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.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.

You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.

Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.

Except that tank shocking is instead of moving normally. ie the skimmer rule doesn't apply as tank shocking is it's own special form of movement.

Where does the skimmer rules say they only move over models and terrain when moving normally?

I've decided to add some diagrams.

In picture 1, the Raider is forced to scatter on top of a poor Kroot Shaper.

In picture 2, the Raider has moved the minimum distance so that the Kroot Shaper is no longer underneath it. This would cause a mishap, but is dictated by the advanced rule.

In picture 3, the Raider has not moved the minimum distance so that the Kroot Shaper is no longer underneath it. The Raider has moved that distance plus an extra inch. This contradicts the direction given by the advanced rules. This would violate the advanced versus basic directive and so would be an illegal move.

Excepting that the rule literally states the minimum distance, and the minimum distance for enemy models is 1 inch.

What exactly do you think the statement of minimum distance is or references, because the only thing it can reference is the 1inch rule because no other figure is given.

You want it to say " So that it does not touch" it doesn't state that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.

You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.

Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.

Except that tank shocking is instead of moving normally. ie the skimmer rule doesn't apply as tank shocking is it's own special form of movement.

Where does the skimmer rules say they only move over models and terrain when moving normally?

It doesn't , which is why I think it's up for debate. I didn't like that example but it is a example, but then if you follow it through its still a reinforcement of the Skimmer's don't land on other models.

 Happyjew wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Tank shock clearly states that you end your move if you go to move through a friendly unit. They're no exception made for that, you cannot tank shock through a friendly unit. Even if you are allowed to move through you are still moving through them and the 2nd part kicks in. So it would ignore the first part of that sentence and the 2nd part would kick in. If you don't think it wouldn't start another thread regarding that specifically but it's clear that even though a skimmer is allowed to move through units, the tank shock states that moving through would stop you.

You don't even need the skimmer rule to be in effect, its two instances where even if you ignore the first part the second part kicks in.

Why are you ignoring the fact that when skimmers move they move OVER models and terrain? If a skimmer tank shocks, it can do so with a friendly unit between it and its target, because it moves OVER the friendly unit.

Except that tank shocking is instead of moving normally. ie the skimmer rule doesn't apply as tank shocking is it's own special form of movement.

Where does the skimmer rules say they only move over models and terrain when moving normally?

It doesn't. The tank shock rule specifies that it is a different form of moving. ie not the way it typically moves. As the skimmer movement rules are it's typical way of moving, tank shock supersedes it.

Hollismason wrote:
Excepting that the rule literally states the minimum distance, and the minimum distance for enemy models is 1 inch.

What exactly do you think the statement of minimum distance is or references, because the only thing it can reference is the 1inch rule because no other figure is given.

You want it to say " So that it does not touch" it doesn't state that.

I agree that it doesn't say "so that it does not touch". It says "so that no models are underneath it". I'm genuinely perplexed by how this is confusing. If I move SO THAT NO MODELS ARE UNDERNEATH IT and then MOVE ANOTHER INCH... have I moved the minimum distance SO THAT NO MODELS ARE UNDERNEATH IT? I mean, c'mon. This isn't a semantics issue. This isn't a subtle usage of the English language issue. This is a "you very much want to be right and that requires choosing a basic rule over an advanced rule" issue.

If it said "move the model the minimum distance to avoid a mishap", I would agree with you.
If it said "move the model the minimum distance such that it obeys the basic rule of never being within 1" of an enemy model", I would agree with you.
It says "move the model the minimum distance so that no models are underneath it". Minimum Distance is defined as the smallest distance you can move where you fulfill NO OTHER CRITERIA other than NO MODELS ARE UNDERNEATH IT. Moving it any farther CANNOT be a valid move because it chooses a basic rule of movement over a more advanced rule of Skimmer movement.

 Kriswall wrote:

You aren't scattering OFF of enemy units. Inertial Guidance reduces the scatter to prevent a mishap. This would clearly reduce the scatter to stay at least an inch away. Inertial Guidance is entirely irrelevant in this instance.

Inertial Guidance specifies another model, and impassable terrain. No where in the rule does it say to avoid the mishap, or move 1" away from an enemy model.

As the rule does not prevent a mishap for being within 1" of an enemy model, and the rule does not include being within 1" of an enemy model in the scatter distance, it is a leap of logic that Inertial Guidance protects it from mishapping for being to close to an enemy model.

I retract my statements about inertial guidance and will no longer debate it. This topic is about Skimmer movement and not about Drop Pods.

You are literally reading the sentence wrong. Like I said I'm not here to give English lessons, but here we go.

What are we doing?

We are moving the models the minimum distance.

Why are we doing this?

So that no models are underneath.

I mean if you want me to draw you an actual syntax tree I can link you to this.

http://beta.visl.sdu.dk/visl/en/parsing/automatic/trees.php

Cause seriously you are ignoring that entire sentence and just literally reading the entire sentence wrong. You're also ignoring the entire first part of that sentence dealing with movement.

Specifically,

If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.


This here's what we call a complex sentence, now we can rewrite this sentence. How?

Move the skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it if a skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models. (I'm like 90% on that one maybe require a slight change in grammar)

Like seriously you are treating that whole statement as if it is parts independent of themselves when they are not.

I give up. You won't admit that zero is less than one. This isn't an English comprehension issue. This is an advanced versus basic rules issue.

Enjoy your hobby. I will enjoy mine. And never the twain shall meet.

This is you literally not understanding, that sentences can be complex.You're also mistaking the subject of that sentence and action.I can not explain it out for you any more that what I have.I've used IRAC and I've explained how sentences work. Yet your stubborn insistence that the English language literally bends to your will is ridiculous.
Take your ball and go home, I'm tired of having to explain very basic concepts and going through the trouble of succinctly laying out my arguments and progression of thought, while you keep asking why the sky is blue with no answer other than the one you have deemed correct being accepted.

Jesus Christ, man!

I understand that sentences can be complex. I'm not an idiot. I think I might have picked that fact up while learning one of the four languages I speak or acquiring one of my multiple college degrees. Or maybe not. Maybe I just not talk good for understand words derp derp derp. (Insert sarcastic eye rolling emote here.)

You refuse to explain how moving the model FARTHER than is required to fulfill the ONLY stated obligation "so that no models are underneath it" qualifies as the minimum distance you could move it. You're moving it an extra inch. I could just as easily say "this is literally you not understanding that some numbers can be bigger than others and that minimum refers to the smallest number", but I assume you know that zero is smaller than one.

Also, not to be a jerk, but for someone who is lecturing me on language ability... your grammar and punctuation are atrocious. Pot, kettle, casting stones, etc.

Fine, then you accept that the correct way to read that sentence is the way that I diagrammed and that so that.. is a clause stating reason.

That's all it is. A clause stating the reason you are moving it the minimum distance, the minimum distance for moving when in regards to enemy models is 1 inch, no further no less.

The minimum distance for moving a model in regards to Friendly models can be less than 1 inch.

Your requirement is to move it the minimum distance because you don't want it to be on top of other models so that.. is not instruction, it is a clause stating the reason you are doing something.

I'm not here at home twiddling my moustache and laughing maniacally as I burn a grammar book. These are just the rules of grammar. I can't change them and you can't change them.

Hollismason wrote:
Fine, then you accept that the correct way to read that sentence is the way that I diagrammed and that so that.. is a clause stating reason.

That's all it is. A clause stating the reason you are moving it the minimum distance, the minimum distance for moving when in regards to enemy models is 1 inch, no further no less.

The minimum distance for moving a model in regards to Friendly models can be less than 1 inch.

Your requirement is to move it the minimum distance because you don't want it to be on top of other models so that.. is not instruction, it is a clause stating the reason you are doing something.

I'm not here at home twiddling my moustache and laughing maniacally as I burn a grammar book. These are just the rules of grammar. I can't change them and you can't change them.

First off, I'm not sure that sentence diagramming is commonplace. Maybe it is nowadays, but the last time I can remember doing it was when I was in elementary school. I'll assume you're correct, and besides, I don't think we're disagreeing. I think you may just have a more specialized jargon when it comes to grammar.

However...

I think I see what you're getting at. Your stance is that you are simply being told to move the Skimmer "the minimum distance", with no explanation as to what that means (in the context of this rule only). And your further stance is that the reason you are moving it "the minimum distance" is for the reason "so that no models are underneath it". I think we're actually both on exactly the same page here. We both agree that "if X happens, perform action Y for reason Z".

I really think the dispute is coming down to what is meant by "the minimum distance".

In absolute numerical terms, the minimum distance would be however far is required to literally no longer be above a model. This would put the Skimmer right next to the enemy model and a mishap would occur.

If you require the basic rule be followed, then the minimum distance would be however far is required to literally no longer be above a model plus an inch. This would put the Skimmer an inch away from the enemy model and a mishap would not occur.

My belief, and correct me if I'm wrong is that this is the specific point we disagree on:

I believe that since following the basic rule would create a scenario with a larger minimum distance than if you just followed the advanced rule, it is a case of contradicting rules and the advanced rule should be followed. You believe that both should be followed even though it creates a minimum distance larger than my scenario.

Sounds correct?

Also, it would be much better if you really were stroking your mustache and laughing maniacally. If you're going to do a thing, go all out. I'm sitting in an armchair, with my cat perched on one arm. There might be a swimming pool with sharks. I don't want to confirm that.

I use sentence diagrams a lot in reading of older statutes and laws. They're more common than you think. It's not jargon, that's the grammatical definition and use of so that.. to show reasoning.

While we agree on the X Y Z of it your view creates a situation where the problem cannot be resolved as you are putting a unknown variable into the equation. As you say X is know , Y is unknown, Z is known. You've created a unresolvable action because you do have an unknown of Y.

My stance is this is not that instance of a special rule overriding a basic rule, but a special rule reinforcing an actual basic rule.

Everything reinforces the rule, don't place models on top of each other or within 1 inch if a enemy model unless it is the assault phase.

It's not a exception it's a reinforcement of that basic rule and to keep you from placing models on top of models.

If that is the case and that you state Y is undefined, then how do you resolve it?

Y is defined and in fact we have multiple instances of the rules stating " don't put models on other models". So the overwhelming evidence is that the rules other than on very specific special circumstances you are to stay 1 inch away from enemy models.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah neither of those are examples.

The first one is literally " This blows up" , it's not ending a move it scatters and then is removed from the board.

The 2nd one is not even .. I don't even. That's not what tank shock does to vehicles.

You get one more try and then the devil gets your soul.

Are you saying that scatter is not movement? It still has to resolve scattering before it explodes.

As for tank shock. "When moving a vehicle with the Tank type, the player can declare that it is going to attempt to tank Shock or Ram instead of moving normally." Tank shock is not a normal movement that, if used, forces the vehicle to move at least Combat Speed.

Also there is the example I posted about a skimmer being on top of a unit. I'll repost it here so you don't have to dig.


xxxxxxxxxx(skimmer)
[===]
[===](Building or terrain like a cliff edge)
[===]++++ (unit sitting on ground floor)
==============

If the skimmer moves to the top floor or edge of the cliff and over hangs it and there is an enemy unit at the bottom this is a situation where the skimmer rules can take effect.

Oberron wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah neither of those are examples.

The first one is literally " This blows up" , it's not ending a move it scatters and then is removed from the board.

The 2nd one is not even .. I don't even. That's not what tank shock does to vehicles.

You get one more try and then the devil gets your soul.

Are you saying that scatter is not movement? It still has to resolve scattering before it explodes.

As for tank shock. "When moving a vehicle with the Tank type, the player can declare that it is going to attempt to tank Shock or Ram instead of moving normally." Tank shock is not a normal movement that, if used, forces the vehicle to move at least Combat Speed.

Also there is the example I posted about a skimmer being on top of a unit. I'll repost it here so you don't have to dig.


xxxxxxxxxx(skimmer)
[===]
[===](Building or terrain like a cliff edge)
[===]++++ (unit sitting on ground floor)
==============

If the skimmer moves to the top floor or edge of the cliff and over hangs it and there is an enemy unit at the bottom this is a situation where the skimmer rules can take effect.

In certain circumstances scatter can be movement, I know of none.. except the Orks I think they have some weird things. Anyway regardless Deep STrike scatter itself is not movement. Also, a explodes result removes the vehicle.
Okay you can either tank shock or ram with a skimmer that is a tank. The skimmer rule has nothing to do with normal movement. It just states it can move through enemy models and friendly models. Again, the skimmer rule has nothing to do with "moving normally", it just says you can do that if it moves which is why I kind of am leaning right now to where you could actually fly over one of your units an tank shock someone on the other side kind of I'm at like 60%.

If you tank shock and you come with in 1 inch of a vehicle it stops. If you ram you follow the ram rules. I dunno what you are talking about or what point you are making about tank shock and ram.


The 2nd example with the building is that it's actually not ending it's move on top of a model it's ending its move on the top floor of the building. Distance is actually measured vertically in 40k, as long as its 1 inch away you're fine, I think you'd have to take a dangerous terrain check. So yeah that doesn't really work.

Devil gets your soul.

I haven't seen this quoted in this thread, and I think it may very well provide the most conclusive argument.

BRB pg 162, "Deep Strike" panel, third paragraph

"Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (pg 135) and then deploy them as follows:"


This clearly states that deepstrike is a deployment, not a movement. The skimmer rule only applies to movement. (this also puts to bed the discussion about tankshocking/ramming while deepstriking)

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
I haven't seen this quoted in this thread, and I think it may very well provide the most conclusive argument.

BRB pg 162, "Deep Strike" panel, third paragraph

"Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (pg 135) and then deploy them as follows:"


This clearly states that deepstrike is a deployment, not a movement. The skimmer rule only applies to movement. (this also puts to bed the discussion about tankshocking/ramming while deepstriking)

Top of page 6 (for me anyway):

Zimko wrote:

Waaaaghmaster wrote:

I have to agree with Hollis (at least in principle). The rules for skimmers says that they cannot end their movement over other models (friendly or enemy). It's pretty definitive, and nowhere does it say "except when deepstriking, skimmers cannot end their movement over other models".

From the rules for Mishap:

If any of the models in a Deep Striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.

Show where 'deployment' is equal to 'movement' or where the Skimmer rule applies to deployment. Deep Striking causes the vehicle to count as having moved, but as shown in the Mishap rule, Deep Striking itself is treated as a form of deployment.

Not the same quote, but similar enough. Though I'm fairly certain it was mentioned.

It's already addressed redressed dressed again went to sleep got up put on make up dressed one more time then taken out into a deep dark wood buried then dug up one more time to be flogged.


Issue

What does the word deploy or deployed mean?

Rule
The word deployed is defined by the Basic Rule Book as the areas they can be set up.

Analysis

The rule book clearly states the definition for deployed. The past tense of deploy.

Conclusion

Deploy means for a player to place or set up a model, deployed is the past tense of this. Deployment is the act of doing this. Deploy is not a action unto the model itself that a model does but instead a action that the model or units owner or player commits.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
I haven't seen this quoted in this thread, and I think it may very well provide the most conclusive argument.

BRB pg 162, "Deep Strike" panel, third paragraph

"Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (pg 135) and then deploy them as follows:"


This clearly states that deepstrike is a deployment, not a movement. The skimmer rule only applies to movement. (this also puts to bed the discussion about tankshocking/ramming while deepstriking)

BRB pg 135:

"When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving itonto the table as described below. [...] The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move."

I'd say that's more relevant to the discussion at hand, than the emphasis on "deploy".

So you claim arriving by Deep Strike is movement?

When you scatter across dangerous terrain do you need to take a Dangerous Terrain test?

 DeathReaper wrote:
So you claim arriving by Deep Strike is movement?

When you scatter across dangerous terrain do you need to take a Dangerous Terrain test?

Deep strike is movement. Scatter is not. The simple fact that I have deep struck, which counts as having moved, means I have moved. Think of it as vertical movement. This form of movement has a random ending point.


Unless you want to revisit your assertion that Treat as saved is a save? Because treating something as something, and counting something as something are grammatically the same. And the Deep Strike rule is counted as moving.

Hollismason wrote:
It's already addressed redressed dressed again went to sleep got up put on make up dressed one more time then taken out into a deep dark wood buried then dug up one more time to be flogged.


Issue

What does the word deploy or deployed mean?

Rule
The word deployed is defined by the Basic Rule Book as the areas they can be set up.

Analysis

The rule book clearly states the definition for deployed. The past tense of deploy.

Conclusion

Deploy means for a player to place or set up a model, deployed is the past tense of this. Deployment is the act of doing this. Deploy is not a action unto the model itself that a model does but instead a action that the model or units owner or player commits.

Can you provide a page quote for you definition of the word deployed? Deployed certainly doesn't mean "the areas where they can be set up". I expect you read this sentence on page 130 under the Deployment Zones header - "Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided." Deployed clearly replaces set up in this instance. I know we've gone over this a number of times, but it's still accurate to say that Deep Striking a model is a form of Deploying a model, or rather Setting Up a model on the battlefield. Nowhere is it defined as movement. In fact, the Deep Strike rules go on to say that it counts as movement in the following Shooting Phase. Why would you need to specify that it counts as movement in the Shooting Phase if it had actually moved?

To be honest, I think all the arguing semantics on how far off a unit a Skimmer would move is moot. I see no real evidence that either Deep Strike is movement or that it counts as movement in the Movement Phase. The Deep Strike rules specifically say that the models count as having moved in the following Shooting Phase. There is no "counts as movement" wording applying to the same Movement Phase.

Kriswall, part ofthe problem is the rules for Deep Strike also say that a Deep Striking unit can move no further, except to disembark. If it has not moved, then it cannot move no further. Or something like that. There's a reason I'm not an English Major.

Either way, if Deep Striking in and of itself is movement, then the Mishap occurs before the model finishes its move. Since the model is not done moving when it mishaps, anything that occurs when it finishes its move would not kick in until after the mishap.

 Mavlun wrote:

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
I haven't seen this quoted in this thread, and I think it may very well provide the most conclusive argument.

BRB pg 162, "Deep Strike" panel, third paragraph

"Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (pg 135) and then deploy them as follows:"


This clearly states that deepstrike is a deployment, not a movement. The skimmer rule only applies to movement. (this also puts to bed the discussion about tankshocking/ramming while deepstriking)

BRB pg 135:

"When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving itonto the table as described below. [...] The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move."

I'd say that's more relevant to the discussion at hand, than the emphasis on "deploy".

Your quote for the more general reserves rule says "pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below."

the more specific rule for arriving from deepstrike says "and then deploy them as follows:"

Both quotes are discussing the method of deployment. The general method associated with reserves involves a movement, the more specific rule for deepstrike does not. Specific overrides general.

Yeah that's not actually how that rule functions at all you are literally just making something up by saying general overrides specific, it is special rule vs. basic rules not specific rules vs. basic rules. This only happens by the way when when there is a conflict , there is no conflict with deep strike and the movement rule or deep strike being movement. As movement literaly states that there are other methods of movement other than basic.

Not a single person has argued that the scatter portion of deep strike is movement. Stop saying this it's not been discussed at all.

People are just rehashing argument's that have been covered already multiple times including consistently bringing up straw man arguments, the same question that's been answered ad nauseum. Deep strike is movement, move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, part ofthe problem is the rules for Deep Strike also say that a Deep Striking unit can move no further, except to disembark. If it has not moved, then it cannot move no further. Or something like that. There's a reason I'm not an English Major.

Either way, if Deep Striking in and of itself is movement, then the Mishap occurs before the model finishes its move. Since the model is not done moving when it mishaps, anything that occurs when it finishes its move would not kick in until after the mishap.

Everything underlined is verbatim from the rules

Issue:

If a Deepstriking Skimmer would end it's final position over a unit would the Skimmer be placed at least 1inch away and avoid Mishap?

Rule

Skimmers may move through but may not end their movement over enemy models. Skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models, but they cannot end their move on top of either. If a situation forcibly would cause a skimmer to end it's move it is instead moved in such away as to place it so that this does not happen. If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it. The minimum distance required specifically means the least amount of movement required to ensure this not happen, per the rules a model may not end it's move with in 1 inch of a enemy model.A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase.The deep strike rules state that a model from the unit is placed on board, then you roll for scatter to see its final positioning. First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model’s final position. The model may not move any further. In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further. A model or unit is considered to mishap when it is placed on top of a enemy or friendly unit or with in impassable terrain. If any of the models in a Deep Striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.



Analysis

The initial placing a of a model for deep strike does not allow it to be placed on top of another model friendly or enemy. The final positioning of a model during deep strike would be a ending of it's movement during the movement phase as it cannot move any further. The Skimmer special rule does not allow a unit to have a ending movement on top of a enemy or friendly model. A mishap occurs when the final positioning of the model would deploy it on top of a model or with in 1 inch of a enemy unit. The final positioning of a deep striking skimmer would be reduced to the minimum required distance 1 inch in the case of a enemy unit or less than 1 inch when on a friendly unit.


Conclusion

Deep Striking Skimmers would be moved according to the skimmer special rule. The Mishap would not occur because it's deployment onto the field or movement would have to be at least 1 inch away from a enemy unit and because deep strike would create a situation where the skimmer would be forcibly ending their move over an enemy unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So you claim arriving by Deep Strike is movement?

When you scatter across dangerous terrain do you need to take a Dangerous Terrain test?

Hello, I am a strawman argument. No one has stated this. Moving on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
It's already addressed redressed dressed again went to sleep got up put on make up dressed one more time then taken out into a deep dark wood buried then dug up one more time to be flogged.


Issue

What does the word deploy or deployed mean?

Rule
The word deployed is defined by the Basic Rule Book as the areas they can be set up.

Analysis

The rule book clearly states the definition for deployed. The past tense of deploy.

Conclusion

Deploy means for a player to place or set up a model, deployed is the past tense of this. Deployment is the act of doing this. Deploy is not a action unto the model itself that a model does but instead a action that the model or units owner or player commits.

Can you provide a page quote for you definition of the word deployed? Deployed certainly doesn't mean "the areas where they can be set up". I expect you read this sentence on page 130 under the Deployment Zones header - "Once the armies are chosen, the areas where they can be set up, or rather deployed, must be decided." Deployed clearly replaces set up in this instance. I know we've gone over this a number of times, but it's still accurate to say that Deep Striking a model is a form of Deploying a model, or rather Setting Up a model on the battlefield. Nowhere is it defined as movement. In fact, the Deep Strike rules go on to say that it counts as movement in the following Shooting Phase. Why would you need to specify that it counts as movement in the Shooting Phase if it had actually moved?

To be honest, I think all the arguing semantics on how far off a unit a Skimmer would move is moot. I see no real evidence that either Deep Strike is movement or that it counts as movement in the Movement Phase. The Deep Strike rules specifically say that the models count as having moved in the following Shooting Phase. There is no "counts as movement" wording applying to the same Movement Phase.

This isn't a argument of a semantics, Deep strike is actual movement. Movement is only given one example of in the basic rules, the basic rules themselves state there are other methods of movement. The very definition of the PHASE you are in is called the movement phase.

That sentence wouldn't match yours for me it's page 356

hollismason. When a unit arrives by Deep Strike, when is its move ended?

It's move is considered ended on final placement which is the end of it's move during the movement phase this is a situation where it would be forcibly ending it's move on top of another model. The skimmer rule does not say after it has ended it's move but in fact if it would .

The whole rule can be summarized to state:

If something would cause this to happen, don't do it.

Mishap is

If this happens, do this

Like that's as simple as I can make it.

I maintain that the Skimmer rule happens before Mishap would occur although there is argument that it happens at the same time, which in that case you'd just pick the skimmer rule as it's your turn and you get to decide the order of action. They are both rules that deal with ending a move over a model by the way.

The order you can choose things is another rule people are ignoring.

Hollismason wrote:
It's move is considered ended on final placement which is the end of it's move during the movement phase this is a situation where it would be forcibly ending it's move on top of another model. The skimmer rule does not say after it has ended it's move but in fact if it would .

Ahh there is the problem. The rules do not say if the Skimmer would end its move over models, the rule says if the skimmer is forced to end its move over models..

When you add words like "would" it changes the meaning of the sentence.

 Happyjew wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
It's move is considered ended on final placement which is the end of it's move during the movement phase this is a situation where it would be forcibly ending it's move on top of another model. The skimmer rule does not say after it has ended it's move but in fact if it would .

Ahh there is the problem. The rules do not say if the Skimmer would end its move over models, the rule says if the skimmer is forced to end its move over models..

When you add words like "would" it changes the meaning of the sentence.

The rules verbatim state this. I don't know what the you are talking about.

If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.

Don't argue grammar with me seriously just like don't you're not going to win. If literally means a condition that could or would happen.

Would this be a condition of ending it's move? Yes. Then don't do that.

You would be correct if it said WHEN . It doesn't.

You can argue that Mishap occurs at the same time though, but then the whole " I get to determine how this plays out because it's my turn" happens.

Now ask yourself this. Why is the rule written that way? Because the rules don't want to state a situation where you would physically place a model on top of another which is why both are written similarly, they want to both check if this could happen, because the rules don't want to state a situation where the actual physical course of action for the model is. Place the model on top of other models, then end its move, Now take the model off those models. Like this is the actual reasoning.

This is your way of saying it works , ignore deep strike or any other rules, we're just concerned with a situation.

This is how you say that works

1. I scatter my Wave Serpent for whatever ever reason, it moves 8 inches which is on top of your terminators.

2. I PHYSICALLY pick up my Wave Serpent and lay it on top of your terminators.

3. I end my move.

4. My move as ended

5. I move my Wave Serpent that is LAYING ON TOP OF your terminators back to where it would be the minimum distance of 1 inch away from a enemy model.

This is how it actually works

1. I scatter my wave serpent, the scatter is 8 inches and would place it's ending movement on top of a unit of terminators.

2. Since that move would be forcing it to end, it's moved the minimum distance so as to to not be on top of another model.