The Disruptor Beacon (a ruling has been posted on page 3)

[Rob S]

I feel that this should be in an open forum for discussion from both sides.  I'm assuming it's being talked about on the Disorder forum as well, but here's a summary of what we have:

The rules about a disruptor beacon affecting people coming on from a table edge is set.  There is no discussion there.  However, there are questions about whether scatter occurs after a unit has been placed when deep striking.

The term "entry point", of course, has no clear ruling in the main rulebook.  However it seems quite clear that this is the point that the unit - for lack of a better word - enters.  Not the point that a player is trying to bring the unit on, not the targeted point, the point where the unit enters.  AFTER the scatter.

In the first megabattle, it was played such that the unit did not scatter.  I remember a unit of enemy terminators that were affected once deep striking and were placed at the very corner of the board edge, rendering them useless simply because they could not reach an enemy in the few turns they had.  There was no scatter involved.

Instead, it seems people are arguing that complex rules should be made determining where an enemy can have their targeted entry point, and then scatter from them.  It makes no sense to me to consider this an "entry point". The unit has not entered play.

I feel that we should simply follow the ruling that has worked flawlessly in the past.  A unit that comes in from deep strike affected by the disruptor beacon instead must be placed where there is no mishap, but will not scatter.  In a game so large requiring additional rulings, why would you add even more complex ones when you have a simple working one already in existence?

[General Leevous]

Agreed with rob. Complicating the rules just makes things difficult. As much as it may sound fair, it just makes things complicated... but then again I'm a big "play the game how it was written" person...

[Rob S]

Under that reading, I understand that there would be a 100% chance of mishap.  Is this the intent?  Why or why not?

There would be a 100% chance of not having a mishap.  You cannot place it in an area that there is a mishap, and there is no scatter thus it will not have a mishap.

With the rule that there is scatter, a player could easily redirect the enemy it in the smallest area between multiple units, thus almost guaranteeing a mishap.  If the intent of the disruptor beacon was to automatically kill a unit, it would say so.  At least with the ruling that I feel is far superior, the unit will have a fighting chance if put in that position.

I propose the ruling for the disruptor beacon in regards to deep strike be as follows: A unit can be relocated to any safe area.  It cannot be in impassible terrain (though still can be put into difficult, and thus dangerous terrain), and cannot be placed so that some models will be cut off and automatically killed (such as not being able to complete the full ring of models being placed before coming into contact with an enemy unit or impassible terrain).  However, there is no scatter.

[Chase]

So you intend for the entire unit to be placed on the table, and then assuming it is disrupted, the entire unit to be picked up and moved to some place it can legally be put down?

There just seems to be a whole lot of different opinions...

For instance, if a unit comes down after Deep Striking and can not be placed in a "ring" they then must roll on the mishap chart... they do not just die.  Is this true or false, because I seem to be hearing both?

It seems like a unit can only die outright if that result come sup on the mishap chart.

Playing it as "must be placed in any safe area" seems to defeat the purpose and risk of Deep Strike in the first place, which is supposed to be "very dangerous".

If the entire unit is placed on the table, then the Beacon player rolls a 4+, and then gets to place the entire unit somewhere safe it seems to defeat much of the purpose.  Surely this can't be the intent of the asset and rules...

[Rob S]

So you intend for the entire unit to be placed on the table, and then assuming it is disrupted, the entire unit to be picked up and moved to some place it can legally be put down?

I believe so, if I'm reading what you're saying right.  Just in case you don't know how deep strike works, quick summary:

A point is picked on the table, represented by a model in the deep striking unit.  It is then scattered, and that model is moved as such.  Once that is over, that is the final position of the unit and the unit enters play by forming a ring of models around the central model, then expanding if there are still more models after the first ring is complete.  Any models that cannot legally be placed (so if the ring is almost complete, but there is no more room based on impassible terrain or an enemy unit) are destroyed.

So the point will be picked and scattered and the unit placed, and if it lands within the area of a disruptor beacon will be affected as normal.  Then, the player with the beacon chooses a point for the unit such that all models still function.  It can be up for debate if the circular formation must remain or if they can be in any form necessary.  I simply wish to clear up the core debate by saying that if a unit enters and is disrupted, it can be placed in any safe area without scattering afterward.

[Chase]

What I'm running into is this....

Is that final point the point of the UNIT or just the one MODEL that the unit needs to deploy around?

This is a very important question to answer.... and even if we can get everyone to agree up to this point (which they do not ), there are very different opinions.

[Rob S]

What I'm running into is this....

Is that final point the point of the UNIT or just the one MODEL that the unit needs to deploy around.

This is a very important question to answer.

So how do you feel about the proposed rules about re-placing the unit?  If that can be finalized, it would clear up time for much more important conversations.

What is the wording exactly of disruptor beacon?  If I remember correctly, it says that a unit that enters play within however many inches.  That means to me that it is after all models are down, that's when the unit has entered play.  Not the targeted point.

Edit: Two answers to your earlier questions.  If the original targeted point (represented by the model) is in impassable terrain/an  enemy unit, it suffers a mishap.  If it is just some models once they begin to be placed, it's as I described.

Second: The danger of deep strike is in the original choice to deep strike it in a certain area, not the new area chosen by the enemy with the beacon.  The idea that was being thrown around (which I feel is completely unnecessary) is to keep the unit at least 12 inches away from the table edge to... eliminate the danger of deep strike.  It should be the owning player's choice on if he wants to put his unit in a dangerous area because if all goes as planned it will give him a tactical advantage, not the enemy's choice to relocate it in the most dangerous area possible.  Just to relocate it to be easier to deal with.

This may be a bad analogy, but I'm not sure.  Think of a roleplaying game with some sort of mind control power.  The user of the power can make the victim do things that give the user a better advantage than if the victim were of their free will entirely, but cannot make the victim do something as to injure themselves such as jump off a cliff.  A drop pod may have their signals skewed telling them to land on the opposite side of the battlefield, but it will know enough to not land in a pool of lava.

[Logan007]

I've always played it that you roll for scatter after placing that unit. I've always considered the first part of deepstriking a unit (where you first place down a model from that unit onto a point on the table then roll scatter) as the "Entry Point". I've also played it this way when I chose it as a stratagem for the first mega battle.

On the other hand, I have no objections playing it the way you've been playing. As long as everyone's on the same page.

[Moosifer]

I've always played it that you roll for scatter after placing that unit. I've always considered the first part of deepstriking a unit (where you first place down a model from that unit onto a point on the table then roll scatter) as the "Entry Point". I've also played it this way when I chose it as a stratagem for the first mega battle.

On the other hand, I have no objections playing it the way you've been playing. As long as everyone's on the same page.

That is how I have always played anything like this, since the asset says placement, and placement is done before scatter dice are rolled.

As for chase's point, yes if you decide to deepstrike outside of the beacon and scatter inside the area you are not effected.  You have already "placed" your marker therefor you cannot go back a step in process can you?

[Chase]

Well, there was a LENGTHY debate just now as to how the Beacon works.  Much progress was made tonight.

I will talk to Derek tomorrow night, and write something up on Monday if there is time....

I dislike this sort of thing.  I have to disappoint people and I'm sorry for that.


I plan to take the best reading of the rules and use it this time around.  I would expect to see the 12" "buffer" zone eliminated.  It was added for reasons that are no longer relevant regardless of how the interaction is ruled.

[ghost03]

Disrupter Beacon 101:

First things first:
:DISRUPTER BEACON:
"Whenever enemy Reserves arrive within 48" of the marker, roll a D6. On a 4+, the player owning the disrupter may choose a new entry point. The new point may not be in impassable terrain." (pg. 188, Apocalypse Rulebook)

How to Appy Disrupter Beacon:

Scenario - (Unit X is arriving from reserves via deepstrike)

1. Unit X attemps to deepstike.
2. Unit X rolls scatter and 2D6 to determine "how many inches the model moves away from the intended position"(pg. 95, 40k Rulebook)
3. Determine whether Unit X suffers any deepstrike mishap. If not, unit X has arrived onto the battlefield.
4. Determine if Unit X is within 48" of the disrupter beacon.
5. If the answer is 'yes' then apply the Disrupter beacon rule, "On a 4+, the player owning the disrupter may choose a new entry point."
6. The new unit is placed at this new entry point. They do not re-scatter.
 
Why things work this way:

1. Unit X attemps to deepstike.
-Simple

2. Unit X rolls scatter and 2D6 to determine "how many inches the model moves away from the intended position"(pg. 95, 40k Rulebook)
-The disrupter beacon states clearly "Whenever enemy Reserves arrive", the key word: arrive. Returning to the deepstrike rules: "Place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive" (pg. 95, 40k rulebook) "would like the unit to arrive"  implies that the unit has not arrived based on the phase 'would like', but, will do so [arrive] once the scatter process is complete.


3. Determine whether Unit X suffers any deepstrike mishap. If not, unit X has arrived onto the battlefield.
-Simple

4. Determine if Unit X is within 48" of the disrupter beacon.
-Simple

5. If the answer is 'yes' then apply the Disrupter beacon rule, "On a 4+, the player owning the disrupter may choose a new entry point."
-The unit has already "arrived via deepstrike" and the player controlling the disrupter beacon may "choose a new entry point. The new point may not be in impassable terrain." The first entry point for the unit is the intented location post-scatter, but pre-disrupting. Therefore, the unit is already on the table, and if successfully disrupted, placed in a different location satisfying the terms of the disrupter beacon being that the unit may not be placed in impassable terrain. ", also, "a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model"(pg.11, 40k Rulebook)


6. The new unit is placed at this new entry point. They do not re-scatter.
-The unit has already arrived on the battlefield via the deepstrike rules but is moved in the following way: "the player owning the disrupter may choose a new entry point." The entry point is the location the unit deepstruck (completing the process) without a mishap. You can't place enemy units with 1" of impassable terrain or enemy models because the unit has already deepstruck and is only being moved on the table. Having to follow the rules for proximity, "a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model", it's clear that the final location of the unit must satisfy that premise.

[Opforce3]

i drew a real nice flowchart to illustrate this, i'm pretty proud.

[Chase]

Thanks for writing that.  It saved me much time.

[Librarian]

Just to clarify I just read over the rules for deepstrike and mishaps. In 4th edition any models that couldent safely and legaly placed where destroyed in 5th if even one model can not be placed the whole unit suffers mishap and you roll on the table.

I am getting sick of GW playtesting rules by calling it apocalypse or city fight or some other supplement.

One easy fix might be to replace the text of Disrupter Beacon with

Disruptor beacon
coms gear and auspex arrays are confounded by this scrambler device.

When revealed: During Deployment.

Effect: whenever Deep Strikeing enemy units arrive within 48" of the marker, Roll a D6. On a 4+ the unit is considered to have suffered a misplaced mishap as described in the 5th edition core rulebook under Deep Strike Mishaps.

Also the rules for the markers for front line assets should be changed to read "the marker must be atleast 4 inches across and stand atleast 4 inches tall at its highest point"

ok the size thing is just so someone dosent take a thumbtack and put it on the board behind terrain and call it a disruptor beacon or forcefeild generator.

Now in about 5 minutes someone is gonna start yelling cause I changed enemys entering from reserves with deepstrikeing only.

the Idea that you can mess up someones deepstrike is fine but to think that you can have a device with a very limited range and somehow mess up someones troops marching up to the battle that stretches things a bit far.

then again I also belive that flank march should not work on superheavy vehicles or gargantuan creature.

Infact I belive the megabattle would be alot better without assets or battle formations.

[blantyr]

Let met go around the block.  Three definitions first...

1.  Aim Point.  Where someone tries to aim a deep strike.

2.  Landing Point.  The point where the first model must be placed after scatter.

3.  Landing Area.  The total area near the Landing point upon which models are placed, with a possible extra 1 inch buffer if there are enemy models nearby.

Note :  1 or 2 is likely what GW meant by Entry Point.  3 cannot be a point as it is an area.  No one should be talking with certainty as if they know what GW meant by 'entry point' as there is much sincere disagreement.

Using the above definitions, here is one possible outline...

On deep striking, the unit owner selects an aim point.

If this original aim point is within 48 inches of the beacon, a disruptor beacon 1d6 roll is made.  On a 4+ the beacon owner chooses a new aim point, but it may not be in impassible terrain. 

Whether the aim point has been altered or not, the full deep strike rules are applied identically as per 40K base rules, starting with a scatter roll to determine the landing point, then looking for the various things that might cause trouble if they are in the landing area.

My opinions...

The Fluff at the start of the Deep strike mishaps paragraph (Page 96, 40K core rules) state that deep strike into a jammed area ought to be dangerous.  I dislike the alternate interpretations that go squarely against the fluff, that try to make 'landing under the influence' safe.

Rules wise, the various 'safe' versions of the beacon rules try to impose limits on where the unit might be placed that are just plain not in the book.  On a 4+, they may be placed anywhere but in impassible terrain.  Period.

Common sense wise, the unit only deeps strikes once.  The beacon is a scrambler device which confuses navigation on the way down, during a teleporting process, or as a tunnel is being dug, etc...  There are not two landings, two beam downs from the ship, or two tunnels being dug.  It is beyond belief that after one lands near a beacon, one then instantly digs a new tunnel that comes up twenty scale feet away.  The risks of landing in one zone should in no way effect or influence the risks of landing in an entirely different zone.  It should not be safer to land in a zone selected by the enemy than it is to land in a zone selected by friends.  The owner of the disruptor beacon should not have more control over the scatter process or selection of the landing point than the deep striking unit owner, or if he did somehow have a greater degree of control, he would not believably be using this extraordinary control to make the landing safe for his enemies.

Thus, for reasons of simplicity, not having to invent new rules, being compatible with the fluff, and just having the results being vaguely believable, the Beacon should simply change which player selects the aim point.