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

[blantyr]

To me, among other problems, the two arrival scheme just doesn’t tell a believable story.  It’s about the deep strike technician and the infantry squad leader.  Maybe the deep strike technician is a pilot, flying a drop pod or a Valkyrie.  Maybe he operates a transporter, or a tunnel digging machine.  The squad leader might be a sergeant, an aspiring champion or an exarch.  Everybody knows  they are making an at risk approach.  There are red lights flashing, compasses spinning and alarm horns blaring.  The decision is made to go for it anyway, to not divert to the secondary safe landing location.  It gets exciting for a while.  Everybody’s knuckles are white.  Then it’s over.  The leader and his squad are standing on solid ground.  They see landmarks familiar from the briefing all around them.  They yell in their comm gear, “We are at the arrival point.”  They know so because of their Mark I eyeballs.

The deep strike technician then looks at his instruments and convinces himself that he put the troops in the wrong spot, that he has to load up the squad and try again.  He has to convince the infantry leader that his Mark I eyeballs are wrong, that the spinning compass is right, that the squad has to redo the drop.

No (expletive deleted) way would that squad put themselves back into the hands of such a technician.

[Lady GaGa]

I have an awesome solution that will make everyone mad.  Seeing as 40k is a game of chance, lets just flip a coin.

[Moosifer]

To me, among other problems, the two arrival scheme just doesn’t tell a believable story. 

Bob, I love fluff.  I love the history and the interaction between the races in the 40k Universe.  However we are playing a game with the rules written for it, and sometimes those rules dont necessarily agree with the fluff.  That is the way that GW has set up the game, and while we might not like the way the rules work with it, we also have to abide by those rules.

If you want to play something fluffy (which you do), play Dark Heresy(which you do), where the rules are more of a free form and allow for you to petition the GM for an amendment for the rules based on Logic and Reason.

Games Workshops games frequently defy logic and reasoning, and to hope they will have someone write a logical set of rules is a pipe dream.

[blantyr]

Games Workshops games frequently defy logic and reasoning, and to hope they will have someone write a logical set of rules is a pipe dream.

Thing is, it isn't the rule in this case that defies logic and reasoning, it is the rule interpretation.  If one assumes that the disruptor beacon has no effect on the deep striking process until the deep strikers are already safe on the ground, the results of that assumption will fly in the face of not only logic and reason, but also the rules as written, simplicity, fluff and speed of play.  The only thing the deep strike twice interpretation has for it is that it encourages the 'aggressive' sort of play a lot of people like.  It gets one into close combat at reduced risk.

[cryptoron]

As much as this whole discussion is fun to read and all, I really think the folks running this need to just make a decision on how it all works, and just let us know and we will modify our tactics accordingly.
I think all of the views have been explained and someone in charge needs to just pick one.

[blantyr]

As much as this whole discussion is fun to read and all, I really think the folks running this need to just make a decision on how it all works, and just let us know and we will modify our tactics accordingly.
I think all of the views have been explained and someone in charge needs to just pick one.

Yep.  I reminded Chase last Saturday he already has our money.  Poor guy now might have to earn it, though he was muttering about letting Derek decide.

But I would vehemently deny the suggestion made above that we should flip a coin.  This is 40K.  By all that is holy, by the rules as written, and in the Emperors name, we should clearly, without a doubt, taking into account all tradition and history, four plus it.   

[Battleground]

We are carefully reading all responses in this thread and thank you for debating it reasonably.

We'll post our final call soon, but please continue if there are more relevant points to add.

Thanks!

[Achillius]

I'm still in favor of Daves explanaition, it makes sense given how deep strike works per the 40k rule book.

Look at the mishap table, if you land in a situation that would force a roll the results could be:
1-2 = dead,
5-6 = back in reserve
3-4 = opponent places with no scatter and not in impassible terrain....

So once a unit's final entry point has been determined you make any mishap rolls that are necessary, (Which could allow the opponent to move the unit anyway, or prevent the DB affecting the unit in the first place), the owner of the Distruptor Beacon rolls and on a 4+ gets to move the Unit just like the mishap table.

There's no fear that the unit will be lost, as you have to place it as a whole, so only a space large enough to take it can exist, and it cannot be impassable terrain.



Cheers,
Alan

[Chase]

After MUCH consideration, reading, re-reading, hearing about 13 different opinions, we have come to a conclusion that we think most accurately reflects the rules governing all of this as well as being the most agreeable way to handle things.

Deepstriking will interact with the Beacon in the following way:


1. A unit attemps to deepstike.
2. The unit rolls scatter and 2D6 to determine "how many inches the model moves away from the intended position." (pg. 95, 40k Rulebook)
3. Determine whether the unit suffers any deepstrike mishap. If not, the unit has *arrived* onto the battlefield.
4. Determine if the unit 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.
 
The explanation for this conclusion can be found here:
http://www.battlegroundgames.com/forum/index.php?topic=1243.msg12760#msg12760

We understand that a reading of the fluff may lead people to conclude somethings different.  Whereas we don't strongly disagree with certain interpretations, we do think the rules operate in this way and want to respect that.




The ruling on Disruptor Beacon for this years Megabattle is now:

Disruptor Beacon:
You must provide a model to represent the Beacon.

The Disruptor Beacon must be deployed at least 4" away from any terrain feature.

You MUST declare that you have a Disruptor Beacon and make sure the captain of the opposing side knows where it is, what it is, and what it does.

You also MUST declare to each opponent, when they attempt to place models within the "disrupted" area, that they are in fact trying to place models in an area protected by the Beacon.


It will interact with Flank March is the following way:

The disrupted units must be replaced on a table edge as per the Flank March asset.  These models will not scatter.

[General Leevous]

is it only going to effect deepstrikers and flankmarchers? or is it going to effect regular reserves as well (own table edge reserves)

[Rob S]

Thank god.  Now we can try to rule on things much less clear.  And Lee, I believe it's all reserves.

[General Leevous]

cool beans, i just got confused for a second with the mention of flank march