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.

While I haven't run into this in a game yet, I'm still interested in the community's answer to this question:

Can Skimmers suffer Deep-Strike mishaps?

Page 162 of the BRB under "Deep Strike Mishaps" states:

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 impassible terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1'' of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table and apply the results.

However, on page 89 of the BRB under "Moving Skimmers" states:

Skimmers can move over friendly or enemy models, but they cannot end their move over either (...) 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.

I cannot seem to reconcile these rules, and there isn't an FAQ covering this for 7th Edition. Would this be a case of the specific rule overriding the general rule?

This has come up many times including by myself. In the end the first model you put down is a place holder not the model itself. If it wasn't it could not even be moved to be over models or impassible terrain. In the end, the move, deep strike, is not ended, triggering the skimmer rule, till it is deployed. The mishap happens before you can even trigger the skimmer rule.

Gravmyr wrote:
This has come up many times including by myself. In the end the first model you put down is a place holder not the model itself. If it wasn't it could not even be moved to be over models or impassible terrain. In the end the move is not ended, triggering the skimmer rule till it is deployed. The mishap happens before you can even trigger the skimmer rule.

The placeholder model works for a unit with multiple models, but what about a unit of one model? Also, Deep Strike specifically states that the unit may not move any further. Does this prevent the skimmer from moving off the offending friendly or enemy unit?

I'm not saying that I disagree with your argument, but I'm still confused about how these rules interact.

I believe Gravmyr is correct.
Also even if you could move off models they could still suffer a mishap from going off the board or into impassable terrain so the answer to your question would still be yes they can suffer a mishap.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
The placeholder model works for a unit with multiple models, but what about a unit of one model?

Is there anything in the rules that would lead one to believe it would be played differently for a unit of one model versus multiple models?

It's a tricky one, and quite debated.

It is hard to say what "If a Skimmer is forced to end its move" could refer to in the current Ruleset....

If a skimmer scatters onto impassable terrain, does it mishap or take a dangerous terrain test?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deep striking is not a "move" therefore it wouldn't be ending its move at all.

Also the rule specifically states you must place a model, not a place holder

I think RAW it would suffer a mishap jokerkd, as the deep striking rule doesn't list skimmers as an exception. You could always house rule it though.

Debated ad nauseum. Here is the summarized answer.

The Deep Strike process never ends with a model being force to end its move (the Deep Strike) on top of another model.

Deep Strikes can end with...

1. The model is placed safely on the table with or without scatter.
2. The model is returned to Reserves.
3. The model is placed by your opponent in a legal position (i.e. not on top of another model).
4. The model is destroyed.

You'll note that none of the above possible outcomes result in a model being forced to end on top of another model. Ergo, the skimmer "slide off" rule doesn't come into play.

The rule states that if a model cannot be placed because of impassable terrain, it suffers a mishap

 Kriswall wrote:
Debated ad nauseum. Here is the summarized answer.

The Deep Strike process never ends with a model being force to end its move (the Deep Strike) on top of another model.

Deep Strikes can end with...

1. The model is placed safely on the table with or without scatter.
2. The model is returned to Reserves.
3. The model is placed by your opponent in a legal position (i.e. not on top of another model).
4. The model is destroyed.

You'll note that none of the above possible outcomes result in a model being forced to end on top of another model. Ergo, the skimmer "slide off" rule doesn't come into play.

Thank you. That has definitely clarified it for me. The rule for skimmers does not apply because the roll for mishap happens before the rule for skimmers triggers.

In short, if you can Deep Strike a skimmer, make sure it's one with a small base!

 TheNewBlood wrote:
In short, if you can Deep Strike a skimmer, make sure it's one with a small base!

Keep in mind that vehicles (which includes skimmers) measure from the hull, not from a base. You can put whatever size base you want on a skimmer, because at no point does that base actually count for anything.

If any part of the hull of the vehicle ends over impassable terrain, or within an inch of an enemy model, or on one of your own models, it counts as a mishap.

 kingbobbito wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
In short, if you can Deep Strike a skimmer, make sure it's one with a small base!

Keep in mind that vehicles (which includes skimmers) measure from the hull, not from a base. You can put whatever size base you want on a skimmer, because at no point does that base actually count for anything.

If any part of the hull of the vehicle ends over impassable terrain, or within an inch of an enemy model, or on one of your own models, it counts as a mishap.

But why does impassable terrain count as a mishap when they are allowed to be placed on impassable terrain?

As much as I desperately want the skimmer rule in question to apply to Deep Strike (since all the DE skimmers have DS now), I think the final nail is this debate is in the new Eldar codex.

Specifically the Falcon special rule that allows a squad of 3 to DS without scatter. If skimmers can just stop before touching models, the Falcon rule would be redundant.

You can (and many have, including myself) argue how Deep Striking is or is not movement, or counts as deployment, or whatever. But unfortunately, this is a permissive rule set and you can only do something when clear permission is given. If it is too easy to argue on the "NO" side, than it probably isn't worth arguing.

 jokerkd wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
In short, if you can Deep Strike a skimmer, make sure it's one with a small base!

Keep in mind that vehicles (which includes skimmers) measure from the hull, not from a base. You can put whatever size base you want on a skimmer, because at no point does that base actually count for anything.

If any part of the hull of the vehicle ends over impassable terrain, or within an inch of an enemy model, or on one of your own models, it counts as a mishap.

But why does impassable terrain count as a mishap when they are allowed to be placed on impassable terrain?

Because if you Deep Strike 2.1" away from an impassable wall that is 2" thick, a scatter of 2D6 = 3" would place you on top of the wall, no problem.

A scatter of 2D6= 2" however, would place the centre of your model .1" away from the wall. As your vehicle is probably bigger than .1" on its side, that would mean you place your vehicle halfway inside the wall. That sound awfully like a mishap to me

 Galef wrote:
As much as I desperately want the skimmer rule in question to apply to Deep Strike (since all the DE skimmers have DS now), I think the final nail is this debate is in the new Eldar codex.

Specifically the Falcon special rule that allows a squad of 3 to DS without scatter. If skimmers can just stop before touching models, the Falcon rule would be redundant.

This has no bearing on the argument, because even if the skimmer rule applied to deep strike, the falcon special rule would protect them from scatter that:

1. Puts them out of the desired position, revealing their flank, or stopping them from being able to target the desired facing of an enemy.
-or-
2. Made them scatter off the table.

Because of this, the falcon special rule doesn't add anything to the debate at all, and the debate itself can continue. I'm personally of the opinion that skimmers don't suffer a mishap from scattering onto troops. I'd rehash the argument, but there are pages and pages of argument on it already.

However the rules clearly do not allow you to invoke the skimmer ruloe until after you resolve the mishap, as that is the point at whcih the unit, and not a marker for the unit, has arrived.

There's also the issue in moving "the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it" (the skimmer,) in regards to landing on an enemy model. If you assumed that you were allowed to adjust the deep strike off an enemy unit, you would still land within 1" of an enemy model, and STILL mishap, since it doesn't give you permission to go any farther than the bare minimum to get "off" their models.

I like to think that the "forced to move over friendly/enemy" refers to the only 1 Vehicle who can ever be "forced to move":
The Flyer.
Locked velocity = Forced to move 18" in a set direction.
End over models? = "the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it".

But that is best left to another thread. The point of this comment?
That Rule may have a use for other situations...

Also -wrt enemy models - it's kind of irrelevant.

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.

However, if you deep strike, and move "...minimum distance so that no models are left underneath..." then you'll be left in base to base with an enemy model. Which is still a mishap.

 BlackTalos wrote:


Because if you Deep Strike 2.1" away from an impassable wall that is 2" thick, a scatter of 2D6 = 3" would place you on top of the wall, no problem.

A scatter of 2D6= 2" however, would place the centre of your model .1" away from the wall. As your vehicle is probably bigger than .1" on its side, that would mean you place your vehicle halfway inside the wall. That sound awfully like a mishap to me

so if it can be physically placed on the impassable terrain, it is a dangerous terrain check? and if it can't, it's a mishap?

that is HIWPI

locarno24 wrote:
However, if you deep strike, and move "...minimum distance so that no models are left underneath..." then you'll be left in base to base with an enemy model. Which is still a mishap.

You may want to be a little careful of that as that is also basically the wording of the Drop Pod. If you want to hold that for skimmer then you would have to hold it for Pods.

The way deepstrike works is as follows

roll for reserves if it is a pass place the model in a location that it will deepstrike on the table location then roll 2x d6 and a scatter dice if it scatters on what deepstrike would class as a mishap. roll on the mishap table then carry out what you rolled for on the mishap table.

The thing with the skimmer rule is mostly to do with movement unless it states like the rule with drop pods where it indicates what it does in its special rule

Gravmyr wrote:

locarno24 wrote:
However, if you deep strike, and move "...minimum distance so that no models are left underneath..." then you'll be left in base to base with an enemy model. Which is still a mishap.

You may want to be a little careful of that as that is also basically the wording of the Drop Pod. If you want to hold that for skimmer then you would have to hold it for Pods.

Drop pods actually use a different phrasing of "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid a mishap."

So that dodges that issue.

niv-mizzet wrote:


Drop pods actually use a different phrasing of "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid a mishap."

So that dodges that issue.

Does it? The last I read it said to "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid the obstacle." The obstacle was also previously defined as impassible terrain, and enemy models, and no where included the "within 1" of an enemy model" though somehow everyone included it. There is a very large thread about this somewhere, and it did not end with any real consensus.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:


Drop pods actually use a different phrasing of "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid a mishap."

So that dodges that issue.

Does it? The last I read it said to "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid the obstacle." The obstacle was also previously defined as impassible terrain, and enemy models, and no where included the "within 1" of an enemy model" though somehow everyone included it. There is a very large thread about this somewhere, and it did not end with any real consensus.

and the obstacle they are talking about is the unit making the pod mishap...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:


Drop pods actually use a different phrasing of "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid a mishap."

So that dodges that issue.

Does it? The last I read it said to "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid the obstacle." The obstacle was also previously defined as impassible terrain, and enemy models, and no where included the "within 1" of an enemy model" though somehow everyone included it. There is a very large thread about this somewhere, and it did not end with any real consensus.

and the obstacle they are talking about is the unit making the pod mishap...

Not going to go down this road again. We will not agree on this one(see previous thread) Not defined=not included in my eyes, besides, if it is just obstacles,where do you draw the line? An obstacle to a successful deep strike would include the board edge. I won't derail further with this tangent.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:


Drop pods actually use a different phrasing of "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid a mishap."

So that dodges that issue.

Does it? The last I read it said to "reduce the scatter the minimum amount needed to avoid the obstacle." The obstacle was also previously defined as impassible terrain, and enemy models, and no where included the "within 1" of an enemy model" though somehow everyone included it. There is a very large thread about this somewhere, and it did not end with any real consensus.

and the obstacle they are talking about is the unit making the pod mishap...

Not going to go down this road again. We will not agree on this one(see previous thread) Not defined=not included in my eyes, besides, if it is just obstacles,where do you draw the line? An obstacle to a successful deep strike would include the board edge. I won't derail further with this tangent.

Except the rules agree with my interpretation. and they don't agree with yours.

It has been done before. and your interpretation still does not line up with the rules.

In your eyes they agree but there are enough players that think you should play it as written not the most advantageous way you can read it.

 BlackTalos wrote:

I like to think that the "forced to move over friendly/enemy" refers to the only 1 Vehicle who can ever be "forced to move":
The Flyer.
Locked velocity = Forced to move 18" in a set direction.
End over models? = "the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it".

But that is best left to another thread. The point of this comment?
That Rule may have a use for other situations...

Don'y Flyers have a rule that forces them to crash if they can not make a legal move?