Landing a drop pod on an enemy unit

[TheCrazyCaptain]

Does this work?

 

If I were to target an enemy unit when placing my drop pod, and miraculaously managed to not scatter, and land exactly where I wanted to - lets say on an enemy dreadnaught... would I damage the dreadnaught, or would one of the models (drop pod or dreadnaught) have to move so it didn't collide?

 

Obviously, in the real world - if a huge metal troop transport lands on your head, you're fairly much dead. I'm just not clear how it would work in 40k. Would you treat it as being rammed by a vehicle?

[Marshall Bretton]

from my understanding of it, you can't "aim" at an enemy unit, you have to put the pod in a clear space where it is able to deploy (according to the deep strike rules) and then roll for scatter. if you end up scattering onto an enemy (or friendly) unit or terrain then you reduce the scatter distance by the minimum ammount to deploy safely. it's stated in the drop pod rules in the bit about "inertial guidance system"

[Azatoth]

It does not work that way according to the rules.

[TheCrazyCaptain]

thank you for your time in clarifying. It's a bit disappointing - I'm taking 1500 points of Wolves allied with 1500 points of Eldar into a battle against a dreadnaught army in an Apocolypse battle this evening (I'm the cannon fodder for people training for the Forge World event in May) so trying to work out my best approach.

 

I should point out - I'm trying hard to learn all the rules, but I'm dyslexic, and without playing the game a few times and effectively being walked through the rules (and special rules for my models), I'm struggling to make the couple of hundred pages in the hardback rule book stick. Fortunately - I have some very understanding friends!!

 

Things are more complicated than when I used to play 1st edition.

[Marshall Bretton]

well if you are playing space wolves against a vehicle heavy army i would suggest longs fangs.....lots and lots of long fangs

[Grey Mage]

It would auto-misshap, assuming you and your opponent feel that placing a model on top of enemy models is a legal spot to try and deepstrike anyways. Drop pods 'reduce' scatter... never increase it.

[corlinjewell]

Actually, I think the drop pod rules state that you move it the minimum distance away from the enemy models.

[Marshall Bretton]

no it specifically say reduce the scatter by the minimum distance

[dswanick]

"Arriving by Deep Strike

...

- First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.", BRB, pg.36

 

So the supposition is to place a Drop Pod on top of an enemy model with no scatter.

One potential barrier to this would be:

 

"A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase.", BRB, pg.10

 

If your group accepts that Reserve Deployment happens during the Movement phase, and therefore should be viewed as "movement" then you are prohibited from placing the Drop Pod on top of enemy models.  If they do not accept this argument then :

 

"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.", BRB, pg.36

 

As soon as you place your Drop Pod on top of an enemy model you must roll for Mishap.

[Paulochromis]

nice quotes from the BRB, but doesn't Codex overrule BRB?

Don't you need to be quoting the specific Drop Pod Assault and Inertial Guidance System rules/entries from the Codex instead?

IGS means you shouldn't mishap, just reduce scatter to prevent it.

[Giga]

You can't deep strike on top of other models. You need to be able to place the drop pod on the table before rolling for scatter, so obviously it can't stand on top of another model.

[Captain Idaho]

There is no tactical discussion here so I'm bumping those thread to the official rules section.

[dswanick]

nice quotes from the BRB, but doesn't Codex overrule BRB?

Don't you need to be quoting the specific Drop Pod Assault and Inertial Guidance System rules/entries from the Codex instead?

Actually, no - you would have to quote a Codex rule to overrule my BRB quotes. It's not my job to "prove" your argument.

IGS means you shouldn't mishap, just reduce scatter to prevent it.

True, however if you 'place' your droppod directly over an enemy model and roll 0" of scatter how do you "reduce" that to not land on the enemy model and mishap?

[Rohaen]

Marine codex states under the Inertial Guidance System rule for Drop Pods, pg 69, that "...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..."

 

For Space Marines, you do not roll mishap when using pods, if you were to land on impassable terrain or a foe, you basically reduce scatter just enough to land.

 

Deep striking from jump packs or teleporting does not convey this rule, and thus would role mishap if you were to land on a foe or impassable terrain.

[dswanick]

Marine codex states under the Inertial Guidance System rule for Drop Pods, pg 69, that "...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..."

 

For Space Marines, you do not roll mishap when using pods, if you were to land on impassable terrain or a foe, you basically reduce scatter just enough to land.

 

Deep striking from jump packs or teleporting does not convey this rule, and thus would role mishap if you were to land on a foe or impassable terrain.

This is getting tedious -

How do you "reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle" if you've placed your droppod directly over the enemy model and your scatter distance = 0"?

[Fibonacci]

Wow. We are reeeeally reading to much into this.

 

Q: Landing a drop pod on an enemy unit; does this work?

A: No. You can not place it on an enemy and it can not scatter on top of an enemy.

 

That's it. Next question.

[dswanick]

Wow. We are reeeeally reading to much into this.

Q: Landing a drop pod on an enemy unit; does this work?

A: No. You can not place it on an enemy and it can not scatter on top of an enemy.That's it. Next question.

Well, why didn't you post this several posts ago and save us all some time - now just post the rules quote that supports the portion "can not place it on an enemy" and we're all set.

[hisdudeness]

Try doing search, this pops up every few months and is proven incorrect thinking. 

 

One model needs to be placed "...on the table."  If the drop pod is on top of another model is it on the table?

 

Next, look at the Nid FAQ for the Mawloc...it gives specific permission to Deep Strike on other models.

[dswanick]

Try doing search, this pops up every few months and is proven incorrect thinking. 

I've been a member of this forum for years. If you read those threads, you'd see my posts in several of them. ;)

Regardless, this is a new edition with new rules.

 

One model needs to be placed "...on the table."  If the drop pod is on top of another model is it on the table?

So, by your logic:

If i place the model in a based piece of area terrain, it's not "on the table"?

 

This is both faulty logic, and irrelevant. The first model is "placed" to designate a position. That position is not final until the scatter die is rolled. Only after the scatter die is rolled, and the final position is known is the model placed. That's the same flaw in the earlier post referencing this (#16 & #17, i believe).

 

Next, look at the Nid FAQ for the Mawloc...it gives specific permission to Deep Strike on other models.

Codex: Tyrannid (and its FAQ) has no bearing on this discussion. It, too, is irrelevant because the Mawloc does have specific permission while the droppod has a gaping hole in its procedure.

[hisdudeness]

Last time I checked, not a single one of those threads proved what the OP is asking.  Frankly, read page 36 and find where  we are told that we can place a model on top of another model.  All basic model placement rules remain in affect until we are told they are modified.  And there is no "accept that deep strike happens in the movement phase" because it happen during the movement phase and always has. 

 

Wow, the statement about placing models on terrain bases just speaks volumes.  If deep striking models can normally be placed on top of other models, way does the Mawloc need an exception?

[dswanick]

Last time I checked, not a single one of those threads proved what the OP is asking.  Frankly, read page 36 and find where  we are told that we can place a model on top of another model.  All basic model placement rules remain in affect until we are told they are modified.  And there is no "accept that deep strike happens in the movement phase" because it happen during the movement phase and always has. 

True, but something happening during the Movement phase does not mean it is movement.  So it is only prohibited by the Movement rules if it is movement.

Wow, the statement about placing models on terrain bases just speaks volumes.  If deep striking models can normally be placed on top of other models, way does the Mawloc need an exception?

Still irrelevant. Codex: Tyrannids has no more bearing on rules in Codex: Space Marines than does any rule found in Stratego.

[hisdudeness]

I am not talking about movement rules, I am talking about placement of models.  As a baseline, models cannot be on top of other models and cannot be within 1" on enemy models.  No where are we told we modify this baseline in the deep strike rules. 

 

Thus the deep striking model must be placed legally, e.i., not on top of other models and not within 1" of enemy models.

 

So a FAQ that states a clear exception to a special rule has no bearing on the rest of the game?

[dswanick]

I am not talking about movement rules, I am talking about placement of models.  As a baseline, models cannot be on top of other models and cannot be within 1" on enemy models.  No where are we told we modify this baseline in the deep strike rules. 

And this is where you are wrong. Nowhere in the BRB does it say one model may not be placed on top of another model.  It only says a model may not be moved on top of or within 1" of an enemy model. So unless Deployment is accepted as Movement, then the "Models in the way" rule on pg.10 is irrelevant. As I pointed out several posts ago.

Thus the deep striking model must be placed legally, e.i., not on top of other models and not within 1" of enemy models.

So given my above statement (unless you can refute it with an actual, relevant rule) there is nothing preventing a model from being deployed on top of another model except the inevitable Mishap. 

So a FAQ that states a clear exception to a special rule has no bearing on the rest of the game?

Correct. Unless the FAQ is a BRB FAQ or an FAQ for the Codex containing the rule in question you will have an uphill battle convincing some that it has any bearing. Which is why the Combat Squad, Drop Pod, and other multi-Codex FAQ Q&As are repeated in the FAQ for each affected Marine Codex.

[hisdudeness]

Sweet, I can now place my devastator squad on top of my rhino and move them around, and they are not affected by the unit/transport movement rules. 

 

"In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units..." (BRB p36, first column, second to last paragraph).  So now show me where deep strike doesn't happen in the movement phase and thus not subject to all baseline rules of that phase except where modified by the DS rules? 

 

...no, you are fighting the up hill battle.  Not a single major game plays this way and anyone claiming this at one of them will get looked at funny.  I believe one would be hard pressed to find any group that plays anyone other then themselves plays it this way. 

[dswanick]

Sweet, I can now place my devastator squad on top of my rhino and move them around, and they are not affected by the unit/transport movement rules. 

Partially correct. You can place your devs on top of your rhino. Because GW saw fit to remove the "all models count as impassible terrain" rule which existed in 5th Ed (and which you seem to be under the mistaken impression still exists), and which prevented any model from being placed on top of any other model.

Of course you would be wrong in claiming you could move them around the table without counting them as moving, but that is a whole separate and irrelevant debate.

 

"In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units..." (BRB p36, first column, second to last paragraph).  So now show me where deep strike doesn't happen in the movement phase and thus not subject to all baseline rules of that phase except where modified by the DS rules? 

And once again, you are using the straw-man that i'm claiming Deep Strike doesn't happen during the Movement phase. Just because something happens during the Movement phase does not make it movement. Show me were Deep Strike placement is Movement. Just because it happens during the Movement phase doesn't make it movement any more than a Psychic Power cast during the movement phase is movement. 

...no, you are fight the up hill battle.  Not a single major game plays this way and anyone claiming this at one of them will get looked at funny.  I believe one would be hard pressed to find any group that plays anyone other then themselves plays it this way. 

Well then, ill just agree that we disagree...