEPERATE SCATTER) If it still winds up off the table edge it mishaps, if not, nothing happens, as the pod was never in the earlier position to begin with.

... No.
Why do I say no?

Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model

Note how it's literally the exact same wording (Should a Drop Pod scatter, do X. If a Drop Pod scatters, do Y.).
See how using actual rules in a discussion is important? The trigger for both is the same - if you scatter somewhere, do something. One allows you to decrease the scatter. The other says you mishap. So reduce all you want, but if you don't mishap you're not following the actual rules.