Land Raider Deep-Strike Vs Grot

[Cdodders]

Everyone (should) know the rule that if a unit Deep-Strikes and scatters on top of another unit, its onto the mishap table.

But what if said unit is a squad of Guardsmen, or a Gretchin, or a Grot, or Scarabs, or Rippers? Or something equally squishy? And said Deep-Striking unit just happens to be a 72 tonne Land Raider? According the rule book, there is no stated exception, so if my beloved Land Raider scatters onto a Grot, Grot is fine and the Land Raider has a 33% chance of turning into scrap metal.

According to the BA Codex fluff, the LR is dropped from a T-Hawk Transporter. 72 tonnes of metal being dropped onto your head would hurt. A bit. A lot. Possibly either not at all or absolutely excruciating for a brief moment.

But Grot walks away. And Land Raider is in bits.....

Any Thoughts?

[ElectricPaladin]

It's one of the weirder quirks of the rules. While it would be neat to have a special rule for vehicles Deep Striking on top of particularly squishy infantry, it's just not how the game works. It would make Deep Striking land raiders too easy - not to mention allowing them to be used offensively.

By the way, this is a common misconception. I think the idea is not that the mishap happens because the land raider lands on the grot. The mishap happens because the thunderhawk pilot can't find a good place to drop the land raider. He sees a blip on his screen and doesn't know if its a grot or a small building or a cluster mine, so he veers off. Maybe he's able to come around for another pass (delayed), maybe he veers off and ends up dropping the land raider somewhere weird (misplaced), maybe he tries to make the drop and screws up tragically (destroyed).

[Houghten]

By the way, this is a common misconception. I think the idea is not that the mishap happens because the land raider lands on the grot. The mishap happens because the thunderhawk pilot can't find a good place to drop the land raider.

Otherwise the "Delayed" result on the table would make no sense. I mean, what are we saying happens? It bounces?

[DarkLink]

Everything is air droppable once.

Kudos if you recognize that quote.

Deepstriking vehicles should count as tank shocking. Plus it would be awesome for Death and Glory.

[Katharon]

The rule is what the rule is, no exceptions. Don't like it? Oh well. Toughen up.

[ElectricPaladin]

The rule is what the rule is, no exceptions. Don't like it? Oh well. Toughen up.

That's not called for, man. This is a game that's intended to simulate a more-or-less consistent (if not realistic) reality. It's ok to question the rules and wonder why they are why they are.

[Katharon]

Electric Paladin, I understand what you mean, however I'm being logical and understanding. Who am I understanding? The game rule makers. They realized, when they allowed vehicles to be Deep Struck, that they would have to have them abide by the same rules as other models with the Deep Strike USR. Otherwise people would keep requesting that exceptions be made for one model in particular because a special series of circumstances might be met once in a certain place at the perfect time -- you can't please everyone, ergo you go with what will please the most.

As such we have deep striking Land Raiders (a concept that *I* personally think is retarded. You don't drop a tank from the air. You land it, unload it, and then it trundles off) that must abide by the regular rules of Deep Strike. There are plenty of rules that I would love to argue out and see changed, but that is only my own perspective and would perhaps break the rules for a great many people. As such I have to suck it up and deal with it. I have to think in creative new ways and develop new tactics (in this case: maybe use a Locator Beacon so it doesn't scatter?).

Whether or not this makes me a j*ck*ss depends on your perspective. My personal experiences have left with with the "take in on the chin" or "roll with the punches" type of mentality in regards to war-gaming. Otherwise I'd be stuck sitting there, not enjoying myself, because I care to argue over a rule that *I* don't think makes sense.

[Anggul]

Yup, the rules for Deep Strike mishaps are stupid. It makes sense for things that are Teleporting like Terminators, but if you get fused with a Terminator, you're dead too, it should affect only the models that actually land in enemy models, and also affect those enemy models.

For some ridiculous reason Monoliths and Assault Marines that land on enemies mishap... you'd think landing on the enemy is exactly what Assault Marines are going for. The Monolith is even more ridiculous because it used to have the 'Deep Strike guidance' thing in the previous codex, and for some bizarre reason it was removed!

I don't care about Land Raiders though, because that's a stupid rule anyway. If it's being dropped off by a Thunderhawk, where is this Thunderhawk, why isn't it firing at the enemy, and why can't said enemy try to shoot it down? Silliness.

But yeah, the Deep Strike rules are something that have always been silly and for some reason GW have never changed them.

[Katharon]

Everyone remember when Rogal Dorn deep struck teleported into a rockside?

[Tynskel]

Yup, the rules for Deep Strike mishaps are stupid. It makes sense for things that are Teleporting like Terminators, but if you get fused with a Terminator, you're dead too, it should affect only the models that actually land in enemy models, and also affect those enemy models.

For some ridiculous reason Monoliths and Assault Marines that land on enemies mishap... you'd think landing on the enemy is exactly what Assault Marines are going for. The Monolith is even more ridiculous because it used to have the 'Deep Strike guidance' thing in the previous codex, and for some bizarre reason it was removed!

I don't care about Land Raiders though, because that's a stupid rule anyway. If it's being dropped off by a Thunderhawk, where is this Thunderhawk, why isn't it firing at the enemy, and why can't said enemy try to shoot it down? Silliness.

But yeah, the Deep Strike rules are something that have always been silly and for some reason GW have never changed them.

You got it wrong. The rules makes sense. Land on your opponent is not what you do when you cannot predict exactly what the ground you are landing on is like.

Hammer of Wrath is people using their jump packs and landing on their opponent.

[Deadlift]

My personal view is for a game which GW insists is based in narrative, this rule really makes no sense. Land raider drops on grot and ends up possible destroyed. Can't see it myself. But these are the rules. The tank shock idea is cool though.

[Tynskel]

My personal view is for a game which GW insists is based in narrative, this rule really makes no sense. Land raider drops on grot and ends up possible destroyed. Can't see it myself. But these are the rules. The tank shock idea is cool though.

As has been said previously: it is the Thunderhawk pilot making the decisions about deep strike. The narrative is that the pilot could not find a proper landing zone.

Should have come in and stopped, like all other chapters...

[Morgrim]

I don't feel a deepstriking vehicle that isn't a drop pod or something with wings/serious afterburners makes sense anyway. Gravity is an enemy of tanks, even a short drop tends to ruin vehicles by shaking things loose, so anything that counts as a proper deep strike is probably going to render it a very expensive brick. So maybe they dropped it on the unit, the unit very easily saw it coming and scattered, and then they all jumped on top of the newly embedded terrain and kept fighting. That's certainly something I can see grots doing.

Or hell, the mishap might not be redirect damage to the land raider! If there is a transport ship like a Thunderhawk maybe they're shooting at that and managed to damage the clamps and cause the land raider to tumble free early and out of place.

[ElectricPaladin]

It's also possible that the mishap isn't always meant to represent the unfortunate scatter. Maybe both just happen at the same time so as to avoid the awkward situation of trying to resolve two models occupying the same location on the board. In other words, the logic goes like this:

1) Mishaps should happen sometimes.
2) We don't want to try to make rules for different kinds of units landing on each other.
3) Therefore, whenever a unit tries to land on another unit, that's when a mishap happens.

[Wolfshade]

I think it is important, if they were the equivalent of orbital bombardments then as a BA player I would as many as I could, their size would mean that you just clear out the enemy's deployment zone.
It also brings a risk/reward if there were no negative consequences to deep striking then the land raider price would need to significantly increase.

The "fluff" way to think of it, if you spot a massive tank dropping out the sky onto your position you would "prepare" for it. Either that or deploy your tank repellent umbrellas.

[Gir]

I think it is important, if they were the equivalent of orbital bombardments then as a BA player I would as many as I could, their size would mean that you just clear out the enemy's deployment zone.
It also brings a risk/reward if there were no negative consequences to deep striking then the land raider price would need to significantly increase.

The "fluff" way to think of it, if you spot a massive tank dropping out the sky onto your position you would "prepare" for it. Either that or deploy your tank repellent umbrellas.

Or even shoot down the Thunderhawk carrying it/force it to disengage before dropping the Land Raider.