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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Obstacle, when talking about deep strike, is the mishap.

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

Mishap is an effect of being on/near units or impassable terrain, it is not in and of itself, an obstacle.

The rule calls out enemy models, and impassable terrain. 1" bubble(unless called out in the rule) is not a defined obstacle in the rule. If it were, then the rule would also scatter you off of dangerous, forest, and any other non discussed terrain. Obstacle is a very generic word, and can be anything. As such you must limit it to what the rule actually states. So if the rule does not say "an enemy model or within one inch of an enemy model" then the 1" bubble is not included as part of the obstacles that it avoids. Which is why I asked for the exact wordage of the rule.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Obstacle, when talking about deep strike, is the mishap.

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

Mishap is an effect of being on/near units or impassable terrain, it is not in and of itself, an obstacle.

This is incorrect.

Obstacle is not defined in the BRB, so we use the common English definition of the word.

With this definition any placement that results in a mishap after reducing the scatter (Provided the initial model was placed where it would not mishap) is an obstacle and you need to account for that inch and reduce the scatter to not mishap.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Obstacle, when talking about deep strike, is the mishap.

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

Mishap is an effect of being on/near units or impassable terrain, it is not in and of itself, an obstacle.

This is incorrect.

Obstacle is not defined in the BRB, so we use the common English definition of the word.

With this definition any placement that results in a mishap after reducing the scatter (Provided the initial model was placed where it would not mishap) is an obstacle and you need to account for that inch and reduce the scatter to not mishap.

Obstacle is defined in the rule itself. ie Enemy models, and impassable terrain. Using the common English definition of the word allows for silly things like allowing it to not scatter off the table, not take dangerous terrain tests due to landing in difficult terrain, and ignore units that have special rules that affect things that land in their radius of effect(at least there use to be models that hindered deepstrike) If the 1" is not in the pods obstacle list, it is not ignored.

Obstacle pertains to the things mentioned.

An enemy unit is an obstacle, so is landing within one inch of an enemy unit.

It is a very poor choice of words, given that Mishap would of been vastly more obvious.

Honestly:
I thought it actually said Mishap, but my faction does not have drop pods so not knowing the exact wording is to be expected.

Hollismason wrote:
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.

You're ignoring rules again, as it states you place a model form the unit where you want the unit to arrive. Until you check for mishap, the unit hasn't arrived.

Raw you mishap, you remain wrong on this.

I've already stated that you cannot in fact physically place a model onto another it's clearly a restriction and basic rule layed out in the beginning of the book. My least favourite Wizard of Oz character is the Scarecrow.

The argument is if you place it and it scatters onto a unit does it mishap or does the Skimmer special rule kick in.

A noted interested would be that if you follow the reserve rules there is actually a direction implied by deep strike and it is not in fact up and down. It's from your board edge to where it is placed.

So if this did occur it would be placed 1 inch in front of said model/unit because the direction would in fact be from your board edge.

Assuming you can prove why you are resolving the Deep Strike Special Rule using instructions not found within the Deep Strike Special Rule.

Hollie - until you resolve the scatter it hasn't arrived. So you check for mishap. There's no issue here.

You mishap, raw.

 insaniak wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The minimum distance will be one where there's a microscopically small distance between the enemy model and the skimmer, so that it is no longer over it. The skimmer will certainly still be within 1".

In which case the rule is useless... because you can't finish your movement within 1" of an enemy model unless you are charging.

That's not only going to cause mishaps when deep striking, but also apply during any other movement.

We've had the same argument over the years about the Drop Pod's inertial guidance. Because you can't wind up within 1" of an enemy model, when calculating how far you need to move to avoid that enemy model you need to include that 1" bubble.

I'm still not convinced by anyone who says the definition of "obstacle" includes being within 1" of enemy models. Because that isn't an "obstacle", it is open ground.

The reason people bring Drop Pods into this argument is because the wording is quite similar.

And how come the people who argue "you can't use the dictionary definition of the word Move as it pertains to Deep Strike and Deploying." then turn around and "use the dictionary definition of the word Obstacle." to imply it also includes the 1" bubble around enemy models...

which it sure as spam doesn't say it does?

The fall back of "people have been playing it that way for ages so that's how it works" is utter nonsense. The only reason people have been playing it like that is because someone noticed the wording, people on the internet had an argument about it, and one ruling/interpretation won out.

This IS THE SAME EXACT THING in regards to the skimmer rule. It just so happens that the skimmer question/interpretation issue was discovered at a later date than the drop pod one.

Has anyone sent a message to GW to ask?

When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.

 Mavlun wrote:
When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.

Except that's against the rules. Because the skimmer isn't forced to end its movement over a model until after the mishap is resolved - at which point the skimmer won't be there.

 Mavlun wrote:
When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.

If it was that simple this thread would have been done on the first page

Not being able to use a dictionary meaning for the word "Move" has justification:
There exists whole sets of Rules for Movement and Movement related activities, Rules which provides the processes which a Model has to go through in order to 'Move.' If a Model does not use any of these processes, nor does it have a Rule stating it Moved even without following these processes, then it is literally impossible for us to state that the Model has Moved from a Rule perspective. It won't matter if we can find a dictionary that defines Movement in such a way that we can apply it to the situation.... As far as the Rules are concerned, that Model has not moved.

 Laughingcarp wrote:
I'm still not convinced by anyone who says the definition of "obstacle" includes being within 1" of enemy models. Because that isn't an "obstacle", it is open ground.

If it prevents you from placing a model there, it's an obstacle.

Has anyone sent a message to GW to ask?

For what purpose? Any answer you get from GW will be the personal opinion of a mail order guy. The guys who are actually in a position to answer rules questions don't answer rules questions. According to GW, that would be creating some sort of cult of personality, and players prefer to discuss rules issues amongst themselves than to have clearly written rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.

Except that's against the rules. Because the skimmer isn't forced to end its movement over a model until after the mishap is resolved - at which point the skimmer won't be there.

No, the skimmer is forced to end its movement, which we know is at Combat Speed, on top of an enemy model, therefore, before checking for mishap, the skimmer's rule comes into effect.

 Mavlun wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
When the skimmer deep strikes, roll for scatter. If the result of the scatter would place the skimmer on top of an enemy model, move it the shortest distance away so that the enemy model is not underneath it. Seems simple enough to me.

Except that's against the rules. Because the skimmer isn't forced to end its movement over a model until after the mishap is resolved - at which point the skimmer won't be there.

No, the skimmer is forced to end its movement, which we know is at Combat Speed, on top of an enemy model, therefore, before checking for mishap, the skimmer's rule comes into effect.

The Deep Strike is movement. Scatter is part of that Deep Strike. Resolving the mishap is part of the Deep Strike. The Deep Strike hasn't finished when it's time to check for mishap, so it hasn't been forced to finish its movement over an enemy unit.

 Mavlun wrote:
No, the skimmer is forced to end its movement, which we know is at Combat Speed, on top of an enemy model, therefore, before checking for mishap, the skimmer's rule comes into effect.

Given that one of the results of a mishap is that the vehicle is put somewhere else, or doesn't deploy at all, until the mishap has been resolved the vehicle has not ended its movement.

Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).

 Mavlun wrote:
Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).

iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).

iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.

Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles, and when ramming, you declare the number of inches from the beginning, and if you ram a vehicle that isn't removed from play, you stop right there, if you reach a friendly unit you halt, and if you reach another unit, you follow the rules for tank shocking or tank ramming. So no, I don't think so.

The only scenario I can think of when a skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of an enemy -or- friendly model, is a deep strike scatter.

 Mavlun wrote:
Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).

Tank Shock is the only one that springs to mind, but I'm not really seeing what difference that makes. The fact that a rule has no current effect on the game doesn't mean that the rule should be read differently... it just means that the rule currently has no effect on the game. It's entirely possible that it was included to 'future-proof' against unforeseen rules interactions that might occur with codex-specific rules additions. It's entirely possible that they included that rule for completeness without realising that it would never actually apply.

Regardless, the reason for the rule being there is irrelevant, and whether or not it currently applies to anything in the game does not change the rule.

 Mavlun wrote:
Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles...

Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock... (Vehicles chapter, Ramming section, 2nd graph 1st sentence).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles...

Ramming is a special type of Tank Shock... (Vehicles chapter, Ramming section, 2nd graph 1st sentence).

Yeah, so it's not Tank Shock, it's ramming. My point stands

Honestly, why would it matter if this was the only 'reasonable application' or not?

Ignoring that there have been previous pieces of war-gear capable of 'pushing' Enemy Units around, and the concept of 'future proofing' should there be such in the future, demanding that we post situations in which the Rule can be evoked does not prove a thing. Even if such a scenario does not exist, we still do not have permission to shoe-horn it in one that we believe it will fit in. Besides, it is very lazy a debate tactic to demand that your opponent carry out the research to prove that such a Rule has a purpose. No one here is going to be bothered to review every Rule that has existed at the same time as this one to populate such a list, least of all the person requesting that it be done, so as a debate tactic it is pointless.

If one wishes to use the Rule, it is up to them to prove it can be Evoked....

 Mavlun wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).

iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.

Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles, and when ramming, you declare the number of inches from the beginning, and if you ram a vehicle that isn't removed from play, you stop right there, if you reach a friendly unit you halt, and if you reach another unit, you follow the rules for tank shocking or tank ramming. So no, I don't think so.

The only scenario I can think of when a skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of an enemy -or- friendly model, is a deep strike scatter.

Box in an enemy unit using terrain and your units. Tank Shock it with a skimmer. DoG immobilizes it. It ends its movement on top of a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).

iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.

Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles, and when ramming, you declare the number of inches from the beginning, and if you ram a vehicle that isn't removed from play, you stop right there, if you reach a friendly unit you halt, and if you reach another unit, you follow the rules for tank shocking or tank ramming. So no, I don't think so.

The only scenario I can think of when a skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of an enemy -or- friendly model, is a deep strike scatter.

Box in an enemy unit using terrain and your units. Tank Shock it with a skimmer. DoG immobilizes it. It ends its movement on top of a unit.

You can't pass through friendly models when Tank shocking

 Mavlun wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mavlun wrote:
Except neither of those replies make sense, since there is no possible other reason why a skimmer would ever be "forced" to end its movement on top of an enemy model, other than a deep strike scatter (unless I'm missing something).

iirc there are some scenarios in Tank Shocking that it could occur.

Don't think so. afaik, you can't tank shock vehicles, and when ramming, you declare the number of inches from the beginning, and if you ram a vehicle that isn't removed from play, you stop right there, if you reach a friendly unit you halt, and if you reach another unit, you follow the rules for tank shocking or tank ramming. So no, I don't think so.

The only scenario I can think of when a skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of an enemy -or- friendly model, is a deep strike scatter.

Box in an enemy unit using terrain and your units. Tank Shock it with a skimmer. DoG immobilizes it. It ends its movement on top of a unit.

You can't pass through friendly models when Tank shocking

And skimmers, when moving move over intervening models.

 Mavlun wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Box in an enemy unit using terrain and your units. Tank Shock it with a skimmer. DoG immobilizes it. It ends its movement on top of a unit.

You can't pass through friendly models when Tank shocking

Read the underlined. Skimmers don't pass through anything.

If I am not mistake it actually states the word if, so regardless of whether mishap would be resolved the word if automatically makes it become placed one inch away. I may be incorrect don't have my book near me but I am pretty sure it states IF.

It's literally just basic grammar.

Would it's placement of the model otherwise create a situation where it could end it's movement over another model?

If the the answer is Yes. Then it stops one inch away.

I dunno what's unclear about that but if it said WHEN it would be different.

It doesn't it's a important grammatical point to make and usually I don't argue semantics to much but the word if clearly implies a future situation occuring. The deep strike scatter would be a situation where it could end it's movement. It doesn't care about the deep strike rules or mishap, just that there is a situation where it could possibly end its move on top f another and it interjects and stops that from occuring.

It's also the reason you can't plop it down on top of a unit physically plus the actual rule that states models can't be placed on one another.