Warp Quake and units in Drop Pods

[Grey Mage]

I would say hat both mechanics are using the deepstrike rules to complete their named movement so would be affected. There is no qualifier of count as or anything.

But there is a 'deploying' qualifier.

 

And heres the rub-

 

The rules for disembarking from a transport state you 'deploy the squad'. However, if we follow this line of logic we must then allow SM players the option of combat-squading each time they get out of a transport, because the decision must be made 'when the squad deploys'.

 

I think it more likely that the rule affects units deploying from reserves via deepstrike.

[shatter]

Only one exception is made and that's for drop pods. It is stated as an exception, so they're it.

 

There's also the thing where it says units debarking from a DP count and having deep struck for the purposes of shooting. (Not deployment.)

[jeffersonian000]

I just mapped out how to cover a 6' x 4' gaming table with warp quake/servo-skull auras, such that there is no viable space in which to land a unit via deep strike, and this can be done in the first turn (ie, deep striking player with daemons or an all-drop pod'd army goes second while the GK player goes first) with only 2 units and 3 skulls, minimum. If placement goes well and all psychic tests are passed so that all WQ's go off, the deep striking army cannot land during the first turn, with all units auto-mishapping. This of course can only work versus a player that 1) has their entire army in reserve, and 2) stated all units will be deploying via deep strike.

 

Here's what's not covered in the rules: unit lands, auto-mishaps, rolls for the GK player to place the unit without scatter ... and the GK player can only place the unit inside of an auto-mishap zone, which causes another mishap.

 

What happens, is another mishap roll made? If so, then the unit will eventully be destroyed as long as the WQ's stay up, as there is no way out of the cycle until the unit is destroyed or the turn limit is reached. If not, then what rule covers this?

 

SJ

[Grey Mage]

Id say theyre just placed there. Theres no roll for scatter, it just kind of happens. Though Im curious how youve set it up with 23 models, most of wich have to be close with each other.

 

In any case, the unit automatically suffers a deep strike misshap- that doesnt mean they cant be placed there, nor does it mean they misshap again. I think, personally, its one roll per attempt.

[Seahawk]

Servo-skulls do not affect enemy deep strikes in any way whatsoever. They are just markers.

[Something Wycked]

Servo-skulls do not affect enemy deep strikes in any way whatsoever. They are just markers.

+1. They aren't even "models", they are "counters"; if a Deep Striking unit scatters on top of one, the skull is removed and the unit does not mishap.

 

As for the multiple mishaps... It has already rolled for scatter and has taken a mishap; now it is being placed without scatter. There's no provision in the rules for multiple mishaps on one Deep Striking unit and trying to make that happen stinks of limburger.

[jeffersonian000]

Good point about servo-skulls, I misread. However, the same coverage can be had with two 10-man units of GKSS (with Rhinos), or with an additional 10-man unit of GKIS (if no Rhinos), which actually provides greater coverage.

 

Per Deep Striking in BRB, rolls for mishap occur after placement, whch is normally generated by scatter. However, the lanquage used only states that placement can cause a mishap, as scatter is part of the placement process. If there is no scatter, but the legal area of placement can cause a mishap (ie, Warp Quake), then scatter does not matter and therefore does not negate the affect of Warp Quake, for example on a "hit" (which also doesn't scatter).

 

As I stated before, there are no rules covering multiple mishaps, yet a condition can exist that will cause multiple mishap rolls if the rules are followed. Its not a RAW vs RAI, or even a RAP issue. Its literally not covered, yet can occur. That's where my question originates. This is functionally the same is the scout-move list blocking deployment of a reserve list (which got quite a lot of attention a few years back). The only difference is that DS'ing unit will be forced to re-roll until eliminated, if the rules for DS mishap are followed each time a DS'ing unit is placed in a Warp Quake area, as long as Warp Quake lasts. If we decide to mishap only once, we are actively choosing to ignore the rules for sake of expediency.

 

As to the concept being unfair ... yep. Its totally unfair, and therefore something that should be figured out before it becomes an issue.

 

SJ

[Something Wycked]

...not negate the affect of Warp Quake, for example on a "hit" (which also doesn't scatter).

 

Whether the unit actually scatters or not is irrelevant. Warp Quake affects a unit that ends its Deep Strike movement inside its range after scatter is/would be rolled for, whether it scatters or not (ie, on the roll of a hit or inside the range of a beacon/icon which is outside of Warp Quake's range.)

 

This step does not occur when placing the unit via the Misplaced result on the mishap table. It has arrived from Reserves, it is Deep Striking, and it has suffered a mishap- it is now placed on the table and that is the end of its move.

 

As amusing as it is to think of "juggling" a unit around the board until it is either placed back in Reserves by rolling a 5 or 6, or destroyed via a 1 or a 2, the rules do not support that interpretation.

 

It is not freshly arriving from Deep Strike again when it is Misplaced and so does not suffer an additional mishap.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Pardon the necro.

 

Considering that the GK FAQ states that Coteaz' little special rule allows him and his unit to shoot at both the drop pod and the unit disembarking from it, the local GK player insists that this can be taken to mean that Warp Quake would have an effect on a unit that deep strikes outside the effect but then disembarks from the pod into the effected area. Attempts to argue that the squad isn't, in fact, deep striking into the effect but is merely disembarking (as has been pointed out in this thread) results in the counter-argument that "The FAQ ruled X for Coteaz, and both are similar and in the same codex, so they are hit by Warp Quake" or words to that effect.

 

Thoughts?

[thade]

Grey Mage you make the world of Warhammer Rules go round. :-)

Respectfully fixed. <3

 

Though I have no reason to doubt the true extent of Grey Mage's power, I also have only encountered it insofar as the OR board. :lol:

 

EDIT: AHHH!!! I posted in a Necro post. >_<

 

In answer to the necro: Coteaz's rules are an exception to the norm (as they explicitly state what he is able to do). Thus, his rule has zero implications on how the original subject of this thread should be handled.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Coteaz's rules are an exception to the norm (as they explicitly state what he is able to do). Thus, his rule has zero implications on how the original subject of this thread should be handled.

I see I wasn't clear enough. I tried that argument, but it was countered with words to the effect of "similar circumstance, so similar answer", i.e the rules Coteaz' rule works on both, and so should a similar (if with a different effect) rule. For clarity, this is the same GK player who refused to acknowledge that the phrase "turn" in a GW ruling had to mean game turn when the rulebook said "turn" means "player turn". He only relented when GW actually repeated the words in the rulebook in their own FAQ.

 

So yeah.

[thade]

I see I wasn't clear enough. I tried that argument, but it was countered with words to the effect of "similar circumstance, so similar answer", i.e the rules Coteaz' rule works on both, and so should a similar (if with a different effect) rule. For clarity, this is the same GK player who refused to acknowledge that the phrase "turn" in a GW ruling had to mean game turn when the rulebook said "turn" means "player turn". He only relented when GW actually repeated the words in the rulebook in their own FAQ.

 

So yeah.

Sorry you have to deal with such a player.

 

The argument you tried was the right of it. Coteaz's rules say he can do it; Warp Quake does not say it can do it. Because it's only in one entry, it's clear that it's an exception and not the rule. It wouldn't be mentioned otherwise.

 

That's how these rules work, after all. :lol:

[Legatus]

Coteaz's rule works on units "arriving" that turn. Warp Quake works on unit being placed via the deep strike mechanic.

 

Models disembarking from a drop pod "arrived" that turn (they are not allowed to move any further because of it, for example), but the models are not placed via the deep strike mechanic. Their pod was, and they arrived in it, but they are placed via disembarking from a transport.

 

Does it count for models disembarking from a drop pod?

 

"In the movement phase when they arrive, these units may not move any further" (BRB, p. 95)

Yes, they just arrived

 

"If an enemy unit arrives from reserve within 12" (...) Coteaz and his unit can immediately make an out-of-sequence shooting attack against it." (C:GK, p. 45)

Yes, they just arrived (though Coteaz and his unit are waiting until they have disembarked from their deep striking transport)

 

"any enemy unit deploying by Deep Strike within 12" of the squad (...) will automatically suffer a Deep Strike mishap." (C:GK, p. 28)

No, the pod is doing the deep strike deploying, and can potentially mishap. The infantry unit is merely disembarking from a transport, which does not usually cause mishaps.

 

 

There is a difference between "arriving that turn via some means of deep striking" and the "physical act of being placed via the deep strike mechanic". At least that's how I would see it.

When being placed as deep strikers, models landing on impassable terrain will trigger a mishap. However, when disembarking from a transport, models simply cannot be placed on difficult terrain and are flat out destroyed. Them disembarking and their space being blocked by impassable terrain would not cause a mishap.

 

E.g.: A unit arrives via drop pod. (Imagine for a moment that the drop pod does not have the landing thruster rule.) If the drop pod lands on a piece of impassable terrain, it will trigger a mishap. However, if the pod lands just outside the impassable terrain, but is surrounded by so much impassable terrain that not all transported models can safely be placed, then those models that cannot be placed during the forced disembarkation are simply destroyed. It would not trigger another mishap.

The pod is placed using the deep strike mechanic, and is subject to it's consequences. The unit disembarking is placed as a unit disembarking a transport, and will suffer the usual consequences for that, but not the consequences for deep striking into a position.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

First, he argued that Coteaz' ruling is a precedent for the entire FAQ and how to handle similar questions. He then tried to argue that the Codex trumphs the rules and the rules have no mention of Warp Quake. When I pointed out that Warp Quake triggers a mishap and pointed out the very things Legatus mentions, he went with the "I do not agree" and refused to let the argument go any further, even suggesting I was creating a "bad mood" by being "stubborn".

 

Last time I ever play with that fellow.

[thade]

Last time I ever play with that fellow.

Solved, then. :)

 

It's a shame, but honestly rules lawyering takes a LOT of fun out of the game for me as well. It's why I spend time on this board, so that when lawyering does arise I can recognize it for what it is and selectively combat or dismiss it. Easiest path is, of course, to find a friendlier opponent.

 

@Legatus: Brilliant write-up. Two thumbs up.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

@Legatus: Brilliant write-up. Two thumbs up.

Yes, agreed on that. I'd like to copy-pasta it into notepad and keep it around, if I may?

[Legatus]

It's a text on an internet forum. You can save or copy it as much as you like. :P

[Morollan]

It's a text on an internet forum. You can save or copy it as much as you like. B)

 

You could have charged him for that. Missed a trick there. :D

[thade]

It's a text on an internet forum. You can save or copy it as much as you like. ;)

 

You could have charged him for that. Missed a trick there. :drool:

Here's an older trick: "The check's in the mail." <3