Vehicles deepstriking cannot mishap over models?

One thing I thought about. If landing on friendly or enemy models counts as a mishap, then landing in impassible terrain regardless if the skimmer fits is also a mishap. We can't use some of the skimmer rules and not the others. I'm not sure about everyone else, but I've always played that you can land on impassible from deep strike.

I hope what I'm trying to say is clear. The skimmers landing in impassible does not specifically state anything about deep strike either.

The thing though is that the Drop Pod Inertial Guidance System rules also includes the "minimum necessary distance" language so under this interpretation they would be misshaping as well.

If one interpretation applies to one unit, but not the other then you have a problem.

As does the trygon

Just one observation on the "counts as moving" thing:

I think it's fair to say that "movement" as a concept, fulfils two very different functions in 40k. The first is the basic mechanical moving around the board. The second is as a kind of "state" that defines certain other types of behaviours for a model (most notably how a model shoots, whether people can get out of a vehicle, etc).

I think it's totally reasonable to draw a distinction between those things. In other words, that "counts as having moved", and "moving" are two separate things. The former is most commonly caused by the latter. But not always. Hence the all-important "counts-as" in the formulation.

I don't think it's conclusive to argue that, just because a model "counts as" having moved, it has therefore moved. In fact, I'm sure there are numerous examples in the game of "counts-as" mechanics being used, but not being regarded to retroactively impose that condition on the unit(s) involved.

TL;DR - "counts as having moved" is a game mechanic belonging (in this case) to the shooting phase, not a description of what happened in the movement phase.

valmir wrote:

TL;DR - "counts as having moved" is a game mechanic belonging (in this case) to the shooting phase, not a description of what happened in the movement phase.

So how do you account for the deep strike rule stating that a model that deep strikes cannot move any further? Or does the raider just magically pop into existence on the tabletop without having moved from somewhere else?

Here's an example for you - moving on from reserve without deep striking. You place the model on the table up to 6" (or 12" for vehicles) from the board edge. Have these models also not moved but count as moving since they didn't start the turn on the board?

How do you get around the fact that the rules for deep strike state that the models are "deployed", rather than describing how they "move"?

The reserve rules specifically states that they move onto the board, rather than being "deployed".

The "move any further" thing is a bit strange, though. In German, it reads more as "may not make any further move". Which does not necessarily unambiguously indicate that a previous move has taken place - i.e., once deployed, they cannot take further action in the movement phase.

Mushkilla wrote:

Does that mean I can move a raider so that it's halfway over a blob, and as a result gets moved to the other side of the blob (moving an extra 6")? Sigh.

Not to change the subject but good point, I would say that's exactly what it's saying. I just assumed it was saying closest to the point of origin of where the skimmer started.

This debate was brought to my attention yesterday, and like others, I did not pay it much heed at first-- and quite frankly, on this issue, the rules are ambiguous at best.

I just wanted to bring a few notes to this discussion:

(1) Yes, movement as a concept and actual movement are two different things. As such, having "counts as" moving in the shooting phase, in my opinion, is completely extraneous to this discussion. However, the deep strike section does contain that morsel about "moving further", or "no further move" that looks to indicate that deployment by deep strike counts as movement.

(2) Next we get into the debate of movement vs. deployment. The rules do state, as written, that models are "deployed" by Deep Strike. However, after reading the rules for deployment, there does not appear to be a rule that prevents you from deploying within 1" of the enemy model.

Further, the 1" rule that is being discussed is listed under the movement phase, and states that a model "cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault Phase...". As such, by the reasoning put forward by some community members (40k community, not just here at TDC), you could DEPLOY within 1" of an enemy model-- because that's not movement.

(3) The Deep Strike rule itself states that, "if any models in a Deep Striking unit cannot be deployed, because 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."

Reading this RAW, the mishap only occurs if one of these situations prevents you from deploying, NOT if one of these situations occurs. And since you would be allowed to deploy within 1" (as per movement/deployment rules), this would not create a mishap.

As such, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that GW takes a very broad interpretation of movement for these purposes-- such as that deep striking OR deploying in any manner counts as moving for the purposes of this rules discussion.

Therefore, the skimmer rule WOULD apply.

(4) HOWEVER, the debate still would continue on whether or not the skimmer rule includes the 1" buffer. If you continue to take the expansive view of movement/deployment/placement, one could easily enough read-in the rule about the buffer, making it safe for raiders/venoms to DS. The alternative is to narrowly construe the skimmer rule, which means that you can move off the enemy model, but still suffer the mishap for being within 1".

Though honestly, given the issues concerning deployment, and the way that the DS mishap rule is worded (#3 above), I really think that this whole thing needs to be taken RAI. (And I truly dislike RAI). Therefore, the most consistent interpretation of the rules would allow for a safe skimmer DS (and didn't the monolith, etc. have that before/anyway?)

That being said, I would not object if my opponent wanted to use the 1" mishap interpretation.

valmir wrote:

How do you get around the fact that the rules for deep strike state that the models are "deployed", rather than describing how they "move"?

The reserve rules specifically states that they move onto the board, rather than being "deployed".

well for starters, deep strike is a type of reserve - and p135 of the brb states that

Quote :

When reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below

Added to this, if we look at the definition of the word deploy, we get

Quote :

to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately

from dictionary.com

Quote :

The "move any further" thing is a bit strange, though. In German, it reads more as "may not make any further move". Which does not necessarily unambiguously indicate that a previous move has taken place - i.e., once deployed, they cannot take further action in the movement phase.

Well the rules are written in English for starters, and as i said earlier, if you state 'may not move any further' there is no alternative but to conclude that unit has already moved, otherwise the statement would have to be 'may not move'.


I honestly think that the reference to 'counts as having moved' is an attempt to avoid rules lawyers arguing that by placing the model in the middle of the table it hadn't moved and therefore firing the guns at full effect.

I actually thought the rule was blatantly obvious, but other's disagree

We have a rule for skimmer's that can only be used during ONE specific point in the game. (deep striking and scattering onto friendly/enemy models).
If we can't use the rule then due to semantics, then why have the rule at all.

darthken239 wrote:

I actually thought the rule was blatantly obvious, but other's disagree

We have a rule for skimmer's that can only be used during ONE specific point in the game. (deep striking and scattering onto friendly/enemy models).
If we can't use the rule then due to  semantics,  then why have the rule at all.

To allow for all possible future possibilities. For instance, if they decide to make a weapon or psychic power that imposes random movement or whatever. Much better than introducing a new rule/weapon/option/power and needing to list every single permutation of consequence for it.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Added to this, if we look at the definition of the word deploy, we get

Quote :

to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately

from dictionary.com

Sure, but in this case to deploy refers to a specific game mechanic, which is distinct from moving. The dictionary is of less use to us here than the BRB.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Quote :

The "move any further" thing is a bit strange, though. In German, it reads more as "may not make any further move". Which does not necessarily unambiguously indicate that a previous move has taken place - i.e., once deployed, they cannot take further action in the movement phase.

Well the rules are written in English for starters, and as i said earlier, if you state 'may not move any further' there is no alternative but to conclude that unit has already moved, otherwise the statement would have to be 'may not move'.

Again, fine. But sometimes the way it is translated into other languages can help offer a clue as to the RAI (cf. the splinter rack thing).

Ultimately, though, I think perhaps the key phrase here is actually the one that says "if a model is forced to end its movement above a friendly or enemy model" (trans.?, emph. mine). My opinion is that, even if the deployment is considered a move, that this clause is never triggered - the mishap is triggered first. Because the mishap is triggered, the model is never able to actually end its move.

I think that harkens back to the debate on definition of movement. Frankly, if you treat 'deployment' as 'movement,' (which I think you have to because of the way the 1" rule is approached) then you would be ending a move at the close of scatter, not the end of the phase, thereby triggering the rule.

Giving the skimmers the "shift", in my opinion, is the only interpretation that doesn't raise even more issues when trying to implement it consistently throughout the rulebook.

Given that, its likely the most reasonable option at this point, pending a FAQ.

The two gaming groups I'm with are all under the interpretation that this applies to deep striking. Guess we gonna play it that way until it gets FAQd

yep my group are going to play it that way as well, most of them can't really see what all the hulalabu it about. To us it seems pretty straight forward. But everyone interpretes the rules differently.

The debate has been passed on to my group too (by a non-DE player), and again the conclusion is that it's legal.

and if ppl start saying the " minimum move so you're no longer over enemy models " means you have to deploy within 1" and therefore mishap applies, im gunna laugh then have some fun explaining that the next time an SM drop pod lands on my guys. I checked the SM rules and no where does it say it anything about 1"

so, as i read the "conclusions" in this thread, most of you guys think that our skimmers have the "drop pod " rules of "move 1 inch" away? Correct? And that means that if we are even within 1" we don't mishap? i quite confused . Is there a good (black) soul that can explain the consensus here in a couple of simple points? thanks!

The consensus is that there is no consensus.

I think the consensus is that it is ambiguous at best, because the entire interpretation of the rule depends on whether you think:

1. deployment = movement; and, if so,
2. whether the mishap table is triggered before, at the same time as, or after the "end of the move".

I would observe, though, that this rule gets more confusing the closer you look at it. Many people in this thread are reporting that their non-DE-playing gaming groups are interpreting it that you cannot mishap. Which, on first blush, is a pretty sensible "gut" interpretation of how these rules should interact (including from a fluff perspective).

This doesn't just benefit DE players of course, SM Landspeeders immediately spring to mind as another unit that has both the skimmer and deep strike rules.

Tau/necron/elder/sm all have skimmers.

Again I ask. If deep striking onto impassible terrain that the model physically fits is considered ok, then ddeep striking onto models is OK as well. We can't have one set of skimmer rules work and others not work.

But Tau and Eldar, barring some FW stuff nobody knows about, don't have Skimmers that can Deep Strike.

And RAI I think it is reasonably clear but my friend refuses to be convinced, and ALSO refuses to accept that drop pods could possibly scatter within 1" of enemy models by the same ruling (he plays SM). What to do...

The space marine drop pod rule is phrased as 'moved the minimum distance to avoid the obstacle'. Seems pretty clear to me that it's functionally the same as the skimmer rule but there's a guy at my club arguing that means it's moved at least 1" away from an enemy unit (you can't help some people!)

This is how you deal with that friend. Kick him in the teeth and get a new friend lol

The Red King wrote:

This is how you deal with that friend.  Kick him in the teeth and get a new friend lol

haha, nice one!

I just pointed out that even if he was right and we have to position the skimmer immediately adjacent to the unit, the hull still isn't within 1" of the base of the enemy model unless it's a vehicle, since our hulls float about 2" above the table.