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.

It doesn't matter what the model is. If you deep strike and land on another unit or impassible terrain, then you roll on the mishap table. Unless the vehicle in question has some equipment that states otherwise. i.e. drop pod's IGS. I don't recall witnessing any one deep strike skimmers, but i've had my fair share of mishaps with terminators and LOTD due to ballsy decisions on my part.

Hollismason wrote:
Deep striking Vehicles count as moving at combat speed. .

No they don't. They count as having moved at combat speed.

We can not ignore the timing involved in the 'counts as' clause either, it does not apply till the following Shooting Phase.

It's just a definitive statement that says this occured. It's not a past statement. It's a little weird grammatically but if you read the book and other things similar to that are just written that way and I think honestly it's just a English vs. American thing of a phrasing.

Here's some more proof though that deep strike is a move

Deep Striking units may not move any further,

In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run, Turbo-boost or move Flat Out) as normal, and count as having moved in the previous Movement phase


There's very few vehicles in the game that has the skimmer type and can deep strike. I think people state that at one point and I kind of remember this or maybe they still can Landspeeders, Monolith, Dark Eldar stuff.

Then you have this in the movement phase:

For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section.

Which implies movement other than just humdrum movement is still movement it's just explained later.

Then you've got this from the Vehicle Section:

• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.

Then you've got this from the actual rules for reserve

Moving On From Reserve
When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge. Measure the model’s move from the edge of the table, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn. A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve.



Which is weiiiiiiird.

There is a important thing to note about all of this, in regards to if you allow this, if it moves onto anything but a troop during scatter, it most certainly mishaps.

 carldooley wrote:
If I could ask the posters a question? Do YOU use deepstriking skimmers?

Personally, I would be fine with allowing skimmers to function as Drop Pods in this instance. I play Tau. I use skimmers. I do NOT use deepstriking skimmers. (the skimmers I use do not have access to deepstriking, not 'I do not use this legal tactic.' I wish it was otherwise - I wish Devilfish, Skyrays, and Hammerheads could deep strike.)

Anyone else?

I think any non-fast skimmer would be quite good to deep strike. Imagine DSing a Devilfish filled with FWs +an Ethereal near a group of enemies outside view from the front lines...

Hollie- incorrect, it always mishaps. Mishap is prior to it having moved. This isn't disputable.

I just disputed it so now what? Also don't make definitive statements actually back your statements up like have been. It's actually just poor argument to state " Reason X" and not provide documentation.

I've listed multiple instances where Deep Striking and Arriving from Reserves is in fact movement.

It's ending it's move on top of another model. Skimmper rules specifically state if you do that then you move the minimum to kick you out of that area.

Sigh.

Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.

Secondly, when you do check for mishap? WHen the marker for the unit has scattered. The marker is wher you WANT the unit to arrive, it is not where it HAS arrived.

Scatter is not movement. It cannot be, otherwise you could never mishap (as you could never end over other models, or off the table)

So, you have a non-arrived unit, that hasnt finished its move, when you check for mishap.

So, the model mishaps

I've explained this all the way through. This isnt a new thought from you, there have beenn many threads on this in 6th and 7th, as people smoehow think a rule about movement has any effect on non-movement. It doesnt.

You mishap. RAW.

Jinxdragon, there isn't anywhere that it explicitly states this in the book, but, as you pointed out, the game breaks down completely if we don't take this as a given.

Take what as a given?

USRs overriding basic rules.

Ah yes, Special Rules vs Advanced Rules.
Headaches all around!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.

Secondly, when you do check for mishap? WHen the marker for the unit has scattered. The marker is wher you WANT the unit to arrive, it is not where it HAS arrived.

Scatter is not movement. It cannot be, otherwise you could never mishap (as you could never end over other models, or off the table)

So, you have a non-arrived unit, that hasnt finished its move, when you check for mishap.

So, the model mishaps

I've explained this all the way through. This isnt a new thought from you, there have beenn many threads on this in 6th and 7th, as people smoehow think a rule about movement has any effect on non-movement. It doesnt.

You mishap. RAW.

Which is why the Skimmer rule causes such confusion. It is a useless rule, so why include it?


As to the Drop pod, that everyone agrees works, it also only avoids the model. The model is the described obstacle in the rule, not the 1" bubble, so as written the Drop pod also mishaps.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.

Well, you do count as moving in the movement phase, but you don't count until the the shooting phase.
In the shooting phase it counts as having moved in the previous movement phase.
So you do count as moving if you could somehow get to the shooting phase; which you cannot do since you mishap in the movement phase, before you retroactively count as moving.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.

Well, you do count as moving in the movement phase, but you don't count until the the shooting phase.
In the shooting phase it counts as having moved in the previous movement phase.
So you do count as moving if you could somehow get to the shooting phase; which you cannot do since you mishap in the movement phase, before you retroactively count as moving.

I love this one. If denied then those who deny it are saying that Scarabs can in fact eat armor on a model that passes FnP. As that one is saved in the past before the save was failed. Ah time travel and rules, the argument I love to hate.


So with this new time travel rule, skimmers are forced to end their move over a model, and are now moved off of them. Sure we have to time travel a rule around to do it, but we already do that, so not an issue.


Not really. Just an aside pointing out the quality of GW rules. The skimmer drift rule is a waste of ink, and time to read/learn. I really think it is a left over from around 3rd edition when a stunned skimmer drifted. I no longer have that book so can't go back and look.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again, it counts as having moved in the shooting phase. Not prior to the shooting phase.

Well, you do count as moving in the movement phase, but you don't count until the the shooting phase.
In the shooting phase it counts as having moved in the previous movement phase.
So you do count as moving if you could somehow get to the shooting phase; which you cannot do since you mishap in the movement phase, before you retroactively count as moving.

I love this one. If denied then those who deny it are saying that Scarabs can in fact eat armor on a model that passes FnP. As that one is saved in the past before the save was failed. Ah time travel and rules, the argument I love to hate.


So with this new time travel rule, skimmers are forced to end their move over a model, and are now moved off of them. Sure we have to time travel a rule around to do it, but we already do that, so not an issue.


Not really. Just an aside pointing out the quality of GW rules. The skimmer drift rule is a waste of ink, and time to read/learn. I really think it is a left over from around 3rd edition when a stunned skimmer drifted. I no longer have that book so can't go back and look.

actually your false "time travel" analogy would never apply because there would be no going back as you would mishap before you can even figure out if you were allowed to tank shock.

it would be "time travelling" to allow the model to not mishap because it was doing a action allowed in the movement phase during its deployment.

So the way I read it is:
- You can declare tank shock
- Then place/scatter model, mishapping if appropriate
- then apply Tank Shock rules if you didnt mishap. Affecting noone.

That's not actually what's occuring we're arguing over whether Deep Strike is movment and therefore ending the movement on top of a model would in fact trigger a skimmers special rule.

Other thread is for tank shock.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
As to the Drop pod, that everyone agrees works, it also only avoids the model. The model is the described obstacle in the rule, not the 1" bubble, so as written the Drop pod also mishaps.

This is not true.

The obstacle, in the case of an enemy unit, includes being within 1 inch of the model, so the Drop Pod scatter is reduced to avoid the obstacle, this includes the extra inch for enemy models and mishaps.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
As to the Drop pod, that everyone agrees works, it also only avoids the model. The model is the described obstacle in the rule, not the 1" bubble, so as written the Drop pod also mishaps.

This is not true.

The obstacle, in the case of an enemy unit, includes being within 1 inch of the model, so the Drop Pod scatter is reduced to avoid the obstacle, this includes the extra inch for enemy models and mishaps.

The last book I've read says enemy models, and impassable terrain. No mention as to 1" of an enemy model. It does say obstacle, which is predefined by enemy models and impassable terrain. I suppose it may have change in new iterations, but as I don't purchase marine crap(as it is all ugly to me) and haven't played more than 4 games in the last 2 years, all I haave to go by is the last book I have for them. Could you please quote the exact wording of the rule for me?

Obstacle, when talking about deep strike, is the mishap.

So you need to clear the 1 inch zone for enemy models.

Are you guys really arguing This?

Placing the model is simply done because you HAVE TO SCATTER!

You place the model, and then roll to scatter. If the deep striking unit scatters onto something it's not supposed to, it mishaps.

You can place the model anywhere you want....why would anyone place it within an inch of a Unit? First off, you can't place it with in an inch because the rules state you can't place models within an inch of each other. Unless the model is part of a unit. Correct me if I'm wrong about this but I do believe two separate units can't be within an inch from each other.

Hence, if you scatter and land on a unit, you mishap.

I believe this even counts towards storm raven gunships. I guess when they arrive, they land on the ground.

How do you not understand this?

The only real question that needs to be debated is whether Deep Strike is movement. That's not me being rude but the fact is we are getting so far off topic we're bleeding into discussing other issues.

I posted why I think it is and put in my references. You're welcome to post your reasons why you think it isn't though.

Other's need to back that up that is not in fact movement.


Also, I am seriously considering starting a thread called The Preponderence of Evidence and really wish people would follow that logic instead of what's happening as of late which is the idea of a "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

It is not movement because it does not say that the scatter is movement.

That's the same argument people made when they decided disembarking meant teleporting out without moving so heavy weapons could be fired.

Look how that one turned out.

Disembarking specifically states to Place and then Move the Model, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't believe anyone stated that scattering is movement, but that deep strike in itself is considered movement.

I have not made that argument, my statement is that Deep Strike is movement.

It is movement that has a definitive end to it, that after rolling for scatter. If the model in question is on top of another unit the rules for skimmer kicks in and it does not mishap because it would end it's move on top of another model.


So , disregarding that I've not been arguing that why do you believe Deep Strike of itself is not movement.

You check for mishap before the model has arrived. Mishap.

Deep Strike itself is Movement.
Deep Strike Scatter is not Movement.

Mishap applies before the unit is "in play". Therefore, anything that "protects" a unit from ending its move from where it cannot be, does not work. Unless it specifically does.

Actually it doesn't it's quiet clear that you physically check to place a model on deepstrike, then account for scatter, then check the rule for mishap.

The skimmer rule states that it cannot end it's move on top of another model.

Like you don't "place a marker"

You physically put that model or a model from that squad on the board then roll to see IF it scatters. There's a physical placement on the board of a model straight up.