Drop Pod Inertial Guidance

[Ushtarador]

So here's something interesting:

 

A drop pod can scatter over a unit no problem, as long as it scatters far enough, the inertial guidance system doesn't prevent that. Also, if you scatter off the table, you mishap.

What happens if you scatter over an enemy unit and off the table, but are still within 1'' of an enemy unit? Does the system kick in and prevent scatter, or does being off the table override everything?

[dswanick]

So here's something interesting:

 

A drop pod can scatter over a unit no problem, as long as it scatters far enough, the inertial guidance system doesn't prevent that. Also, if you scatter off the table, you mishap.

What happens if you scatter over an enemy unit and off the table, but are still within 1'' of an enemy unit? Does the system kick in and prevent scatter, or does being off the table override everything?

The rules as written don't cover this scenario. Either come to an agreement with your opponent, or dice off. Personally I would shorten the distance, but if my opponent objected - I wouldn't feel comfortable fighting for this interpretation.

[Ushtarador]

Well, personally I haven't been using drop pods until a few months ago and did only realize recently that pods will actually scatter OVER things and not just stop in front of them :P

 

If there's no precedent, dicing off resp. calling a judge might be the only option indeed.

[Dam13n]

To clarify what I think you're referring to:

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r358/MatthewDaunt/Scatter_zpsbf6ad366.jpg

Now in the top two examples, it's pretty clear that the pod has suffered a mishap.

In the bottom left, the pod has cleared the enemy unit (no overlap) and is off the table, so has suffered a mishap.

It's the bottom right that is unclear:

- technically the pod is off the table (all it takes is for a little bit of it to overlap the edge and you're off)

- however it is also overlapping an enemy unit

- inertial guidance normally lets you reduce scatter in that instance (meaning you'd land just to the left of the enemy unit (as there's not enough space between them and the board edge for it to fit in-between).

- the FAQ however states that:

Q: If a Drop Pod scatters off of the board when deep striking what happens? (p69)

A: They will have to roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table.

This clearly states that the moment you scatter off the board you mishap, inertial guidance doesn't come into play because technically you aren't within 1" of the enemy unit, you're off the table (which we all know is the edge of the universe in 40k. )

So I would fall on the side of the pod suffering a mishap in this instance.

[Ushtarador]

Haha very nice drawings, exactly what I'm referring to :)

 

The FAQ is interesting but I really don't believe that the person answering it considered our scenario, or they would have made a reference to it. It certainly is an argument for the mishap-interpretation, but I wouldn't say it's a clear answer. I should write GW about this maybe ^^

[Dam13n]

The person/people that write the FAQ answers aren't the brightest of sparks.  Many of the answers they've released have made little sense, and in fact have made issues where there were none previously (the allied techmarine answer for example, which makes no sense whatsoever).

 

As I stated there are two interpretations based upon the last scenario in my diagram.  I fall on the side of the pod suffering a mishap, but wouldn't complain if someone wanted to interpret it the other way - I'd just use GWs "rule of ultimate cop out" and ask for a dice-off to see which interpretation we would use.

[wheelballer]

I agree that the situation is rather vague and it could probably go either way. However, I've always played it that as soon as something even touches the edge of the board it either dead or suffers a mishap. For example, terminators teleporting would mishap if even the smallest bit of the base falls off the board edge. Also, a retreating unit is "dead" as soon as the first model's base touches the board edge even the slightest bit. Following this ruling, I would believe that if the drop pod touches the board edge at all, regardless of other units, it would mishap with or without it's inertial guidance system. That is the way my friends and I have always played.

[dswanick]

Yeah, it all comes down to which criteria takes precedence. And GW is notoriously vague(or completely illogical) when it comes to making and enforcing precedence and priority.

[puffin]

The older codices (C:SM, C:BA and C:SW) are certainly ambiguous.  However, C:DA states: 

 

"Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top
of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe) then
reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in
order to avoid the obstacle. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters
off the edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike
Mishap as per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

 

Which seems pretty clear with regards to RAW and RAI if you wanted to make a ruling on the older ones.

[dswanick]

The older codices (C:SM, C:BA and C:SW) are certainly ambiguous.  However, C:DA states: 

 

"Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top

of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe) then

reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in

order to avoid the obstacle. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters

off the edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike

Mishap as per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

 

Which seems pretty clear with regards to RAW and RAI if you wanted to make a ruling on the older ones.

My interpretation is that it supports the argument that the I.G. would kick in and reduce the scatter first, and only then would the position vis-a-vis the board edge be evaluated.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm with the 'reduce scatter' interpretation.  If the scatter is reduced, then it never does scatter off the board.

[Dam13n]

The ambiguity is thusly:

 

Which is decided first?

- scattering off the table (and suffering a mishap)

or

- scattering into contact with an obstacle (and activating inertial guidance)

 

One can argue that you roll your scatter then attempt to place the model, if you cannot place it due to an "on-table obstacle" then you can use inertial guidance as normal however as per the FAQ, if you find that the initial position (after scatter) is even partially off the table, then "you have scattered off the table".  A model that isn't on the table cannot physically be on top of an on-table obstacle or within 1" of an enemy, because it's not on the table.  In this interpretation, the Pod Mishaps.

 

As DSW has argued (with equal validity, as the RAW isn't 100% clear), you can argue that the model has only scattered off the table if it's final resting place (after inertial guidance, if applicable) is off the table.  In this interpretation, the Pod lands safely with the obstacle in-between it and the board edge.

 

Given the changes to Mishaps (it being half as likely as it was in 5th edition for a unit to be destroyed) and the inherent advantages to Drop Pod lists (easy first-blood, threatening objectives across the board on turn 1, difficult to counter without interceptor) I feel that the Mishap interpretation is probably the fairer of the two interpretations.  (In addition to the fact that I find that argument more compelling from a literal standpoint.)

 

It also encourages people to be more careful in the placing of their drop pods and encouraging tactical thinking is to be encouraged IMHO.

[puffin]

I'll accept that the rule is still slightly ambiguous but will argue for mishap on the basis of logical consistency.

 

If the pod mishaps when 99% of it is off the table and 1% is over clear ground, why would it not mishap when 99% of it is off the table and 1% is over a unit?

[Grey Mage]

Id say it misshaps, because it left the board- any leaving of the board, even a small bit, is off the board entirely.

 

Id be willing to roll off on it in a game, but intellectually the pod is just gone.

[Squirrelloid]

I think the problem I have with it mishapping is it only mishaps if it scatters off the table.  But the drop pod's inertial guidance *changes the scatter*, so it hasn't finished scattering until after inertial guidance kicks in.

 

I don't even think it's ambiguous.  Mishaps only happen after scattering has finished.

[Grey Mage]

Thats true, I cant/wont argue that.

 

The question I suppose is if the model is off the table at any point, is it still overlapping the infantry in a game sense? Or is it just gone?

[Dam13n]

That's the question. If it's gone off the table edge, even by 1mm is it even on the table to interact with the obstacle and activate inertial guidance?

 

If it does, then it gets to reduce scatter and land safely, if it doesn't then it mishaps.

 

This is the ambiguity. It hinges on whether or not inertial guidance is even activated if the pod has scattered off the table.

[dswanick]

Agreed, and the only clear answer will come if GW adresses this specific questioning in detail.

[YAK]

If its my turn don't I decide what order simultaneous stuff happens in? Just have guidence kick in first cuz you are deep striking in your turn after-all....

[nurglez]

hmmm, thats a good point.

[Dam13n]

The dispute is no longer a "simultaneous events" one. It's whether inertial guidance even gets to activate if you scatter even partially off the table.

 

I originally tried to put it down to an order of operations issue, but that isn't the problem. If it were, then logically YAK would be absolutely correct. Unfortunately it isn't a matter of what happens first but rather if guidance gets to occur at all.

[dswanick]

The dispute is no longer a "simultaneous events" one. It's whether inertial guidance even gets to activate if you scatter even partially off the table.

 

I originally tried to put it down to an order of operations issue, but that isn't the problem. If it were, then logically YAK would be absolutely correct. Unfortunately it isn't a matter of what happens first but rather if guidance gets to occur at all.

So, seeing whether you've scattered on top of enemy models before seeing if you've scattered off the table or if you see if you've scattered off the table before seeing if you've scattered on top of enemy models?

How is this not an "simultaneous events" issue? :lol:

[Grey Mage]

Because you dont check for each type of misshap, you just check for misshap? Unless theres something in my rulebook Im missing.

 

I suppooooose you could interpret that as checking for each individual way of misshaping in a simultaneous fashion, and then choose the 'order' given that its your turn.

[dswanick]

Because you dont check for each type of misshap, you just check for misshap? Unless theres something in my rulebook Im missing.

 

I suppooooose you could interpret that as checking for each individual way of misshaping in a simultaneous fashion, and then choose the 'order' given that its your turn.

And I would say that it has to be that way as the Inertial Guidance triggers on one potential form of mishap and then precedes preempt it and alter the final position.  Making it necessary to parse various "classes" of Mishap.  And once you start parsing the classes of mishaps, you open the rule up to simultaneous events and the rules that govern them.

[Dam13n]

It's yet another messy rule.

 

Plus it's an event that shouldn't happen, setting the target site within 12" of a board edge is asking for trouble. Especially with the 6" disembark move, there really is no reason to take that sort of risk.

 

We're probably going to end up going in circles again as it's a 50:50 argument, again (we're having a lot of them recently :P )