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.

What happens when a deepstriking IG Sentinel:

...lands on enemy troops?

...lands on enemy vehicles?

...lands on friendly troops or vehicles?

No rule book with me, but if their is no space to deploy it 1" from an enemy or not on friendlies you lose it.

Or is the nearest parallel drop pods?

It drops like everything else. <1" = dead.

Posted By mauleed on 06/22/2006 6:01 AM
It drops like everything else. <1" = dead.

But is it a wreck, crater or something else?

But is it a wreck, crater or something else?

Nope. The model is not placed, and the unit is considered destroyed.


And why do people keep asking what happens when stuff deep strikes onto friendly models? Have we not established a thousand times that the rulebook doesn't cover the issue?

Dies, like other units, yes, thats also my RAW interpretation, and of course, how I intend to play it. I just thought I'd post this to see if that was oncensus.

Sorry Yak, I know it's not in the rules for friendly scatter.  I gues I was stirring an old pot.

I'm just a annoyed by the vehicle dropping getting destroyed if it's IG, but marine pods having totally unique rules.  I want those rules for dropping sentinels. I think deep striking vehicles should have a USR defined.

I was recently comparing a dreadpod and a drop sentinel unit, and just realizing how advantageous the drop pod rules are, where deepstriking for all the other armies is much more risky.  I was also comparing a sentinel unit to a landspeeder unit in an analysis, do you realize a single landspeeder tornado has better firepower than an entire unit of sentinels for half the cost? Marines have it all, but we knew that, I'm digressing, carry on.

Don't forget the landspeeders are closed topped and can move fast enough to get glancing only, where as a sentinel dies if you look at it funny.

Posted By yakface on 06/22/2006 7:06 AM

But is it a wreck, crater or something else?

Nope. The model is not placed, and the unit is considered destroyed.

 

Sorry, I was mocking mauleed's choice of "dead" as opposed to "never placed". I can see how that wasn't clearly a joke.

The landspeeder may have more firepower, but 3 Sentinel wrecks can mess up your own firelanes much more effectively...

(having 8 of 9 Sentinels stunned/immobilized/wrecked on turn 1 can really put a crimp in a gunline, let me tell you!)

Yea, and because of the Daffy skimmer rules an army with landspeeders can shoot through them all day long, but the sentinels will block.

I think the landspeeder is probably the perfect weapon....

Hold on a tic: Land Speeders are closed top?  First of all, how does that even begin to make sense?  Secondly, I've been killing my friend's Land Speeders way too easily.  Not that he didn't still have the advantage.

(fluff reason) It's because the pilots wear armor. Same reason an rhino with a popped hatch isn't open topped for marines or sisters... but is open topped for inquisitorial stormtroopers.

(real reason) Their rules don't say they're open topped, so they aren't.



And if you're killing your friends speeders with frightening regularity... it MIGHT have something to do with being AV-10 all around.

I'm going to jump on the gripe wagon with Augustus again here. How in the heck is a dropping sentinel not going to squish the grot it lands on top of? The grot squishes the sentinel instead. Now that's just plain wacky.

I can even understand the fluff that the pilot was killed while trying to start the engine after it landed or something, but there would still be a sentinel sitting there. And don't get me started with the whole wearing power armor makes open-topped into closed-topped. I mean what a huge contradiction!

They're telling us that open topped vehicles are so vulnerable because of exposed doodads and whatnots...unless a marine is at the wheel! Then everything's OK I guess. The only reason power armor should make a difference is if they mean that a shot would have hit the exposed holy machine spirit dual carburetor, but the shot hit the marine instead because he's such a solid armor clad kind of guy. OK. I'll actually buy that. But then, a marine crewman should be sacrificed everytime that happens! Trust me, every mekboy has at least a few orderlies who would jump at the chance to wear power armor and do nothing else but sit in the trukk to keep it safe while the rest of the boyz bail out and charge.

Oh, and I'm not trying to alienate all of the other power armor open-topped transport riding units out there. I mean, they're on the list too...they're really...um...a problem. Sorry, I can't fake that any more. It's just the marines. Nobody cares when it happens elsewhere.

"I'm going to jump on the gripe wagon with Augustus again here. How in the heck is a dropping sentinel not going to squish the grot it lands on top of? The grot squishes the sentinel instead. Now that's just plain wacky."

before i say anything else, i agree with you and Augustus.

i think it should be worked out as some sort of attack/roll off

against what's being landed on.

 for example AV. or T+ d6, biggest score wins. against a big tank

(Russ or land raider) it would probably get crushed as it landed on

top of it, shot by it, etc...

but in the above given example v. a grot, i could see it (fluff) setting

 a trap, or charge, shooting it,etc... as it drifted down.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 06/25/2006 2:38 AM
I'm going to jump on the gripe wagon with Augustus again here. How in the heck is a dropping sentinel not going to squish the grot it lands on top of? The grot squishes the sentinel instead. Now that's just plain wacky.

The sentinel has very small feet!

Really, it should work like a tank shock and just have the units underneath move out of the way if the deepstriker is a vehicle.

snooggums> Really, it should work like a tank shock and just have the units underneath move out of the way if the deepstriker is a vehicle.

Yes, that's what I think too, but then, that's not what is says.  This is why I put the USR for deepstriking vehicles post in the proposed rules section.  Ultimately I think you are correct in a spirit of the game context, but I don't think a RAW context supports that. 

I suppose a deepstriking Marine Landspeeder would also be destroyed if it was in 1" of an enemy model when it landed, which is even stranger given that they are skimmers anyway, and don't really land per se...  I really think that deepstriking vehicles need a USR, it's a sloppy inconsistent piece of the rules.

Posted By Augustus on 06/26/2006 4:08 AM

snooggums> Really, it should work like a tank shock and just have the units underneath move out of the way if the deepstriker is a vehicle.

Yes, that's what I think too, but then, that's not what is says.  This is why I put the USR for deepstriking vehicles post in the proposed rules section.  Ultimately I think you are correct in a spirit of the game context, but I don't think a RAW context supports that. 

That is why I said "should" instead of "does".

Because I can't resist further dragging this OT, howzabotu a D3+3 on the Penetrating Hit chart for any vehicle that screws up its Deep Strike?