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.

Cool your jets please folks.

I feel like I am in a Joseph Heller novel at this point.

Hollismason wrote:


I feel like I am in a Joseph Heller novel at this point.

Then... wait, how did this go? I want to remember your exact words to me earlier in this thread. Oh, yeah. Take your ball and go home. If this is so painful for you, you don't have to participate. I enjoy a good debate. Debating with you is difficult because you keep pulling in things like IRAC, which are pretty much isolated to legal analysis. This isn't a legal debate. The rulebook isn't a legal document. GW clearly doesn't employ anyone with legal training to write rules. To be honest, I'm not even sure you're using IRAC correctly. I get the same feeling I do when a student learns one technique and tries to make it fit in every situation. I mean, you used IRAC to "prove" that the past tense of deploy is defined as the noun... "areas". Seriously? I may not have the overwhelming grammatical power that you obviously do, but my Websters dictionary disagrees with your definition.

FACT: Deep Striking is a form of deployment.
FACT: Deployment is not defined as a form of movement. It is a placement of models.
FACT: The Deep Strike rules say a model may move no further except to disembark. This implies that prior movement occurred, but does not require that prior movement occurred.
FACT: The Deep Strike rules only give permission to count the model as having moved during the Shooting Phase. This implies that the model did not actually move in the previous movement phase. If it had, there would be no need to include this call out.
FACT: Scatter is not defined as a form of movement.
FACT: The Deep Strike process has not concluded until Mishap is checked for. If I'm willing to agree that a Deep Strike process is movement, I'm now willing to agree that the model would be forced to end its movement over other models. I place the model where I want to go. I scatter on top of models. I roll for mishap. Depending on the result, I'm either destroyed, placed back into reserves or my opponent is allowed to place the model. In none of those three scenarios am I ending the Deep Strike process on top of another model. Again, in none of those three scenarios am I ENDING the Deep Strike process on top of another model.

If you say that Deep Strike is movement, you need to complete the Deep Strike process to get to the END of that movement. If Deep Striking is movement, and you haven't completed all the steps of the Deep Strike process, you haven't come to the end of that movement. Fulling completing a Deep Strike process can never END with a model over another model.

If you say that only the Scatter element is movement, you need to demonstrate in the rules that the model is physically starting out where you've placed it and then moving to the new position. You need to demonstrate that the rules do not tell you to place the model where you would like it to go and then roll scatter to determine the model's final position... which is exactly what the rules say. There is no mention of movement. This is a placement process. The initial placement is a placeholder. The model is not deployed until final position is determined.

What you cannot do is agree that Deep Strike is movement, but then decide that you can END that movement halfway through the Deep Strike process.

You're just being wilfully obtuse at this point as multiple people myself include have demonstrated that Deep Strike is in fact movement.I've literally explained it grammatically, through the rules themselves, through diagrams.You just don't get it because of refusal to do so because of your inability to admit that you are wrong.

So you are just repeating the same things over and over again where I am showing multiple ways and explanations on why you are in fact wrong as are others.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 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:

 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.

So the scatter is not movement?

Then the Skimmer rule does not come into play, since you mishap before the DSing unit arrives.

"If any of the models in a Deep Striking unit cannot be deployed" (DS rules)

"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." (DS rules)

The final position of the deep strike is the end of it's movement it's definitively stated it may not move no further. You're literally checking to see where it actually moves to. The first initial placing is where you want it to move ( coincidently you can't place it on a unit).

Neither Mishap or the Skimmer rule allow a model to end it's move on top of another unit. Skimmer rule happens before mishap or at the same time as mishap. You could argue they happen at the same time. As the final placement would be a definitive end of it's move which would leave it on top of models which the skimmer rule would prevent but also it would cause the mishap to occur as well.

Hollismason wrote:
The final position of the deep strike is the end of it's movement it's definitively stated it may not move no further. You're literally checking to see where it actually moves to. The first initial placing is where you want it to move ( coincidently you can't place it on a unit).

So you have a rule that says this I assume?

Because I can not find it.


"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" (DS Mishap Rules)

Pay close attention to what I underlined.

The unit has not arrived until you check for mishap, since you check for mishap if it would land... meaning it has not yet landed and is not yet considered movement.

Hollismason wrote:
You're just being wilfully obtuse at this point as multiple people myself include have demonstrated that Deep Strike is in fact movement.I've literally explained it grammatically, through the rules themselves, through diagrams.You just don't get it because of refusal to do so because of your inability to admit that you are wrong.

So you are just repeating the same things over and over again where I am showing multiple ways and explanations on why you are in fact wrong as are others.

Ok, pretend I'm a five year old and explain it to me. We'll assume the Deep Strike process is movement. You are wanting to use something that triggers on the end of movement partway through the Deep Strike process. If the Deep Strike process is movement, you shouldn't be able to use something that triggers on the end of movement until you've completed the initial placement, subsequent scatter and mishap check/execution steps.

Your whole argument seems to balance on being able to say that Deep Strike is movement, but that Deep Strike ends (triggering the Skimmer rule check) BEFORE you check for a Mishap. Your argument seems to be not that Deep Strike is movement, but that the Scatter step of the Deep Strike process is movement. I see no rules as written evidence to count the Scatter step alone as movement.

The skimmer rule would still apply to that, neither of those rules activate after the end of a move but before it.

They both though do not want you to end your movement on something.

It's pretty simple that's why I asked illustrate another example, but we can make it up.

Something causes a skimmer to move randomly just hits it and it randomly moves.

This is your sequence of events that you think occurs

1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.

This is how it actually works

1. The model scatters and that movement places it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model.


It's actually how mishap works as well. It checks first, you don't place a model on top of another model, then go wait it mishapped, then remove the model from the table.

The only thing that is occuring with both of those is that you are checking to see if the model would end it's movement over another model.

Hollismason wrote:
The skimmer rule would still apply to that, neither of those rules activate after the end of a move but before it.

They both though do not want you to end your movement on someone.

Except the scatter is not movement.

so you mishap.

the DSing unit is considered to have moved after it arrives.

Scatter happend before this as per the quote, specifically the underlined section, I posted.

Can you please stop bringing up scatter is movement?

Can you please actual read what I wrote? Is that to much to ask, I mean I'm going through the trouble of responding to you could you do me the one thing that is required for a conversation to happen but listen to the other person and respond to what I am actually writing?

Or are you unable to do this?

I always like the example of if the start of a statement is your shoulder and the end of the statement is your hand, most people get to the elbow when listening to someone. You're not actually comprehending or responding to things I am stating.

I can only assume you are not actually reading what I wrote, but instead responding with what ever you think you should say.

Hollismason wrote:
The skimmer rule would still apply to that, neither of those rules activate after the end of a move but before it.

They both though do not want you to end your movement on someone.

Oh, see, this is something I can easily disprove.

Mishap Rules - "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."

The mishap doesn't trigger off ending movement. It trigger off a unit not being able to be deployed, with several reasons for that listed.

Again, check for mishap is part of Deep Strike. Check for mishap doesn't care about the end of movement. It cares only about inability to deploy.

I fully and willingly admit that at the end of a Deep Strike process the Skimmer rule would come into play. Unfortunately, there are only four outcomes to a standard Deep Strike process for something like a Raider...

1. Successful deployment through either no scatter or scatter to a safe location.
2. Mishap with the unit destroyed.
3. Mishap with the unit placed back in reserves.
4. Mishap with the unit deployed by your opponent in a safe location.

There is no "5. Deployment on top of an enemy unit". It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Deep Strike process to END on top of an enemy unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
Can you please stop bringing up scatter is movement?

Can you please actual read what I wrote? Is that to much to ask, I mean I'm going through the trouble of responding to you could you do me the one thing that is required for a conversation to happen but listen to the other person?

I don't actually think the scatter portion is movement. You seem to as you're triggering the Skimmer rule after the scatter has completed, but before the Deep Strike process has completed.

Unless you can cite permission to count scatter as movement, or cite permission to count a Deep Strike process as ended BEFORE mishap is checked for, you are not covering my points above.

I've literally stated multiple times what my viewpoint is. You seem to not be able to actually comprehend what I am stating.

Here is as simple as I can make it.

The Skimmer rule does not trigger after something has ended it's move. It stops it from ever happening. It also does not care if there is a Mishap rule. It only cares if there is a situation where something would forcibly end a skimmers movement over another model and it prevents this from ever happening. The final placement after scatter would be the ending movement of a skimmer, if models are there, the skimmer rule moves it the minimum distance required to avoid this from ever possibly happening.


If you do not think it happens that way then please give me your sequence of events of what happens when a skimmer is forced to end it's move on top of another model. Like in steps, I've already actually done this but why not you do it. Ignore deep strike whatever else. Let's just say it scatters randomly out of the sky , something picks it up and drops it randomly. How does this sequence of events look phsyically on the field.

Hollismason wrote:
I've literally stated multiple times what my viewpoint is. You seem to not be able to actually comprehend what I am stating.

Here is as simple as I can make it.

The Skimmer rule does not trigger after something has ended it's move. It stops it from ever happening. It also does not care if there is a Mishap rule. It only cares if there is a situation where something would forcibly end a skimmers movement over another model and it prevents this from ever happening. The final placement after scatter would be the ending movement of a skimmer, if models are there, the skimmer rule moves it the minimum distance required to avoid this from ever possibly happening.


If you do not think it happens that way then please give me your sequence of events of what happens when a skimmer is forced to end it's move on top of another model. Like in steps, I've already actually done this but why not you do it. Ignore deep strike whatever else. Let's just say it scatters randomly out of the sky , something picks it up and drops it randomly. How does this sequence of events look phsyically on the field.

Sure thing. In your mythical scenario (which sure looks like a Deep Strike process without the mishap section) the Skimmer rule would come into play exactly as you've said. Fortunately, the Deep Strike process ALREADY has a method for ensuring no model ever ends its movement on top of another model. It's called a mishap. A Deep Strike process NEVER ENDS with a model on top of another model.

I've agreed that the process works exactly as you say in a non Deep Strike scenario.

Now, you run me through a Deep Strike process flow where at the END of the Deep Strike process the deep striking model IS FORCED to end on top of another model.

If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to be destroyed.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to go back into reserves.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to deploy somewhere my opponent chooses.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it is never FORCED to end the Deep Strike on top of another model.

Hollismason wrote:
Can you please stop bringing up scatter is movement?

Since it destroys your side of the argument, no I will keep bringing it up till you address it. You wont be able to though, since no rules side with your position here.

Can you please actual read what I wrote? Is that to much to ask, I mean I'm going through the trouble of responding to you could you do me the one thing that is required for a conversation to happen but listen to the other person and respond to what I am actually writing?

I read what you wrote, the rules disagree with it.

Or are you unable to do this?

I have, and have debunked your position.

I always like the example of if the start of a statement is your shoulder and the end of the statement is your hand, most people get to the elbow when listening to someone. You're not actually comprehending or responding to things I am stating.

I can only assume you are not actually reading what I wrote, but instead responding with what ever you think you should say.

I have read what you wrote, and have debunked your position.

No you've just repeatedly stated that I state Scatter is movement, when I've repeatedly stated otherwise. That scatter is simply the method we use to determine the final place of where it is moving.

Nor does it destroy my argument , Nor have you refuted it. You've just constantly repeated your statement. You just saying something over and over again isn't a argument it's just you repeating yourself.

Again, explain in step by step terms how to resolve the skimmer rule if something would occur to forcibly move it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I've literally stated multiple times what my viewpoint is. You seem to not be able to actually comprehend what I am stating.

Here is as simple as I can make it.

The Skimmer rule does not trigger after something has ended it's move. It stops it from ever happening. It also does not care if there is a Mishap rule. It only cares if there is a situation where something would forcibly end a skimmers movement over another model and it prevents this from ever happening. The final placement after scatter would be the ending movement of a skimmer, if models are there, the skimmer rule moves it the minimum distance required to avoid this from ever possibly happening.


If you do not think it happens that way then please give me your sequence of events of what happens when a skimmer is forced to end it's move on top of another model. Like in steps, I've already actually done this but why not you do it. Ignore deep strike whatever else. Let's just say it scatters randomly out of the sky , something picks it up and drops it randomly. How does this sequence of events look phsyically on the field.

Sure thing. In your mythical scenario (which sure looks like a Deep Strike process without the mishap section) the Skimmer rule would come into play exactly as you've said. Fortunately, the Deep Strike process ALREADY has a method for ensuring no model ever ends its movement on top of another model. It's called a mishap. A Deep Strike process NEVER ENDS with a model on top of another model.

I've agreed that the process works exactly as you say in a non Deep Strike scenario.

Now, you run me through a Deep Strike process flow where at the END of the Deep Strike process the deep striking model IS FORCED to end on top of another model.

If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to be destroyed.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to go back into reserves.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it might be FORCED to deploy somewhere my opponent chooses.
If I Deep Strike a Raider, it is never FORCED to end the Deep Strike on top of another model.

Again you are ignoring everything I have written.

This is a simply yes or no which of these methods is the method by which the skimmer rule works that's all you have to answer.

This one

1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.

Or this one

1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model

This really says it all:

"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" (DS Mishap Rules)

Pay close attention to what I underlined.

The unit has not arrived until you check for mishap, since you check for mishap if it would land... meaning it has not yet landed and is not yet considered movement.

Again you are fundamentally not understanding how the skimmer rule works.

Again Answer this question which of these methods does the skimmer rule work?


1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.

Or this one

1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model

So, to clarify your position...

Scatter isn't movement or scatter is movement?

Skimmer rule kicks in partway through the deep strike process when a model's final position is determined (determined, not moved).

I'm confused by this second part because despite the final position being determined, the model is never actually deployed on top of any models, so how could the Skimmer rule possibly come into play? A mishap occurs once the model's final position is determined to fulfill one of several listed criteria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This really says it all:

"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" (DS Mishap Rules)

Pay close attention to what I underlined.

The unit has not arrived until you check for mishap, since you check for mishap if it would land... meaning it has not yet landed and is not yet considered movement.

I'm not sure there is any point arguing with Hollismason. He isn't willing to address specific counter arguments. It's the sign of a weak argument.

 Kriswall wrote:
It's the sign of a weak argument.

They all seem like pretty weak arguments to me

The one that makes the most sense is that the skimmer rule talks about being "forced" to end its move over friendly of enemy models, but deep strike doesn't force you to end your move over friendly or enemy models.

But GW are so fast and loose with their wordings that I have no idea what the intended ruling might have been if there was any intention what so ever... so whatever... play it how you like I suppose. In my experience, trying to argue the finer points of wording is hard enough on the internet, it's damned near impossible in person.

Hollismason wrote:
Again you are fundamentally not understanding how the skimmer rule works.

Again Answer this question which of these methods does the skimmer rule work?


1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.

Or this one

1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model

Neither

1 is incorrect because you seem to think scatter is movement when you say "The model scatters and that move ment..." the scatter is not movement as you have said, so why are you now saying it is?

2 is incorrect for the same reason.

I literally live in the same city as you, would you like to meet up somewhere and physically show me how you think it works, some place preferably in public.

Cause at this point I think you're just purposefully being ignorant of what I've said.
Or why not just write out like I did the steps to resolving the skimmers rules or how it would work. Just write it out. Let's see you do that. Cause the way I wrote it doesn't have anything to do with scatter at all. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Just do that.

A simple statement, I've more than went beyond measure for explaining myself , yet you have yet to explain how you think it actually works, the skimmer rule. How that rule would function physically in the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Again you are fundamentally not understanding how the skimmer rule works.

Again Answer this question which of these methods does the skimmer rule work?


1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.

Or this one

1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model

Neither

1 is incorrect because you seem to think scatter is movement when you say "The model scatters and that move ment..." the scatter is not movement as you have said, so why are you now saying it is?

2 is incorrect for the same reason.

I know I'm coming late to the discussion so maybe I've missed the point, but I don't think you are understanding his argument... the arrival of the model is movement. It's not so much that the desired DS location to scatter location is movement, but rather the fact the model arrives is the movement. However it's never explicitly stated as such either way. It is explicitly stated "Deep Striking units may not move any further" and "count as having moved in the previous Movement phase" directly imply that the arrival of the unit is movement, but it's never specified which part of the arrival is the movement.

So I don't think the "deep strike is not moving" argument is worth anything much.

The arguments that seem meaningful are...

1. Mishaps stop the model from arriving... so if the model doesn't arrive how can it have moved, if it hasn't moved then it can't be ending it's move on top of models.

2. The skimmer rules refer to being "forced"... deep striking doesn't force you to end your move on models, it offers the alternative of mishap, if you aren't "forced" then the skimmer rule doesn't come in to effect.

The impassable terrain, looking purely at the wording, is a separate issue. At first read it would seem that skimmers can DS on to impassable terrain depending on how you read the rule.

 Kriswall wrote:
So, to clarify your position...

Scatter isn't movement or scatter is movement?

Skimmer rule kicks in partway through the deep strike process when a model's final position is determined (determined, not moved).

I'm confused by this second part because despite the final position being determined, the model is never actually deployed on top of any models, so how could the Skimmer rule possibly come into play? A mishap occurs once the model's final position is determined to fulfill one of several listed criteria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This really says it all:

"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" (DS Mishap Rules)

Pay close attention to what I underlined.

The unit has not arrived until you check for mishap, since you check for mishap if it would land... meaning it has not yet landed and is not yet considered movement.

I'm not sure there is any point arguing with Hollismason. He isn't willing to address specific counter arguments. It's the sign of a weak argument.

Scatter only serves the purpose to show where the model would be moving to and ending it's move. Here it is in steps.

1. I select a unit from reserves to move onto the board and deploy it as per the deep strike rule.
2. To literally do this you are suppose to set the models offboard.
3. Deep Strike states place a model onto the board
4. Roll for scatter to see where it actually moves to. The place you intended it to move to or elsewhere.
5. If the scatter would place it in such that it would end its move DEEP STRIKE ( which is a type of movement) over a model the skimmer rule would not allow this, the mishap rule would also not allow this.
6. The skimmer rule states place the model the minimum distance needed, 1 inch in the case of enemy models, Deep Strike Mishap even makes the point that it is only when with in 1 inch of Enemy Models that you mishap BTW.
7. It's actual placement would put it the minimum distance away , which directionly would place it inch away.

That's it that's the order.

Both the Skimmer rule and Mishap do not require you to physically place the model on other models. The Skimmer rule does not say AFTER it ends its move.

Again, write out the way I wrote out the specific way you think the skimmer rule functions in a scenario. That's it. Just write that out


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Again you are fundamentally not understanding how the skimmer rule works.

Again Answer this question which of these methods does the skimmer rule work?


1. The model scatters and that move ment places it over a model.
2. You would physically place that model on top of the other model.
3. It's move would end.
4. You would then move the skimmer back so that it did not do that.

Or this one

1. The model scatters and that movement would place it over another model.
2 You move it the minimum distance required instead of placing in on a model

Neither

1 is incorrect because you seem to think scatter is movement when you say "The model scatters and that move ment..." the scatter is not movement as you have said, so why are you now saying it is?

2 is incorrect for the same reason.

I know I'm coming late to the discussion so maybe I've missed the point, but I don't think you are understanding his argument... the arrival of the model is movement. It's not so much that the desired DS location to scatter location is movement, but rather the fact the model arrives is the movement. However it's never explicitly stated as such either way. It is explicitly stated "Deep Striking units may not move any further" and "count as having moved in the previous Movement phase" directly imply that the arrival of the unit is movement, but it's never specified which part of the arrival is the movement.

So I don't think the "deep strike is not moving" argument is worth anything much.

The arguments that seem meaningful are...

1. Mishaps stop the model from arriving... so if the model doesn't arrive how can it have moved, if it hasn't moved then it can't be ending it's move on top of models.

2. The skimmer rules refer to being "forced"... deep striking doesn't force you to end your move on models, it offers the alternative of mishap, if you aren't "forced" then the skimmer rule doesn't come in to effect.

The impassable terrain, looking purely at the wording, is a separate issue. At first read it would seem that skimmers can DS on to impassable terrain depending on how you read the rule.

The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.

The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.

The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.

They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.

The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.

Hollismason wrote:
I literally live in the same city as you, would you like to meet up somewhere and physically show me how you think it works, some place preferably in public.

Cause at this point I think you're just purposefully being ignorant of what I've said.
Or why not just write out like I did the steps to resolving the skimmers rules or how it would work. Just write it out. Let's see you do that. Cause the way I wrote it doesn't have anything to do with scatter at all. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Just do that.

A simple statement, I've more than went beyond measure for explaining myself , yet you have yet to explain how you think it actually works, the skimmer rule. How that rule would function physically in the game.

Step 1. Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves.
Step 2. Place the model anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive.
Step 3. Roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.
Step 4. Assuming the final position meets none of the criteria of a mishap, deploy the model.
Step 5. If the model cannot be deployed due, among other things, to being on top of an enemy model, roll on the Deep Strike Mishap Table. This step is important. I want to point out the the model does not actually deploy, instead experiencing a mishap.
Step 6. Perform the resulting selection from the Mishap Table.

As of Step 6, the Deep Strike process is complete. At no step is the model forced to end the Deep Strike over an enemy model. It might be forced to roll on and obey the result of the mishap table, but it is never forced to end a deep strike over another model.

Step 7. If the model is a Skimmer and because Deep Striking counts as movement (still potentially up for debate), test to see whether it was forced to end it's movement over an existing model. If it did, move it as specified in the Skimmer rules. I contend that as there is no legal scenario where a model ENDS a Deep Strike process over enemy models, there is no legal scenario where the Skimmer rules would come into play during a Deep Strike.

Hollismason wrote:
The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.

The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.

The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.

They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.

The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.

I honestly don't think the rule writers ever even considered that the rules would interact hence why they aren't worded well to fit in with each other.

Yes, the skimmer rule is "always on", but it is only relevant when the skimmer is "forced to end its move"... deep striking on to units is not forcing you to end your move over friendly or enemy models, so I'd argue the skimmer rule is not relevant.

The rules clash, yes, I don't think they were ever intended to interact, but given the wording we have, given that deep strike doesn't force you to end your move over models, I don't see how the skimmer rule would be relevant.

Hollismason wrote:
The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.

The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.

The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.

They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.

The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.

So, again, you contend that the model is moving from the point you would like it to deploy to the point the scatter dice indicate despite NEVER actually DEPLOYING to the board? Seriously, you're just picking and choosing the bits of Deep Strike you want to obey.

Let's take a non skimmer. Let's take a Blood Angels Land Raider. It has Deep Strike.

Paint a picture with words. Give me a start to finish scenario where the Land Raider would fully complete the Deep Strike and end up on top of another model. Fill in the below...

Step 1. Model is in reserves.
Step 2. Deep Strike commences
Step 3 to whatever ... (you fill in these steps, remembering that mishap check must be included in between deep strike begins and ends)
Second to Last Step. Deep Strike Ends
Last Step. Land Raider has been forced to deploy onto another unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.

The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.

The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.

They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.

The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.

I honestly don't think the rule writers ever even considered that the rules would interact hence why they aren't worded well to fit in with each other.

Yes, the skimmer rule is "always on", but it is only relevant when the skimmer is "forced to end its move"... deep striking on to units is not forcing you to end your move over friendly or enemy models, so I'd argue the skimmer rule is not relevant.

The rules clash, yes, I don't think they were ever intended to interact, but given the wording we have, given that deep strike doesn't force you to end your move over models, I don't see how the skimmer rule would be relevant.

I don't even think the rules clash. I think the Skimmer rule simply never comes into play because Deep Strike never allows a model to end a Deep Strike on top of another unit.

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't even think the rules clash. I think the Skimmer rule simply never comes into play because Deep Strike never allows a model to end a Deep Strike on top of another unit.

The reason I feel they clash is because the mishap occurs if the unit "cannot be deployed", the wording of the next half of the sentence is "because blah" when I think it should be "such as blah" or "for example if blah". Logically a skimmer COULD deploy on to impassable terrain because it can move on to impassable terrain and could, if necessary, deploy after scattering on to other units ... but the deep strike rule just puts a blanket ban on deployment if X, Y, and Z occurs with no acknowledgement that some units (skimmers) might actually be able to deploy in those circumstances.

Of course that's debatable... it's just how I feel from reading the rules, that the two rules were written without consideration of each other.

I tend to think the "forced to end their move" thing was written for a hypothetical rule that never came in to being where something would stop a model in its tracks during its movement phase or maybe some sort of planned system for movement that the player doesn't control (and so could unintentionally drop you on top of another unit).

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.

The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.

The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.

They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.

The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.

So, again, you contend that the model is moving from the point you would like it to deploy to the point the scatter dice indicate despite NEVER actually DEPLOYING to the board? Seriously, you're just picking and choosing the bits of Deep Strike you want to obey.

Just write out how you think the skimmer rule works.

Let's take a non skimmer. Let's take a Blood Angels Land Raider. It has Deep Strike.

Paint a picture with words. Give me a start to finish scenario where the Land Raider would fully complete the Deep Strike and end up on top of another model. Fill in the below...

Step 1. Model is in reserves.
Step 2. Deep Strike commences
Step 3 to whatever ... (you fill in these steps, remembering that mishap check must be included in between deep strike begins and ends)
Second to Last Step. Deep Strike Ends
Last Step. Land Raider has been forced to deploy onto another unit.

It's pretty simple write out how you think you actually use the skimmer rule. Like physically do you think you physically place a model on top of another model. Stop. Then move the model. According to the Skimmer rules.

Or are you just unable to do this, because refusal just proves my point that this is not how the Skimmer rule works and in fact works as a check system to make sure it's movement would never let it end over a model.

Hollismason wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
The skimmer rule doesn't care if the mishap rule exists, the mishap rule doesn't care if the skimmer rule exists. Both of these rules operate independently of each other.

The skimmer rule wants to make sure that in no way if you are being forced to end your movement would you be allowed to place a model on top of another.

The Mishap rule wants to make sure that if you try and deploy something on top of another model etc.. you cannot.

They work independent of each other and during basically the same check.

The Skimmer is checking that when something is forcing you to move, that you don't end up on something, it always checks for this, it's always on. You can't fly over a model some how get stopped and end up on top of it. This is functionally what both of these rules prevent.

So, again, you contend that the model is moving from the point you would like it to deploy to the point the scatter dice indicate despite NEVER actually DEPLOYING to the board? Seriously, you're just picking and choosing the bits of Deep Strike you want to obey.

Just write out how you think the skimmer rule works.

Let's take a non skimmer. Let's take a Blood Angels Land Raider. It has Deep Strike.

Paint a picture with words. Give me a start to finish scenario where the Land Raider would fully complete the Deep Strike and end up on top of another model. Fill in the below...

Step 1. Model is in reserves.
Step 2. Deep Strike commences
Step 3 to whatever ... (you fill in these steps, remembering that mishap check must be included in between deep strike begins and ends)
Second to Last Step. Deep Strike Ends
Last Step. Land Raider has been forced to deploy onto another unit.

It's pretty simple write out how you think you actually use the skimmer rule. Like physically do you think you physically place a model on top of another model. Stop. Then move the model. According to the Skimmer rules.

Or are you just unable to do this, because refusal just proves my point that this is not how the Skimmer rule works and in fact works as a check system to make sure it's movement would never let it end over a model.

The Skimmer rule isn't in question here. I 100% agree that Skimmers "slide" off of models when they are forced to end their movement on top of them. The Skimmer rule is fething simple and straightforward. "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models..." THIS CONDITION IS NEVER MET DURING A DEEP STRIKE. The Skimmer rule simply doesn't apply in this situation.

Until you are willing to explain, in detail, using actual rules quotes how a model WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DEPLOYED TO THE TABLE has ended it move over an enemy model, I'll just assume you know you're wrong, but are unwilling to admit it.

If you can cite a rule that allows me to consider a deep strike complete BEFORE I check for and execute a mishap, then I'll concede and proclaim you Grand Wizard of Dogmatic Bickering. Until then, you lose by default because you're not willing to address a valid debate point.