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

[Achillius]

I think Dave nailed it.

And looking back at last years MB. That's exactly how my vets ended up finding them selves facing a  very angry Trygon, when they'd been going after a Titan...



Cheers,
Alan

[blantyr]

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.

This is a great common sense argument for why the disrupting player could not place the aim point in impassible terrain, as is the rule.  It makes no sense as to explaining why landing in a spot chosen by a friendly should be dangerous, while landing in a spot chosen by an enemy should be perfectly safe.

[blantyr]

And looking back at last years MB. That's exactly how my vets ended up finding them selves facing a  very angry Trygon, when they'd been going after a Titan...

Unfortunately, there are conflicting memories of how things were done in past years.  Given how many opinions people have, this shouldn't be surprising.  I suspect different things were done on different parts of the same board.  Thus, alas, 'doing as we've always done' isn't a decisive argument either.

[Moosifer]

Bob what was that explaination?  Aim Point, Landing Point?  Dave has it right, using the definition of terms from the 40k rulebook.  Very good explaination dave!

[jesterofthedark]

no no, I think I know what bob was getting at with that post..... he was..... ummmm.  It was in the description, ah, darn.  I had it and then I lost it.

Screw it, yay Dave's explanation.

[Captain Bryan!]

I vote for Dave's explanation

[blantyr]

Bob what was that explaination?  Aim Point, Landing Point?  Dave has it right, using the definition of terms from the 40k rulebook.  Very good explaination dave!

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.

Dave's is one of several two arrival schemes.  Units arrive twice.  Terminators get beamed down at risk, beamed up, then beamed down again to the wrong place but in perfect safety.  Tunnelers dig a tunnel, break surface at great risk, dig another tunnel, then break surface again in perfect safety.  Guardsmen jump out of a plane, arrive at great risk, somehow climb back into the plane...

To me it fails the simplicity test, in that it requires two arrivals instead of one.  It fails the rules test, as it puts limits other than no impassible terrain on where the disrupted unit is placed.  It fails the believability test in that one can't dig two tunnels, execute two beam downs and a beam up, dig multiple tunnels, etc, that quickly.  It fails the fluff test as it makes a disrupted landing safe.

In short, it is just bad.  The other variations on the two entry points theme are similar.

A while ago I talked about game stores having cultures, having dominant cliques of players that favor a given style of play.  I'll allege that BG's style is winning by selecting armies, a subtle pull in favor of assault and against shooting, speed and maneuver.  Battles too often take the form of getting one's force in close quickly, moving into base contact, and rolling dice.  Reducing the risk of deep strike into a disrupted area, similar to the preference for objective based victory conditions, might be examples of how a dominant clique subtly alters the rules to favor a particular style of play.

When I made this argument, the possibility of such a bias was dismissed.  It was proposed with pride that BG was a fluff loving store.   People weren't playing to win.  They loved their fluff.  There was no dominant clique trying to twist the rules in their favor at BG.  No, BG players are fun loving and fluffy.

During this discussion, when I mention the fluff, when I suggest that the fluff says deep strike into a disrupted zone ought to be dangerous, the common response has been 'the fluff is meaningless' or 'the fluff means nothing.'  This has been the common response of any proponent of a two arrival scheme who answers the point about fluff at all.

Just saying.

[Grand Master Steve]

Daves Explentation still makes the most sence with rules as written. Yes we are going for fluff but the general call here is we like to go by rules as written. Daves makes perfect sence in this case.

[ghost03]

When I made this argument, the possibility of such a bias was dismissed.  It was proposed with pride that BG was a fluff loving store.   People weren't playing to win.  They loved their fluff.  There was no dominant clique trying to twist the rules in their favor at BG.  No, BG players are fun loving and fluffy.

There is no doubt that people are playing to win, but are doing so in a friendly, well-spirited manner. No one is blatantly abusing the rules or twisting them in their favor by any means.

the common response has been 'the fluff is meaningless' or 'the fluff means nothing.'

The difficult part about applying fluff to game mechanics is that it can only be relevant in a very limited sense. Army selection, missions, terrain, and maybe a few other examples I fail to mention. But, applying fluff to game mechanics poses a significant amount of problems logistically, which is why a rulebook was created otherwise the game would be littered with a gross amount of absurd situations. Fluff does mean a lot to many players at BG, but those players only apply it to the situations I listed previously.

deep strike into a disrupted zone ought to be dangerous

The 'dangerous' part of deepstriking is initially landing in impassable terrain. The 'dangerous' part of the disrupter beacon is landing ten feet away from your desired location. GW is ambiguous in their rules but I feel that if you allow the unit to have to re-deepstrike in a location which forces that unit to suffer a mishap, it would only be of negative value to the game.

[jesterofthedark]

One should always be wary when generalizing any group.  Even when is its wrapped in the pretense of labeling a predominant "Culture", especially when this label is being thrown out by a player who idealogy is the opposite of said definition.  Unintentional sentiment maybe attached and the "culture's" population may feel offended, even if said offense was only accidently.

Ideally, we should go with the fluff.  In many games you can actually get though many rules conflicts by reading the fluff, it helps given you that visual.  But, this is not many games, the mega battle is not a place where if you reach an impass between two players' views you just 4+ it.  Because, that 4+ which may only occur once or twice in your friendly game, is actaully setting a precident for the table.  Instead of two players talking you have two mobs throwing out various interpetations.

The problem with using the fluff as a rule, is that its only descriptive text.  Sure "Comms gear and auspex arrays are confounded by this scrambler device" seems straight forward to me. But how does this help rule the beacon when dealing with deep striking Nids or anything that flank marches?  Does this confounding mean that suddenly flank marching squads just go the other way?  So, I think people take the fluff out purely because its not going to help as much as one would hope when ruling on a given situation.  Its not because we hate fluff, I mean from what I understand I  must be part of this book burning fluff hate squad that rules the store with my cheese close combat crush force.  But, hey no one's perfect right?

[Achillius]

And looking back at last years MB. That's exactly how my vets ended up finding them selves facing a  very angry Trygon, when they'd been going after a Titan...

Unfortunately, there are conflicting memories of how things were done in past years. 

I didn't realize the voices in my head were that loud, I'll ask them to keep it down...

[Serring]

Doesn't the beacon disrupt the targeting computer so when beamed down they are shot at the wrong place rather than one exact spot is "perfect" and so you arrive there with no worries tho you might be someplace you don't want to be?

[General Leevous]

i just got this brought to my attention. if disruptor beacon only works on reserves, how does it effec a demons first wave? it dosnt count as reserves on the first wave. i was just seeing if they would be effected by it...

[jesterofthedark]

Doesn't the beacon disrupt the targeting computer so when beamed down they are shot at the wrong place rather than one exact spot is "perfect" and so you arrive there with no worries tho you might be someplace you don't want to be?

I always thought that after the beacon was determined to work that the beacon player could place the unit anywhere but inside impassible terrain.  There would be no scatter.  You could in theory place it between two tanks and if the resulting unit came into contact with one of the units that, under the previous edition, you lost all models coming within an "1 of impassible terrain or an enemy unit.  You could place it in difficult terrain and cause all the models in the unit to have to test for it, which meant on a 1 the model was destroyed.  Under the new rules it would work the same except that instead of destroying the parts of the unit that came into contact with something you would roll for the whole unit on the mishap chart.  Which, could result in the unit being completely destoryed, put back in reserve, or replaced by an opponent.  I don't like how this has the possibility of a loop.  I could place the unit near one of my tanks and cause a mishap, then roll if I get 1 yay I killed the unit, a 6 it goes back into reserve to come back next turn.  On a 2-5 I re-place the unit somewhere, effectively giving me the ability to continue this loop till I get a 1 or 6.  At least with the purposed ruling once the unit is displaced it is done with.  And I am all for anything that doesn't slow the game down anymore.


Lee I am pretty sure anything entering the board after the set-up phase of the game falls into teh category of entering from reserves.  Just like in dawn of war everything enters turn 1 from reserves.  And I thought the deamon codex refered to the roll for which half of the army enters place as a reserve roll or something to that description??

[Captain Bryan!]

i dont think that you can make an infinant loop because the new entry point has a be legal (no need for a mishap chart roll), right?