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.

I've demonstrated it not only with rules quotes others have as well. It's simple Deep Strike is movement, the final position that you would place the model is the end of it's move. Skimmer rules kick in.

I've quoted requoted , rewritten and rewritten.

Now is your turn is to tell me how the Skimmer rule works in a move that would forcibly end it's move over a model.

That's it that's all you have to do. I've endlessly played quote monkey with the rules, you have consistently just requoted yourself over and over again. Now is your turn to put up , explain to me with rules quotations why deploying from deep strike is not movement when all references surrounding it indicate that it is a type of move.

Now, show me where in the rules the Skimmer rules could be applied and how you would physically apply them. If not stop repeating yourself and I'll consider the question over.

That's it all you have to do is demonstrate that deep strike is not movment as well a show me how you would enact the skimmer rule in any other situation that would cause the model to be forcibly moved.

The preponderence of evidence points to Deep Strike being a type of move, the skimmer rules do not allow you to physically place another model on top of another, then end the move, then move the model.

That's literally what you are saying occurs.

I've consistently maintained that these rules are parallel to each other and function perfectly fine together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

It's simple Deep Strike is movement but not until after the unit arrives.

During scatter and Mishap check the scatter is not moevment.

Hollismason wrote:
I've demonstrated it not only with rules quotes others have as well. It's simple Deep Strike is movement, the final position that you would place the model is the end of it's move. Skimmer rules kick in.

I've quoted requoted , rewritten and rewritten.

Now is your turn is to tell me how the Skimmer rule works in a move that would forcibly end it's move over a model.

We agree on how the Skimmer rule works in a scenario where it is forced to end it's movement over a model.

That's it that's all you have to do. I've endlessly played quote monkey with the rules, you have consistently just requoted yourself over and over again. Now is your turn to put up , explain to me with rules quotations why deploying from deep strike is not movement when all references surrounding it indicate that it is a type of move.

I agree that a Deep Strike procedure counts as movement.

Now, show me where in the rules the Skimmer rules could be applied and how you would physically apply them. If not stop repeating yourself and I'll consider the question over.

I honestly can't think of a single scenario where a Skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of another model. I know that if a Skimmer is on the upper floor of a building and there are models underneath it, it would be considered to be on top of a model. For the life of me, I can't think of anything that would FORCE it to be in that position. The player would presumably put it there by choice, so the rule wouldn't apply. As has been said in this thread, this Skimmer rule is likely a copy and paste leftover from a previous addition where it was possible to force a vehicle to end its move over another model.

That's it all you have to do is demonstrate that deep strike is not movment as well a show me how you would enact the skimmer rule in any other situation that would cause the model to be forcibly moved.

The preponderence of evidence points to Deep Strike being a type of move,

Agreed.

the skimmer rules do not allow you to physically place another model on top of another, then end the move, then move the model.

Agreed.

That's literally what you are saying occurs.

I either haven't been clear, or you aren't understanding. My contention is that Deep Striking never results in a model being moved on top of another model. You can't consider the Deep Strike to have ended until you roll for a mishap, as that is a part of the Deep Strike. Are you contending that Deep Strike is a form of movement, or are you contending that the scatter step of Deep Strike is a form of movement? Seriously. I'd like an answer to this question.

If you contend that Deep Strike is a form of movement, you have to complete the process before it has ended. The full Deep Strike process can't end with a model on top of another model.

If you contend that the scatter step is a form of movement, you need to demonstrate that using the rules. The general consensus seems to be that the scatter step merely determines the model's actual deployment location, but does not constitute a move from the chosen spot to the scattered spot.

I've consistently maintained that these rules are parallel to each other and function perfectly fine together.

They certainly don't contradict each other. Deploying via Deep Strike simply never results in a scenario where a model is deployed on top of another model.

Now your turn...

All you need to do to convince me is provide me with a scenario where you Deep Strike a non-Skimmer and it completes the Deep Strike deployed on top of another model... as in, at the end of the movement phase, it is sitting on top of another model. Alternatively, you can provide me with your reason for considering the Deep Strike to have ended before you check and roll for a mishap.

My contention is that if you consider Deep Strike movement, you have to consider the whole process to be movement. You can't consider the process up to where the scatter is rolled only. That seems to be what you're doing.

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
I've demonstrated it not only with rules quotes others have as well. It's simple Deep Strike is movement, the final position that you would place the model is the end of it's move. Skimmer rules kick in.

I've quoted requoted , rewritten and rewritten.

Now is your turn is to tell me how the Skimmer rule works in a move that would forcibly end it's move over a model.

We agree on how the Skimmer rule works in a scenario where it is forced to end it's movement over a model.

That's it that's all you have to do. I've endlessly played quote monkey with the rules, you have consistently just requoted yourself over and over again. Now is your turn to put up , explain to me with rules quotations why deploying from deep strike is not movement when all references surrounding it indicate that it is a type of move.

I agree that a Deep Strike procedure counts as movement.

Now, show me where in the rules the Skimmer rules could be applied and how you would physically apply them. If not stop repeating yourself and I'll consider the question over.

I honestly can't think of a single scenario where a Skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of another model. I know that if a Skimmer is on the upper floor of a building and there are models underneath it, it would be considered to be on top of a model. For the life of me, I can't think of anything that would FORCE it to be in that position. The player would presumably put it there by choice, so the rule wouldn't apply. As has been said in this thread, this Skimmer rule is likely a copy and paste leftover from a previous addition where it was possible to force a vehicle to end its move over another model.

That's it all you have to do is demonstrate that deep strike is not movment as well a show me how you would enact the skimmer rule in any other situation that would cause the model to be forcibly moved.

The preponderence of evidence points to Deep Strike being a type of move,

Agreed.

the skimmer rules do not allow you to physically place another model on top of another, then end the move, then move the model.

Agreed.

That's literally what you are saying occurs.

I either haven't been clear, or you aren't understanding. My contention is that Deep Striking never results in a model being moved on top of another model. You can't consider the Deep Strike to have ended until you roll for a mishap, as that is a part of the Deep Strike. Are you contending that Deep Strike is a form of movement, or are you contending that the scatter step of Deep Strike is a form of movement? Seriously. I'd like an answer to this question.

If you contend that Deep Strike is a form of movement, you have to complete the process before it has ended. The full Deep Strike process can't end with a model on top of another model.

If you contend that the scatter step is a form of movement, you need to demonstrate that using the rules. The general consensus seems to be that the scatter step merely determines the model's actual deployment location, but does not constitute a move from the chosen spot to the scattered spot.

I've consistently maintained that these rules are parallel to each other and function perfectly fine together.

They certainly don't contradict each other. Deploying via Deep Strike simply never results in a scenario where a model is deployed on top of another model.

Now your turn...

All you need to do to convince me is provide me with a scenario where you Deep Strike a non-Skimmer and it completes the Deep Strike deployed on top of another model... as in, at the end of the movement phase, it is sitting on top of another model. Alternatively, you can provide me with your reason for considering the Deep Strike to have ended before you check and roll for a mishap.

My contention is that if you consider Deep Strike movement, you have to consider the whole process to be movement. You can't consider the process up to where the scatter is rolled only. That seems to be what you're doing.

No we don't actually agree as you've not stated which version you use or how it works.

The only thing that scatter is is the final positioning of the model and where it is going to move to. That's it. It's not complicated it's quasi random movement.

I've already said provide me with a scenario and how a skimmer would function within the rules and the order that it would t ake place in.

No one has argued regarding regular vehicles deep striking that are not skimmers, so we can dismiss that strawman.

You do not have to complete the movement or end it for rules to apply especially if the rule is a check to make sure that situation never happens.

Skimmers have a rule to ensure they will never be able to end their move over another model, this is preventative.

Mishap has a rule that is reactionary.

This is not difficult to understand, one happens when something happens, one happens when something could happen to prevent it from happening.

These are both rules that occur either at the same time or the skimmer rules happen before mishap.

You literally go to place the model for Deep Strike. Here's a interesting scenario it is actually possible for a skimmer to scatter land and mishap which is something you haven't brought up and I have already stated, if the scatter places it with in one inch but not on top of a model, it'd mishap, if it was a enemy model. Not if it was a friendly model.

What is so difficult to understand about that.

Please show me your rules that state that the Skimmer rule is not preventative as well as the rule quotes stating that Deep Strike is not in fact movment. Thanks, I've proven my side of the argument you have not listed a single scenario, a single rules quote other than contextual.

 Kriswall wrote:
I honestly can't think of a single scenario where a Skimmer would be FORCED to end its movement on top of another model. I know that if a Skimmer is on the upper floor of a building and there are models underneath it, it would be considered to be on top of a model. For the life of me, I can't think of anything that would FORCE it to be in that position.

When skimmers move they move over models. If I bubble wrap an enemy unit, I can bunny hop over my guys to try and tank shock the enemy unit. If the enemy immobilises my skimmer, it would be forced to land on my guys and would slide back off.

Note that the skimmers moving over models is always in effect, regardless of how the skimmer moves, unless the movement specifically says otherwise.

Yeah, that's the only scenario I can think of is the tank shock over something. The rule is there to specifically prevent the Skimmer from ever ending a move on top of a model.

It's important to also understand the reason behind certain rules. Why would this rule be in effect ? Because Games Work Shop does not want to ever create a situation where the rules would cause a model to damage itself physically or another model physically ( A good example of this is when they talk about being "half on half off" items")

The mishap rule is meant to prevent this as well but with a consequence.

I give up. You refuse to answer any of my questions. I've agreed that in all non deep strike instances the skimmer rule takes effect and slide the skimmer.

You can't show me a single instance of deep strike forcing a model to end its move on top of another model. Let's take the skimmer issue out of it. Show me any other model ending a deep strike on top of a model. You can't. You refuse to address this. I'm assuming you refuse to address it because the inability to show one example of a non skimmer vehicle deep striking and ending the deep strike on top of a model kills your argument.

As written, there is enough for this to be ruled either way.

I believe that it is intended to save the skimmer from misshaping. My reasoning for this belief is that they removed the deep strike protection from the Monoliths.

Hollismason, would I be correct in saying that part of your argument is that all rules must have a reason for being written. Since (presumably) the only time a skimmer would end its move on another unit is when deep striking, the rule must apply to that.

If I'm wrong, I apologize, I'm just trying to understand your full argument.

I think there are actually rules to prevent situations that could occur from every occuring, specifically any situation where a model could be physically damaged.

This is why you check it's possible ending movement before you ever place it. It's also why it says FORCIBLY, because it already states you can not voluntarily place a skimmer to end it's move over a model.

The basic premise is that both the skimmer rule is a preventative measure from ever letting this happen.

The Mishap rule is the same way.

It is actually possible as I've stated to have a Skimmer deep strike and Mishap though. If it doesn't scatter on top of an enemy model but instead with in one inch it's rule wouldn't kick in to move it. It only cares if it would end it's move on top of a model.

You do not for mishap place a model onto the field where it would be lay it on top of a model, then seeing that this would happen, remove it do to mishap.

You do not for Skimmer ever actually move the model onto top of the model if it was ending its move there, you check to see if this would happen, if it would you move it the minimum distance required so that it is not on top of a model. For friendly models, it is less than one inch. For enemy models this is one inch.
Mishap is done the same way, however you'll notice that it also has a basic rule reinforcement with the with in the 1 inch of a enemy, you can be within 1 inch of a friendly model.

Both rules are designed basically the same way, to prevent placing a model on top of another model , then move it off once you have done this. The rules also specifically want to prevent this from happening so in any situation where this could happen it's a specific order of events.

Is there a reason you won't give me an in game example of a non skimmer ending a deep strike process on top of a model? If the skimmer rule kicks in when this happens, surely it can also happen to a non skimmer.

Because it's not a issue that's debated. I've never stated that Deep Striking vehicles in general would not be affected by mishap. This also affects Monoliths not just Dark Eldar.

Name a situation where the skimmer rule would kick in and how it would function in the game. Your argument for why the mishap rule would take place is the same argument for why the skimmer rule would. Replace all of your Mishap wording with Skimmer rule, you have the same argument.

I happen to feel it happens before but it can happen at the same time, which in that case you'd obviously just pick the skimmer rule.

It even gives you a direction on where to place them as technically the deep strike model is placed "offboard if possible" , it also states that you PIVOT a model before it actually finally lands which is a noticable rule that keeps being overlooked. On the initial placement you have to decide which direction. If it scatters your not allowed to Pivot it any further.

Hollis- happy has, at least five times now. That, like the fact the unit doesn't arrive until after you check for mishap, is something you consistently ignore it seems.

The units move cannot end until after you check for mishap. Mishap means the skimmer can NEVER end its movement over another unit.

That's not actually what the skimmer rule states. It's why Happy's example is one in favor of it.

Why?

Because in that scenario the model is not physically placed on top of any other model. You just check to see if it would be.

The Skimmer rule only cares if there is a situation where it could be placed on top of another model if that could occur the skimmer rule prevents that from ever happening, just like the mishap rule.

The same argument you are making for Mishap, is the same argument for the skimmer rule. That's why I find this conversation so mindboggling.

Except the skimmer rule requires the models mi vent to end. The mishap rule occurs before the unit is ever deployed. It cannot have moved until after you check for mishap

Why you can't see that is what's so mind boggling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Except the skimmer rule requires the models mi vent to end. The mishap rule occurs before the unit is ever deployed. It cannot have moved until after you check for mishap

Why you can't see that is what's so mind boggling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hollis- happy has, at least five times now. That, like the fact the unit doesn't arrive until after you check for mishap, is something you consistently ignore it seems.

The units move cannot end until after you check for mishap. Mishap means the skimmer can NEVER end its movement over another unit.

The unit's move doesn't have to definitively end for either of them to occur that's the whole point!

By your logic this is what happens if a model would forcibly end it's move over another model and it was a skimmer.

1. The Skimmer moves over a model and it's move is forced to end.
2. You physically place the skimmer on top of a model.
3. Now it's movement has ended
4. The Skimmer rule has kicked in.
5. Move the skimmer back away from the model the minimum distance required.

Yeah, you don't do that. You don't do that for Mishap and You don't do that for the Skimmer rule.

What everyone argueing for this seems to miss is that you must be Forced to end your movement there.

Forced, as in, literally no other option but to place the unit there. The existance of the mishap table means you are never technically "forced" to put it there. Mishap gives you another option. The end result of a Deep Strike never places you on models.

Hollismason wrote:
That's not actually what the skimmer rule states. It's why Happy's example is one in favor of it.

Why?

Because in that scenario the model is not physically placed on top of any other model. You just check to see if it would be.

The Skimmer rule only cares if there is a situation where it could be placed on top of another model if that could occur the skimmer rule prevents that from ever happening, just like the mishap rule.

The same argument you are making for Mishap, is the same argument for the skimmer rule. That's why I find this conversation so mindboggling.

The Skimmer rule doesn't care at all if it COULD be. It cares if it is FORCED to be. Please explain how the Deep Strike rule FORCES a model to move onto another model. You can't give a SINGLE example of this EVER happening, because Deep Strike NEVER ends with a model on top of another model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hollis- happy has, at least five times now. That, like the fact the unit doesn't arrive until after you check for mishap, is something you consistently ignore it seems.

The units move cannot end until after you check for mishap. Mishap means the skimmer can NEVER end its movement over another unit.

The unit's move doesn't have to definitively end for either of them to occur that's the whole point!

By your logic this is what happens if a model would forcibly end it's move over another model and it was a skimmer.

1. The Skimmer moves over a model and it's move is forced to end.
2. You physically place the skimmer on top of a model.
3. Now it's movement has ended
4. The Skimmer rule has kicked in.
5. Move the skimmer back away from the model the minimum distance required.

Yeah, you don't do that. You don't do that for Mishap and You don't do that for the Skimmer rule.

You don't do that for mishap? Then what do you do? That's right, you roll on the mishap table IMMEDIATELY upon determining that the FINAL PLACEMENT POSITION satisfies one of the four mishap criteria. The model never hits the table and therefore can never be said to end its move on top of models. By your own admission, deep strike doesn't actually ever want you to physically put the model on top of another model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Malkov wrote:
What everyone argueing for this seems to miss is that you must be Forced to end your movement there.

Forced, as in, literally no other option but to place the unit there. The existance of the mishap table means you are never technically "forced" to put it there. Mishap gives you another option. The end result of a Deep Strike never places you on models.

THIS. A thousand times this. Holly's entire argument is predicated on ignoring that the mishap table is a required and possible method for making sure a model never deep strikes on top of another model. There is no forcing it to occur. If anything, actually following the Deep Strike rules FORCES it NOT to occur.

This is also why Holly can't cite one instance of a non Skimmer Deep Striking and ending the Deep Strike on top of a model. It can't ever happen. If he could cite one instance, I would happily concede to him.

I've literally stated it multiple times, it either happens before, or it happens at the same time as the Mishap. Both of these instances happen at the same time or one happens before the other. Any argument you make for the Mishap happening before the SKimmer rule is the same argument that can be made for the Skimmer rule to happen before the Mishap rule.

You cannot make a argument that it does not because as soon as you go to place the unit to to end its move it would be ending its move on top of a model, via the Skimmer rule and the mishap rule this doesn't happen.


I don't have to give you gak, I've pointed this out repeatedly and listed why I don't need to cite any thing to do with things that are not skimmers, because that is not what we are discussing it's like if you brought up that you didn't have a goldfish it'd be talking about gak that didn't matter. It be like me demanding a citation on badmitton.


Show me how the Skimmer rule interacts in your own words. Like list out the steps and the situation where something would be forcibly doing that please provide a visual in video format along with two witness and 2 second languages, along with an ADL translator, and I will concede my point. See how stupid that sounds when you say things like that, it's just dumb.

This is something you do not fundamentally grasp, both of these rules are parallel to one another. The skimmer rule is ensuring that the placing or ending move of a skimmer never happens over a model, the deep strike mishap is ensuring this as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
.

The unit's move doesn't have to definitively end for either of them to occur that's the whole point!

By your logic this is what happens if a model would forcibly end it's move over another model and it was a skimmer.

1. The Skimmer moves over a model and it's move is forced to end.
2. You physically place the skimmer on top of a model.
3. Now it's movement has ended
4. The Skimmer rule has kicked in.
5. Move the skimmer back away from the model the minimum distance required.

Yeah, you don't do that. You don't do that for Mishap and You don't do that for the Skimmer rule.

You don't do that for mishap? Then what do you do? That's right, you roll on the mishap table IMMEDIATELY upon determining that the FINAL PLACEMENT POSITION satisfies one of the four mishap criteria. The model never hits the table and therefore can never be said to end its move on top of models. By your own admission, deep strike doesn't actually ever want you to physically put the model on top of another model.

.

I can guarrentee you 100% that is not how the order for mishap occurs or the action you take.

That's literally not the order of mishap, you check with the model to see if it would be placed over a ending unit, the same way you would with Skimmer, neither of them instruct you to physically place the model, then resolve. Both of them prevent this from happening. Both of them are designed that way in order to specifically not place models on other models, mishap goes further into explanation and makes it clear that you cannot be with in 1 inch of a enemy unit, per the reinforcement of the basic rule .

I've also already stated that Skimmers can actually mishap, on deep strike, if they would land with in 1 inch of an enemy but not on top, the skimmer rule wouldn't active

Hollismason wrote:
I've literally stated it multiple times, it either happens before, or it happens at the same time as the Mishap. Both of these instances happen at the same time or one happens before the other. Any argument you make for the Mishap happening before the SKimmer rule is the same argument that can be made for the Skimmer rule to happen before the Mishap rule.

You cannot make a argument that it does not because as soon as you go to place the unit to to end its move it would be ending its move on top of a model, via the Skimmer rule and the mishap rule this doesn't happen.


I don't have to give you gak, I've pointed this out repeatedly and listed why I don't need to cite any thing to do with things that are not skimmers, because that is not what we are discussing it's like if you brought up that you didn't have a goldfish it'd be talking about gak that didn't matter. It be like me demanding a citation on badmitton.


Show me how the Skimmer rule interacts in your own words. Like list out the steps and the situation where something would be forcibly doing that please provide a visual in video format along with two witness and 2 second languages, along with an ADL translator, and I will concede my point. See how stupid that sounds when you say things like that, it's just dumb.

This is something you do not fundamentally grasp, both of these rules are parallel to one another. The skimmer rule is ensuring that the placing or ending move of a skimmer never happens over a model, the deep strike mishap is ensuring this as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
.

The unit's move doesn't have to definitively end for either of them to occur that's the whole point!

By your logic this is what happens if a model would forcibly end it's move over another model and it was a skimmer.

1. The Skimmer moves over a model and it's move is forced to end.
2. You physically place the skimmer on top of a model.
3. Now it's movement has ended
4. The Skimmer rule has kicked in.
5. Move the skimmer back away from the model the minimum distance required.

Yeah, you don't do that. You don't do that for Mishap and You don't do that for the Skimmer rule.

You don't do that for mishap? Then what do you do? That's right, you roll on the mishap table IMMEDIATELY upon determining that the FINAL PLACEMENT POSITION satisfies one of the four mishap criteria. The model never hits the table and therefore can never be said to end its move on top of models. By your own admission, deep strike doesn't actually ever want you to physically put the model on top of another model.

.

I can guarrentee you 100% that is not how the order for mishap occurs or the action you take.

That's literally not the order of mishap, you check with the model to see if it would be placed over a ending unit, the same way you would with Skimmer, neither of them instruct you to physically place the model, then resolve. Both of them prevent this from happening. Both of them are designed that way in order to specifically not place models on other models, mishap goes further into explanation and makes it clear that you cannot be with in 1 inch of a enemy unit, per the reinforcement of the basic rule .

I've also already stated that Skimmers can actually mishap, on deep strike, if they would land with in 1 inch of an enemy but not on top, the skimmer rule wouldn't active

You refuse to provide a defense to legitimate arguments and keep raising the straw man of asking me to explain something I've agreed to several times.

You have yet to explain how a model is FORCED to end its movement over a model when the deep strike rule not only provides an alternative, thus eliminating any question of forcing, but has no mechanism to ever allow a model to end its movement over another model.

You obviously think scatter is movement even though the deep strike rule makes it clear that if the model scatters onto an enemy model its disposition is determined by the mishap table. You obviously think the mishap isn't a part of the deep strike process despite being included in the deep strike rule.

I assume you're just terrible at understanding rules. In other threads today you've asked rudimentary rules questions that are not even remotely confusing. I am forced to conclude that you either don't read the rules or read them but don't understand them.

The only way I think you can say the skimmer rule stops mishaps is if you ignore the actual wording and instead just assume that RAI was that the skimmer rule was meant to overrule the mishaps but was worded incorrectly. Reading through the rules it seems clear to me...

1. Arriving via deepstrike is "moving".

2. If you scatter off the table, in impassable terrain or on top of units then you mishap... the deep striker is never deployed. I think it's hard to argue that a model that never arrived is "moving".

3. The skimmer rule explicitly states "if the a skimmer is forced to end its move". That is the ONLY time the rule would ever activate. In the situation where you are forced to end your move over another model. Deep striking does not do that.

There's really not much more to the argument than those points as far as RAW is concerned. If you think skimmers should not mishap, you need to refute points #2 and #3.

Hollismason wrote:
. Any argument you make for the Mishap happening before the SKimmer rule is the same argument that can be made for the Skimmer rule to happen before the Mishap rule.

This is not true.

A mishap happens if the deep striker would land on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in before you actually place the model, if doing so would put it on top of another model.
(... ...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...)

The skimmer rule happens if the skimmer does end its movement on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in after the skimmer has finished its movement, if doing so results in it being on top of another model.
(...If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models...)

Mishap therefore happens first, because an effect that kicks in when you would do something is going to apply before an effect that kicks in when you do something.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
. Any argument you make for the Mishap happening before the SKimmer rule is the same argument that can be made for the Skimmer rule to happen before the Mishap rule.

This is not true.

A mishap happens if the deep striker would land on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in before you actually place the model, if doing so would put it on top of another model.
(... ...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...)

The skimmer rule happens if the skimmer does end its movement on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in after the skimmer has finished its movement, if doing so results in it being on top of another model.
(...If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models...)

Mishap therefore happens first, because an effect that kicks in when you would do something is going to apply before an effect that kicks in when you do something.

The skimmer rule happens if the skimmer would end its move on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in before the skimmer has finished its movement, if doing so results in it being on top of another model.
(If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models...)

This is true.

A mishap happens if the deep striker would be placed on top of another model. Ergo, when you go to set the model up, if doing so would put it on top of another model.
(... ...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...)


Skimmers rule would therefore happen when you go to place it's final move, because an effect that kicks in when you would prevent you from doing something is going to apply before an effect that kicks in when you do something.



Why is that true?

If is the beginning of the sentence. It doesn't say when. If the sentence said when, then you'd be correct but it doesn't. It's just grammar. So someone says to you " If you see a ball coming at you , you should duck, so that the ball doesn't hit you". When do you duck? This is why they use the word IF and not WHEN.

If this would happen, then do this instead.

You physically place the model on the board scatter it then to determine that that is it's final movement position. If this final movement position would be over another model. That's still a end of its movement, which the Skimmer rule does not allow.


This doesn't mean you place the model on top of another model , then end it's movement, then move the model back.So what you are saying is if you had a skimmer and it ended it's move somehow over another model, you would physically place that skimmer on top of another model to finish its move and then move it off.

Also, that argument most certainly can be the same argument.

My argument is just going to be.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The only way I think you can say the skimmer rule stops mishaps is if you ignore the actual wording and instead just assume that RAI was that the skimmer rule was meant to overrule the mishaps but was worded incorrectly. Reading through the rules it seems clear to me...

1. Arriving via deepstrike is "moving".

2. If you scatter off the table, in impassable terrain or on top of units then you mishap... the deep striker is never deployed. I think it's hard to argue that a model that never arrived is "moving".

3. The skimmer rule explicitly states "if the a skimmer is forced to end its move". That is the ONLY time the rule would ever activate. In the situation where you are forced to end your move over another model. Deep striking does not do that.

There's really not much more to the argument than those points as far as RAW is concerned. If you think skimmers should not mishap, you need to refute points #2 and #3.

Agreed, and I think this is a good way of summarizing it. The same thing happens when deepstriking anything but a drop pod, right? Seems clear, and the skimmer movement exemption doesn't apply in this case, for the reasons stated above (and elsewhere in the thread, of course, but I like this way of breaking it down point-by-point).

Okay so you all feel that the actual way to use the skimmer rule is that you would physically place the model on another model. Then it's move would end, then you would move it back.

Is that correct?

If not please explain the steps required to use the Skimmer rule with in the game.

You are all supposing that Skimmer rule happens after movement has ended , but it in fact like deep strikes mishap checks to make sure the movement would not end with the skimmer being on top of another model, similar to the same way mishap works.

It's why you can actually mishap a skimmer because the skimmer rule only cares if something would occur, do X instead. When you go to place the model it's ending it's move right there. You can't place it because of the Skimmer rule, you cannot place it because of the mishap rule.


You do not, place a model on top of another model then move that model off of it.

These rules both serve the same function to stop a model from ending it's move on top of another model.

Hollismason wrote:
The skimmer rule happens if the skimmer would end its move on top of another model. Ergo, it kicks in before the skimmer has finished its movement, if doing so results in it being on top of another model.

You keep changing "is" to "would be" when trying to explain how the skimmer rule works. The skimmer rule does not ever use the words "would be".

"...is forced to..." and "...would be forced to..." are two completely different concepts. The rule covers one, you insist on the other.

Hollis - again you ignore rules

The mishap occurs first, because the unit has not yet arrived when you determine mish. It hasn't even arrived, hasn't yet moved, nothing

Your argument has been thoroughly and absolutely debunked.

people literally think that you take a model put it on top of another model and then in order to end it's move you leave it there, then end its move then move the model back.


Like if I was playing Insaniak, I'd be able to place a tank on top of his models physically leave it there then move it back.


Neither of those rules allow that and that is not how they function.


The skimmer rule does not care about the mishap. It only cares if something would happen.The mishap rule doesn't care about the skimmer rule.

Both of these rules function independently of each other.

Hollismason. You really need to stop saying "would happen", when the rule does not say "would".

 Happyjew wrote:
Hollismason. You really need to stop saying "would happen", when the rule does not say "would".

It states if at the beginning of the sentence, I can't explain that any futher unless we want to all sit around and have a basic grammatical English discussion.

If this would occur, do this instead.

Is as simple as I can make it and then we get into a actual semantic argument.

My statement is really simple, both these rules check to make sure the ending of a move would be placing the model on something else physically and prevent this. They both apply one doesn't occur before the other, although as I've stated you'd have to pick, so one has to occur before the other, but the argument that mishap happens before the skimmer check or the skimmer check happens before the mishap check is the same argument.


What does not 100% happen in either of those situations is


Place the model physically on top of another model, end it's move , then remove the model either due to Mishap or the movement requirement for Skimmers.

If you think you physically have to place a model on top of another model, something that is inherently against every rule then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

This 100% does not happen.

It doesn't happen because of Wobbly model, it doesn't happen because the rules specifically go out of their way to remove any situation where you could possibly place a model on top of another model, because the game has rules specifically designed to prevent DAMAGE actual physical damage to models. They're all through out the book.

This is what people are stating when they say that the skimmer rule happens after movement has ended. That you physically place a model on top of another model, then end it's move when that sentence is not structured like that, and there are multiple rules that prevent you from doing that.

This is why I am adamant about it, because the people arguing against it are breaking a fundamental rule of the entire fething game and that's to not break your models or your opponents models.

It's not even what a reasonable person would do, a reasonable person would not place models on top of other models especially if they could break someone elses model.

The other side of this argument , is a irrational irresponsible argument.