FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.



The Space Marine Drop Pod rules say (SM codex, pg 15): "Drop Pod Assault: Drop Pods always enter play using the deep strike rules from the Mission Special Rules section of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

and:

"Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way)."


The Deep Strike rules say (rulebook, pg 95): "[In the Shooting Phase, a Vehicle that has arrived via Deep Stike] count[s] as having moved at cruising speed."


The Vehicles Shooting rules say (rulebook, pg 58): "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire."



QUESTION: On the turn a Space Marine drop arrives via Deep Strike is it allowed to fire its Storm Bolter or Deathwind Missile Launcher?



OPTION A. The RAW: No, it cannot fire the turn it arrives.


OPTION B. This is clearly an oversight. Yes a Drop Pod can definitely fire the turn it arrives.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

It can fire the stormbolter as it is a Defensive Weapon as it is str 4, it cannot fire the Deathwind Launcher as it is Str 5 and it counts as moving at Cruising for that turn.


Even though in the WD battle report he fires it on the first turn.

Hmm, are there any fluff reasons why a drop pod should be able to fire on the turn it arrives?
Otherwise I think RAW (ie option A) is also what's intended as drop pods are the first things that comes to mind when someone mention deep striking vehicle and I really don't see how that could be an oversight.

Also, non fast vehicles can't fire any weapons (including defensive ones) when they move at cruising speed.

The Drop Pod, on entry, counts as having moved at Cruising Speed that turn.

Ergo, as the Drop Pod has no special rules (Machine Spirit or other Vehicle Specific allowance) no, it cannot fire on the turn it arrives. The troops can though, which is nice.

I think it is an oversight. In the recent WD battle report drop pods fire when they land, which makes sense from a background perspective as well.

Brice

I say it is an oversight. As BBeale points out, the WD battle report has the drop pod shooting on the turn it lands.

Now about my monolith...

Hollismason wrote:It can fire the stormbolter as it is a Defensive Weapon as it is str 4, it cannot fire the Deathwind Launcher as it is Str 5 and it counts as moving at Cruising for that turn.

This is incorrect. As I quoted from the rules a vehicle that moves at cruising speed may not fire, and that includes defensive weapons.

I didn't realize that this was even a controversy. Everyone I know, even the more argumentative ones, accepts that this was an intentional change.

Er.... we have two rules stating they canot fire, and NO ambiguity, why is this a debate?!


Just a case of Space Marine player whining. C'mon guys, doesn't this new codex have enough (cheesy) stuff that "breaks all the rules"
without actually breaking the rules?

As for the Battle Report mistake, they do that ALL the time. Them screwing up doesn't automatically make it right.

This is one case where RAW is totally clear and should be followed. Unless somebody can come up with a rule saying they should be allowed to fire that isn't "Waaaaa, I want them to" or "It's fluffy".

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Er.... we have two rules stating they canot fire, and NO ambiguity, why is this a debate?!

Read the initial post. This isn't a debate, this is simply a poll to see how people choose to play the game for whatever reason they choose.

It's to help get a rough idea on the percentage of people who think it is an oversight as compared to those who accept and use the RAW.

Hmmmm... OK. idon't play much for "oversights" without some sort of reason....at all.

Aparently I'm in the minority.

Hollisman thinks its an "oversight" that they're not Fast vehicles as well....lol.

I have noticed that the last several YMTC polls have devolved into RAW debates; it is as if no one bothers to read what is being asked.

These polls are *not* simply a vote as to what you think RAW is, they are a vote to determine how you think it *should* be played.

For illustration: the Lictor clearly has to roll for Dangerous terrain when it DSs into area terrain (which it has to do) yet many many people think that is bunk, and do not require that roll.

In this case, RAW is very clear, and was stated as such in the openning post. The question is if you agree that the RAW is how it should be played....

It is clear that vehicles count as moving cruising speed.

so I voted A. unless you're a fast vehicle like a landspeeder or have some wargear that allows you to fire at cruising speed you cannot fire the turn you deepstrike

NaZ

Core, your illustration is from a codex written for a previous edition. Some 5th ed. issues are completely understandable (that's why we get FAQs with a new ed.) but this is from a 5th ed. codex! How could this be an oversight?!!

Wow, this is also easy:

- Drop Pods always enter play using the deep strike

Note: it doesn't say "... and may fire when they arrive."

- a Vehicle that has arrived via Deep Stike] count[s] as having moved at cruising speed."

Note: it doesn't say "... except for shooting purposes."

- "Vehicles that moved at cruising speed may not fire."

Note: it doesn't say "... except for Defensive Weapons."

Now if there's an exception called out in the rules, I'd be OK with it, but this is otherwise very clear.

This isn't a question of RAW guys. Is it really that big of a stretch to think that maybe GW intended drop pods to fire on the turn that they land. It certainly fits the background and the way the game has been played in WD. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the "cruising speed" issue was an oversight, particularly since drop pods have a sort of unique quasi-vehicle status in the game from a traditional vehicle perspective.

Brice

I put down A.

RAW is clear.

Intent is indeed otherwise, but they wrote the rules wrong.

I chose A.

It is a pitty that DP in the codex did not get machine spirit as traditionally fluffwise they do have a machine spirit.

I voted B

Droppods simply got no vehicle classification. I think GW missed to note them as stationary.
Those wording as "immobile" would get droppods equipped as pure weapon platforms (available from FW?) into a situation where they:
arrive,sit there for a turn,shoot the next turn.
Transport-droppods would also support the passengers with covering fire.

So RAW is option A.
IMHO RAI is option B.

I don't think B is RAI. The pods are cheaper then the DA ones, I am sure to help promote their sales and use. To do that, i think they decided to drop the machine spirit, which they boosted to BS4. They would be extremely undercosted at 35 points if they had a BS4 machine spirit.

Right now it's A, can't shoot. I would not be surprised if they changed it in an errata section of an FAQ however, to give the Drop Pod Power of the Machine Spirit and allow it to fire.

winterman wrote:I don't think B is RAI. The pods are cheaper then the DA ones, I am sure to help promote their sales and use. To do that, i think they decided to drop the machine spirit, which they boosted to BS4. They would be extremely undercosted at 35 points if they had a BS4 machine spirit.

DA droppods have WS 2 .
Codex SM droppods have WS 4.

Where is the machine spirit at DA/SM droppods?

I play A but i think its an over sight from GW ... in friendly games i'll play the way my SM friends would like ... heres hoping in the FAQ they don't give them Power of the Machine Spirit and just make them fast vehicals (i don't like the idea that they can still shoot a deathwind launcher when stunned or shaken)

I went option B, its an oversight. But I don't plan on firing my pods first turn until they FAQ it.

You can say they make those mistakes all the time, but rarely by the guy who wrote the codex the same month the codex goes live.

I do NOT think they'll give pods PotMS. If they do I thnk it would be a mistake. I think they'll add something else to the immobile rule allowing them to fire first turn. PotMS would be slightly too powerful allowing them to ignore stunned results.

Also had the final conclusion of A and B not been so adamant and polar opposites, I think we could see a lot of people voting for

D: A and B are true... The RAW says they cannot fire, but this was an oversight, and I expect it to be FAQ'ed in the first round or two, assuming the guys running the FAQ pay attention to forums like these that find the oopsies.

It isn't an "oopsy". They changed the rules in 5th so that you couldn't do it, then failed to change the Drop Pod's rules right after that Seems pretty clear RAI or RAW to me.

Except the guy who failed to change the drop pod rules played his drop pod as if he had changed the rules- or more likely didn't know he had to. So we're left with pretty clear RAW that they can't, and pretty clear RAI they can. I don't know about you, but that sounds like an oopsy in there somewhere.

And given that if he didn't want them to fire first turn, he wouldn't have shot them in the bat rep, I imagine the oopsy is in the RAW.

Go Go Gadget FAQ!

I have no idea why people would think that they can fire drop pod weaponry on the turn they arrive. And my marine list uses 5 dpods, so I'd be helping myself considerably if I argued otherwise.

If the "intent" is that you can use previous Codex rules even when they're not stated in the current Codex, then I guess Legions, Craftworlds, Traits, LatD, 13th Co., etc. are all good again. Yay!

sourclams wrote:I have no idea why people would think that they can fire drop pod weaponry on the turn they arrive. And my marine list uses 5 dpods, so I'd be helping myself considerably if I argued otherwise.

Maybe one idea would be Codex black templars ?
The BT droppods had a precise statement to allow firing the pods weapons at arrival.

sourclams wrote:I have no idea why people would think that they can fire drop pod weaponry on the turn they arrive. And my marine list uses 5 dpods, so I'd be helping myself considerably if I argued otherwise.

There's a difference between think I can, and think I will be able to when they get enough questions asking about it to FAQ it. I think the codex writer meant for them to retain the ability, didn't realize the rules changed so they needed some fixes to make it happen, and dropped the ball.

RAW is obvious, and I see no reason to play it in any other way.

Option A for me.

Personally, I only ignore RAW when it leads to sheer silliness. A 30-Ork mob being reduced to Initiative 1 on the charge just because they're led by a Mega Armoured Warboss, for example, is silly RAW. This isn't so silly: a pod just got shot at a planet. The Machine Spirit is kinda busy with all the implications of that

Cheexsta wrote:RAW is obvious, and I see no reason to play it in any other way.

Option A for me.

Personally, I only ignore RAW when it leads to sheer silliness. A 30-Ork mob being reduced to Initiative 1 on the charge just because they're led by a Mega Armoured Warboss, for example, is silly RAW. This isn't so silly: a pod just got shot at a planet. The Machine Spirit is kinda busy with all the implications of that

There is no machine spirit in SM/DA/BA/SW droppods.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the "intent" is that you can use previous Codex rules even when they're not stated in the current Codex, then I guess Legions, Craftworlds, Traits, LatD, 13th Co., etc. are all good again. Yay!

That would make alot of people happy .

No. RAW is RAW and I intend to play by it bar the stupidest applications.

White dwarves have screwed up before.

RaW is the only common ground the players have. I believe the rulebook, not the advertisement I need to pay for..

No. RAW is RAW and I intend to play by it bar the stupidest applications.

White dwarves have screwed up before.

RaW is the only common ground the players have. I believe the rulebook, not the advertisement I need to pay for..

I believe that it was unintentional that the drop pod cannot fire on the turn it deep strikes, however the rules as they are say differently. So no, they can't shoot when they drop. The plus side is my army list just gained 100 points of other stuff as I am no longer equipping deathwind launchers on five drop pods.

1hadhq wrote:

Cheexsta wrote:RAW is obvious, and I see no reason to play it in any other way.

Option A for me.

Personally, I only ignore RAW when it leads to sheer silliness. A 30-Ork mob being reduced to Initiative 1 on the charge just because they're led by a Mega Armoured Warboss, for example, is silly RAW. This isn't so silly: a pod just got shot at a planet. The Machine Spirit is kinda busy with all the implications of that

There is no machine spirit in SM/DA/BA/SW droppods.

I think he is talking more about the fluff

I still don't get it. The rules are clear. Is the question whether or not one plays by the rules?

You can make whatever house rules you like, but they aren't the base rules of the game. Someone may think the DPs *should* be able to fire when they land. That's fine; I think Chaos Space Marines *should* not be a slowed version of the superfriends, but them's the rules. :-)

I guess there was some batrep in a White Dwarf where a drop pod fired on the turn it landed..? Needless to say, it doesn't mean the rules are somehow invalidated or wrong, that game with those people was just not played correctly by the rules.

I'd vote for something between A and B...I think the intent is probably to let it shoot as it comes in, but that's not how the rules are written, so it's not allowed.

From the gameplay/fluff perspective, it makes sense. Fluff-wise, the vehicle would be providing cover fire for the troops as they disembark. Gameplay-wise, it fits, as the drop pod is supposed to be a sudden, hard-hitting element. Hits hard the turn it comes in, but is then (often) isolated and vulnerable.

If we let GW batreps dictate the rules, the game would lose all coherency...

A lot of the time, the GW guys make stuff up as they go along or they're playing according to preview lists that aren't final.

I remember a Bloodthirster (you remember those, don't you?) consolidating 12 " into another combat on top of a big pyramid (no worries bout difficult terrain either) in a four-way battle report some time ago.

I'd love it if it weren't A, it would mean that my Monolith could land in the middle of the a guard or tau gunline and immediately open up with the Gauss Flux Arc, as opposed to just sitting there for a round getting shot at by everything they can throw at it.

Well I am going with 'A' I think it is a little silly to think a trash can can be jettisoned from an orbiting craft, rocket through the atmosphere, crash into the surface of the planet, and the expect to fire a gun accurately. Marines can do that though, cause there cool!
Seriously, I play my marines with the pods missing a turn of fire, just makes sense to me.

I think this was an oversight. I've read all the discussions in this thread, but after reviewing the rules in question I choose "B".

Yes, the RAW forbids this. However it has the feel (much like the Smoke Launcher/PotMS question) of RAW being a technicality and not conveying RAI.

My Opinion:
A drop pod is a specialist deep strike vehicle (unlike a Monolith, for example). It can ONLY deep strike. The units which disembark on the turn of arrival can fire (but not assault). As the DP's weapons are intended to provide covering fire, so should it be allowed to fire as normal. The very art for the DP on the DP page of the SM codex shows the DP firing as the marines spill out.
Game effect: Given the extremely limited range of the Deathwind for example it would seem a largely useless weapon were it not able to fire when it lands.

It is clear but I suppose they should be fast vehicles considering they are launched from space at 1231421 miles per hour.

But it does seem pretty clear as to the RAW.

Option A is how we have been playing it at our FLGS.

I voted B, as my FLGS has been playing it this way for 4 years now, and even with the rule change, we have been firing Storm-bolters, though i will admit this is because we neglected to realize that there was in fact a rules change here.

I voted B as well. This is clearly an oversight. Everyone can read and so therefore it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the rules say, but this question is purely what you think and how you play.

Any SM players I play against, I will surely let them shoot the moment it DS

C

The purpose of the storm bolter (in my mind) isn't to leave a gun sentry after the squad has left the pod.

Rather, it is there to lay down cover fire for the squad to exit the vehicle. I think it should only fire on the turn it entered and should not shoot after that turn (limited ammo has been expended).

This is going to be an interesting situation for the new line of drop pods with assault cannons and such.

Flexen wrote:
This is going to be an interesting situation for the new line of drop pods with assault cannons and such.

Not really (assuming you mean the deathstorm pods from FW), they have a special rule for firing the turn they land (indiscrimantely at everything within 12 inches).

If you wanted the storm bolter to be one shot, a house rule where it does something like the deathstorm pods would probably be fun (as other wise two bolter shots is not much in the way of covering fire for anything...)

Jack

I think that when the vehicle hits the ground it becomes immobile thus able to fire. The rules for deepstriking vehicle I think counts more for Sentinels and Speeders. After all, if you immobilize a vehicle in the shooting phase and then subsequently assault it you hit it automatically, right? The same can be said here.

Capt K

They did it wrong in the battle report and yeah, they probably intended for pods to be shooting when they drop but I've always played it by the regular rules for vehicles (A)

Sentinels are walkers and speeders are fast. They have no bearing on this question.

Flexen wrote:C

The purpose of the storm bolter (in my mind) isn't to leave a gun sentry after the squad has left the pod.

Rather, it is there to lay down cover fire for the squad to exit the vehicle. I think it should only fire on the turn it entered and should not shoot after that turn (limited ammo has been expended).

I agree. It doesn't "feel" right that they are unable to fire. In actual play for example, in many (most?) situations will render the DP weapon useless for supporting the disembarking squad. Remember, that squad can't assault. The (to my mind) best use of the Inertial Guidance System is to allow deep strike units to actually get close to enemy units without a mishap. The unit will get one shot off, followed by being charged by the enemy. At this point units are locked in Assult, and the DP will be unable to fire in support of its troops. Sure, with the Storm Bolter one can land the pod far enough away to get a shot in before the enemy units run in. But it is largely hopeless with the Missile Launcher. Or so it seems to me.

CaptKaruthors wrote:I think that when the vehicle hits the ground it becomes immobile thus able to fire. The rules for deepstriking vehicle I think counts more for Sentinels and Speeders. After all, if you immobilize a vehicle in the shooting phase and then subsequently assault it you hit it automatically, right? The same can be said here.

Capt K

By that argument, a Land Raider that moves through ruins and immobilizes itself by rolling a "1" can suddenly fire all its weapons. Just doesn't make sense.

The RAW is pretty clear on this one. The "intent" of the rules changes with every edition. In 5th edition non-fast vehicles are not "intended" to fire if they move at cruising speed.

I never said it made sense, but it could be a rational way of explaining it...which would probably be how GW does explain it...LOL. I mean look at the lame reason they gave for the different ways Storm Shields work, etc. Like I said...the same can be said here. Personally, I voted A because that's what the rules tell us how to play...but to me doesn't feel right. Meh.

Capt K

Democratus wrote:

CaptKaruthors wrote:I think that when the vehicle hits the ground it becomes immobile thus able to fire. The rules for deepstriking vehicle I think counts more for Sentinels and Speeders. After all, if you immobilize a vehicle in the shooting phase and then subsequently assault it you hit it automatically, right? The same can be said here.

Capt K

By that argument, a Land Raider that moves through ruins and immobilizes itself by rolling a "1" can suddenly fire all its weapons. Just doesn't make sense.

The RAW is pretty clear on this one. The "intent" of the rules changes with every edition. In 5th edition non-fast vehicles are not "intended" to fire if they move at cruising speed.

I'm voting B on this one. If you look at the FW deathstorm drop pod rules the turn they enter play and land not only do they shoot, but the shoot 1D3 times at every unit in 12"! So a normal drop pod that contains only one weapon probably should be able to at lesat fire it once to provide covering fire. Otherwise the doors should stay shut until everyone is ready to charge out and then blow the seals and go. Why would you land, blow seals, wait 30 seconds for everyone to orient themselves while getting shot at and then start running and shooting. Might as well just drop them off and let them walk to the fight at least they would survive.

So yes there is fluff and game rules that support the fact that the pod should be able to shoot. So I am going with oversight and even GW is playing it as able to shoot hence the Bat Rep in the WD.

So this can be fixed with an FAQ that Drop Pods are Fast, assuming that is what GW wants.

Homer

It would take a more specific fix than that.

But still, a rather easy one.

choose B
Read damn RED Yakface text. he dont ask you how its played, he ask how YOU want to see it\play (=
and imho pods must shoot on turn when they arrive as in 4ed when they have PotMS

penek wrote:choose B
Read damn RED Yakface text. he dont ask you how its played, he ask how YOU want to see it\play (=
and imho pods must shoot on turn when they arrive as in 4ed when they have PotMS

Perhaps some of us want to see it played by the rules.

I voted Option A, otherwise FW wouldn't have needed to put in a special rules allowing Deathstorm pods to fire when they drop in the IA2 revision.

Democratus wrote:Perhaps some of us want to see it played by the rules.

Utter heresy!

Alpharius wrote:It would take a more specific fix than that.

But still, a rather easy one.

Why? If a fast vehicle moves at cruising speed, as required by deep striking, it may fire 1 main and all defensive weapons. Since all the drop pods I know of have only one weapon, the problem is solved. Assuming that is how GW wants it to work.

Homer

Drop pods aren't mentioned as a fast vehicle

I honestly believe it was left out, if they had just said, open top fast vehicle then yes.


It sucks that you can't do that though.

penek wrote:choose B
Read damn RED Yakface text. he dont ask you how its played, he ask how YOU want to see it\play (=
and imho pods must shoot on turn when they arrive as in 4ed when they have PotMS

You could also charge out of Rhinos in third edition, and last codex, chaos had PotMS for their LR. Things change.

CSM LR's never as i remember have any PotMS (=

Oh for Gods Sake.

IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR IN THE RULES.

Deep Striking vehicles count as moving at cruising speed.

Vehicles moving at Cruising Speed may not fire their weapons.

Ergo, your Deep Striking Drop Pod MAY NOT FIRE ON THE TURN IT ARRIVES.

Why has this got to 70 posts already? There is nothing even remotely ambiguous, other than some spod in a Battle report getting it wrong. Chances are he was playing with the Codex before it was finalised (WD is prepated 3 months in advance, so I guess the Battle Report could be up to a month older) or just cocked up.

Either way, as it has no rule allowing it to fire when arriving, IT CANNOT FIRE.

CSM Land Raiders had something like the 'Infernal Device' instead which peformed the same function.

Hi, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Reading Comprehension. I have a job. It starts with actually reading the 70 posts you're complaining about, as well as the options in the poll so you'll realize the question isn't really whether they can, but whether you think they were supposed to be able to.

Additionally in question is whether the "spod" who not only wrote the codex, but also cocked it up in the battle report is just that bad at writing said codex or if he cocked up the Drop Pod Unit Entry, or the Battle Report where the Drop Pod fired first turn.

Well, seeing as they can't, and the only arguements are 'they used too, with the right upgrade' and 'they did it in a battle report' I'd say no, it's pretty clear they aren't intended to do so anymore.

Well seeing as they used to, the guy who did it in the battle report is the same guy who wrote the codex, and the guy who wrote the codex had some major foulups in his codex that have had some fairly large holes driven through already, I'd say its not pretty clear at all.

Had it been someone who didn't write the codex firing first turn, I'd agree its probably clear. Had he not had other glaring oopsies- i.e. Servitor Squads and FoC charts, GoW and all its issues, etc. I'd probably still chalk it up to an intentional change.

But for every question raised about the new codex, the more I think this guy just didn't do a good job. I'm even starting to wonder if it was intentional that the PotMS lost its driver's license. Did everyone notice that? Can't move anymore with PotMS.

Funny you should claim to be Reading Comprehension incarnate, as you clearly didn't bother finishing my initial post in our little exchange.

White Dwarf is finished off 3 months in advance of publishing. Ergo, the Battle Report could well have been played using an earlier, play test incarnation which may have allowed Drop Pods to fire when they arrived, and that rule was subsequently, and deliberately dropped.

The basic question in this thread is 'Do you cheat or not' I am merely pointing out the extremely tenuous evidence of an alleged slip up.

Actually I did. I countered it with:

The guy wrote the codex and played the Bat Rep. So at the time he probably wanted them firing.

And:

There's a lot more evidence the guy did a lousy job than evidence he may or may not have dropped the special rule that may or may not have been allowing drop pods to fire in the working version of the codex that may or may not have existed 3 months ago

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR IN THE RULES.
Deep Striking vehicles count as moving at cruising speed.
Vehicles moving at Cruising Speed may not fire their weapons.
Ergo, your Deep Striking Drop Pod MAY NOT FIRE ON THE TURN IT ARRIVES.
Why has this got to 70 posts already? There is nothing even remotely ambiguous, other than some spod in a Battle report getting it wrong. Chances are he was playing with the Codex before it was finalised (WD is prepated 3 months in advance, so I guess the Battle Report could be up to a month older) or just cocked up.
Either way, as it has no rule allowing it to fire when arriving, IT CANNOT FIRE.

Did you read First phrase of this thread ? it sounds as

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

it not sounds Can Pods shoot after DS or not?. This phrase pretty clearly describe created POLL even to my not so good English understanding. So i don't care in this thread can it shoot in current rules or not, because thats not the reason of the Poll.

I vote B. It makes sense to me that this how how pods should work.

G

penek wrote:CSM LR's never as i remember have any PotMS (=

It has a "Possessing Spirit. This is a deamonic presence that replaces the Machine Spirit in Land Raiders dedicated to chaos." The 3.5 'dex has it.

So if you demand your machine spirit rules for the pod, I want them for my Land Raider.

penek wrote:Did you read First phrase of this thread ? it sounds as

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

it not sounds Can Pods shoot after DS or not?. This phrase pretty clearly describe created POLL even to my not so good English understanding. So i don't care in this thread can it shoot in current rules or not, because thats not the reason of the Poll.

And most people think that it should be played by the rules. The current rules, in 5e. I run drop pod Marines. This would help me considerably if I could just start shooting off the drop. But I don't think this is actually how it's supposed to be played by 5e rules. Capiche?

sourclams wrote:

penek wrote:Did you read First phrase of this thread ? it sounds as

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

it not sounds Can Pods shoot after DS or not?. This phrase pretty clearly describe created POLL even to my not so good English understanding. So i don't care in this thread can it shoot in current rules or not, because thats not the reason of the Poll.

And most people think that it should be played by the rules. The current rules, in 5e. I run drop pod Marines. This would help me considerably if I could just start shooting off the drop. But I don't think this is actually how it's supposed to be played by 5e rules. Capiche?

will you add the "deathstorm droppods" to your droppod marines?

If so, this means 1 type of droppod firing, 1 type not firing at arrival.

The Deathstorm is a special type of drop pod with the sole purpose of being an automated first strike gun platform that thins out defenses before the actual troop landers come in. That's why it has the special rule to allow it to fire on arrival. It's specialized for that role.

A regular drop pod is not. I have no problems, fluff wise or rules wise, with a Deathstorm being able to fire and a standard pattern not being able to. Calling it a rules inconsistency is like demanding that a Land Raider Crusader not be able to transport more models than a standard pattern Land Raider.

Comparing a weapon platform droppod and a transport droppod has not much to do with 2 land raider variants,both capable of transport.
The droppods use both automated weapon-systems,but fire differently,where the land raiders PotMS acts in the same way on both LR.

I cannot believe that those lonely stormbolter hurts this much.

Actual RAW will support choice A.
Play by consent may support B. someone will always play in his group with rules he's used to.

The reason for the droopod not allowed to fire is the missing classification of the droppod as ... vehicle. So it ends in the section for
all vehicles (except walkers and fast), where it is denied to fire.
The other rule for droppods is also not directly in the entry for dp.
A droppod "counts as" immobilized and open topped after arrival. Normally you could assault from such vehicle, but DS demands to
do not so.

If those rules were not only applied to droppods,but also stated in the entry for droppods in the codex (codex BT does that really well),
we may have less discussions about "fire at arrival".

The reason a drop pod can't fire its storm bolter as it lands is because it has a load of Marines that have to get out of the way before bullets and missiles shoot them in the head. It's either that or they have to shrug out of their restraints and crab crawl away from the pod. Arguing "reasonable" doesn't work because other people will find it "unreasonable", like myself. I play with the new Dpod models extensively and my Sternguard don't want to be shot by the rotating killdeath gun.

wyomingfox wrote:Drop pods aren't mentioned as a fast vehicle

Yeah... we noticed that too.

The point of the post was that if the FAQ for the C: SM intends for Drop Pods to fire on the turn they land, then adding Fast to the description should fix it. Someone replied that the fix needed to be more than than and I asked why.

Homer

I really don't see the problem. It's no different from wondering why Heavy Weapons infantry can't fire when they move. Unless the Pod has a special rule to break that (i.e. Fast, PotMS), then it can't fire.

Face it imperialists. The codex rules have changed.

You cannot fire from your Drop Pods on the turn they Deepstrike. BatReps do not work into the rules resolution equation.

Oh, and despite the Fifth ed. summary pages, the Ork Zapp Gun does not auto-hit anymore either.

sourclams wrote:The reason a drop pod can't fire its storm bolter as it lands is because it has a load of Marines that have to get out of the way before bullets and missiles shoot them in the head. It's either that or they have to shrug out of their restraints and crab crawl away from the pod. Arguing "reasonable" doesn't work because other people will find it "unreasonable", like myself. I play with the new Dpod models extensively and my Sternguard don't want to be shot by the rotating killdeath gun.

So the droppod had not to unload his passengers in 4th?
The rules in 4th lead to: SM like BT loose dozens of brothers to the stormbolter and deathwind?

Is this your argument?
I think if droppods were able to fire and 5th changed it, this may be explained as "cannot do this anymore because technology is lost".
Could accept that.

and my Sternguard don't want to be shot by the rotating killdeath gun.

bad experience with the deathstorm droppods?

1hadhq wrote:So the droppod had not to unload his passengers in 4th?
The rules in 4th lead to: SM like BT loose dozens of brothers to the stormbolter and deathwind?

This is 5th, not 4th. The rules of the game are now different and, therefore, the physical laws of the universe are different.

Is this your argument?
I think if droppods were able to fire and 5th changed it, this may be explained as "cannot do this anymore because technology is lost".
Could accept that.

I didn't see anything in the rules or codex which stated "the technology to shoot from a rhino's fire point moving top speed has been lost". But this also changed in 5th edition.

Not all changes require some fluff justification. Sometimes the game is just being re-balanced.

yakface wrote:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Er.... we have two rules stating they canot fire, and NO ambiguity, why is this a debate?!

Read the initial post. This isn't a debate, this is simply a poll to see how people choose to play the game for whatever reason they choose.

It's to help get a rough idea on the percentage of people who think it is an oversight as compared to those who accept and use the RAW.

You can play how you like Yakface, but its a house rule just as the Ws5 Bs5 T5 'true scale' marine and the S5 Ap4 Heavy 2 'real' bolter are house rules.

Drop Pods don't fire on the turn they land, it is clear they do not as stated above. However, as you want to look at the flow of the game rather than the RAW so be it.

The drop pod lands, it sets itself up deploys its cargo and then becomes a turret. Now the game allows a lot to happen in a single turn, jusmp from an open topped vehicle, move, fire select guns (while doing so) then charge for example. But it doesn't allow everything, also many actions allowed because they are simultaneous. Such as movement and firing an assault weapon. A melta gun is fired as the bearer advances, he is not assumed to stop.

Now on the deployment turn the drop pod has to brake to land - slowing itself down to a survivable speed, adjust to land upright in a sae location, open its doors and the machine spirit must wait a set time to give the passengers to disembark, which could conceivably be a thunderfire cannon or something else slow. Only then does the weapon, which is entirely internal, get a safe chance to activate weapons systems. Most move and fire is taken as more or less simultaneous in effect, if not in execution in a turns play. This cannot be for a drop pod unless the weapon is mounted externally.

Personally I cannot see any logic for drop pods shooting on the turn they land, and its against RAW. Frankly I can see no reason for any challenge to the RAW at all.

I think, according to RAW, the answer SHOULD be Option A.

However, my mental image of what drop pods do, and are supposed to do (conveying infantry and then providing fire support and suppressing fire).. I want to play them Option B.

I voted B, because I think that is what Yak was askin'

How do the "fluffy" background of the drop pods indicate that they should be playing..

-Porkuslime

I chose A. I do know that in the Black Templar's codex they specifically can fire theirs due to the "power of the machine spirit" rule.

Seriously - this would take all of 5 minutes for GW to FAQ and write what their intent was.

Come on GW - It isn't enough that we pay thousands of dollars playing this game - do you have to make us fight about your crummy writing in 5th ed? Answer some of these questions! You knew the intent when your wrote the book, so let us in on it.

Perhaps the lack of a FAQ on it points towards it following the normal rules for DSing vehicles? Is that so hard for everyone to wrap their brains around?!

i think that they shouldn't be able to fire because
the guy who brought up the black templars and how it was made clear that there drop pods could fire but Know with 5 ed marine codex im not sure

I personally don't understand how all the Marines inside wouldn't be shot to pieces if that gun did start going off on landing.

P1: Drop Pods are defined as being Type: Vehicle (Open-topped). Codex Space Marine, pages 69 and 135.

P2: Vehicles arriving via Deep Strike are counted as moving at Cruising Speed. Rulebook page 95.

P3: Vehicles having moved at Cruising Speed are not allowed to fire any weapons. Rulebook pages 58 and 73.

C: Drop Pods are not allowed to fire any weapons on the turn they land.




Most counter-arguments fall into 4 categories, that can be dismissed out of hand;

1. "I would like them to shoot on the turn they land!"

And I would like My Eldar Wave Serpents to have the Assault Vehicle special rule. If wishes were fishes........

2. "The fluff say they can....."

The fluff also state that an Ork can crush a mans skull in his hand, yet Orks only have strength 3. The fluff state that Genestealers move so lightning-fast that they can avoid Marine bolter fire, yet they only move 6". Fluff is a literary tool used to make good stories, not good rules.

3. "They used to be able to shoot."

Land Speeder Tornados used to be exclusive to Ravenwing and Orks used to be able to buy Bolt-on Big Shootas for their Battlewagons. Things change. This is one of those things.

4. "They shot with it in a WD battlereport."

Either they made the battle report at a time when Drop Pods actually could shoot on the turn they landed, or they made a mistake. We have seen Bloodthirsters consolidate 12" and Sammael shoot both his Plasma-cannon and his Bolters at the same time, so mistakes can't be ruled out.

In the end we are left with the rules, and following those, we find that Drop Pods cannot shoot on the turn they Deep Strike.

GW could have done a number of things to ensure that Drop Pods could shoot on the turn they Deep Strike.

They could have made the Pod Type: Fast, but they didn't.
They could have given the Pod the "Power of the Machine Spirit", but they didn't.
They could have made a special rule to allow it to shoot, but they didn't.
The intention of the Games Designers seems pretty clear. They don't want Drop Pods to shoot on the turn they land.

quoting page 94/95 is good and fine for standard missions

But if you don't play those standard missions,there is no restriction to the use of any mentioned rules at page 94/95.

Whoever wants droppods to shoot should:

A) use codex BT.
B) design his own missions and alter the deepstrike rules.

Are you trying to say that Deep Strike in standard scenarios is different from Deep Strike in non-standard scenarios?

I guess in a way that is true. If you feel like make a rule called Deep Strike 2.0 in a homebrewed scenario, you can make it do what ever you like.

Steelmage99 wrote:Are you trying to say that Deep Strike in standard scenarios is different from Deep Strike in non-standard scenarios?

I guess in a way that is true. If you feel like make a rule called Deep Strike 2.0 in a homebrewed scenario, you can make it do what ever you like.

It is true. Not "in a way", but in BRB page 94 first paragraph.

So what is your point?

Drop pods can shoot on the turn they deep strike, if you play a special scenario?
That people using the deep strike rules, get to pick and choose between the various parts of the deep strike rules if they are playing a special scenario?

If you choose to play with Drop Pods, you will be using the deep strike rules from page 95.

Why?

Because that is what the drop pod rules in C:SM tells you to do.

PS. If your point merely is; "Be carefull, some tournaments might have special scenarios with special rules", then consider your point recieved.

Steelmage99 wrote:So what is your point?

Drop pods can shoot on the turn they deep strike, if you play a special scenario?
That people using the deep strike rules, get to pick and choose between the various parts of the deep strike rules if they are playing a special scenario?

If you choose to play with Drop Pods, you will be using the deep strike rules from page 95.

Why?

Because that is what the drop pod rules in C: SM tells you to do.

Page 94 allows to install or lose rules and non-standard scenarios could exchange BRB-mission rules with different sources in friendly games,maybe Imperial armour or index astartes. So if anyone "wants" Droppods to shoot at arrival it only needs
special-missions to alter the ruleset.
Was meant as hint,not as answer how the BRB says.

Steelmage99 wrote:
PS. If your point merely is; "Be carefull, some tournaments might have special scenarios with special rules", then consider your point recieved.

that too

And, of course, change the wording of the Drop Pod rules in Codex: Space Marines.

Anyway, I find most remarks along the lines of "It can be made a houserule" to be rather redundant in this forum.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Anyway, I find most remarks along the lines of "It can be made a houserule" to be rather redundant in this forum.

Can't be helped, must be the OP.