4308
Post by: coredump
The new BRB FAQ is up, and it says if you come into play via drop pod you are considered to 'arrived by deep strike', so it seems that the passengers will now need to take Dang Terrain tests when landing into Diff Terrain.
Thoughts?
6846
Post by: solkan
It applies to scouts getting out of a deep striking land speeder, too, ya know.
And it's easier than having to explain to people why the middle paragraphs of the deep striking rules apply to the models getting out of the transport.
2776
Post by: Reecius
That is a terrible ruling.
21110
Post by: Lone Dragoon
Something to remember about that though; just because you count as arriving by deep strike does not mean you take dangerous terrain tests. As the unit is still disembarking from a vehicle, and the rules for disembarking from the vehicle tell you you do not any difficult or dangerous terrain tests when you disembark. I think it was meant more along the lines of, open topped vehicles deep striking and people attempting to assault out of them. By adding the clarification into the FAQ, they have just said that you cannot assault from an assault/open topped vehicle when you deep strike.
99
Post by: insaniak
Lone Dragoon wrote:As the unit is still disembarking from a vehicle, and the rules for disembarking from the vehicle tell you you do not any difficult or dangerous terrain tests when you disembark.
Sorry, but the disembarking rules say no such thing.
And the FAQ points out that disembarking from a vehicle counts as 'entering' the terrain, so they do, indeed have to test when disembarking into dangerous terrain.
For what it's worth, this isn't really a 'nerf' as it's how the rules were ( IMO) written all along anyway.
8854
Post by: Homer S
It makes sense, if the transport lands in lava and you jump out into lava, things might get hot!
Homer
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
It wasn't the lava part, it was more the pod lands in a forest which is difficult terrain but a DS model has to treat it as dangerous.
60
Post by: yakface
I don't think its a bad ruling either from gameplay OR from a fluff standpoint.
From a gameplay perspective I think Drop Pods in particular are far to precise in allow players to pinpoint where they want to hit without having to worry about anything on the table except the edge of the board and where the enemy models are. This ruling finally means that Drop Podding armies can still go wherever they want, but now certain areas will be much more dangerous to attempt to do so.
And still, only the models that actually move into, through or out of the terrain will have to take the dangerous terrain test, so again you have choices of what you want to do.
From a fluff perspective you can certainly run into some weird situations where the models can disembark out of the vehicle that landed in open ground into difficult terrain and now have to take a dangerous terrain test, but still I think the concept of landing in rough terrain should be accounted for. There's even one fluff story in the horus heresy novel where a drop pod lands in a ruins and the marines totally get trapped inside when it gets collapsed on by the building.
In short, remember that dangerous terrain tests are an abstraction to represent that if a drop pod is landing in terrain there is a chance that there will be some casualties from a rough landing.
I think it was a good ruling!
683
Post by: Cheex
Completely agree with Yakface, that was more or less what I was thinking.
Imagine a drop pod landing in a forest or ruin - I'm sure there's at least some chance that someone will get hurt in the process. Or a unit disembarking from a skimmer (like a Valkyrie or a Raider or something), moving at high speed and having to avoid impaling themselves or breaking their legs or whatever.
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
It also occurs to me that it makes landing in cover to get a nice 3+/4+ set of saves at least marginally more dangerous.
Edit: As a Daemon player though I never worry about dropping into cover, but you know how those marine players are about losing models!
2776
Post by: Reecius
So the drop pod lands. The doors open. The Marines get out....and then get hurt! Haha, might as well say the same thing for disembarking from a vehicle in that case.
31981
Post by: Pyro-Druid
So the drop pod lands. The doors open. The Marines get out.... and then take a head count of who got hurt in the landing.
99
Post by: insaniak
Reecius wrote:So the drop pod lands. The doors open. The Marines get out....and then get hurt! Haha, might as well say the same thing for disembarking from a vehicle in that case.
If disembarking from a vehicle into terrain when the vehicle hadn't arrived by Deep Strike counted the terrain as Dangerous, we would say the same thing. It doesn't, though.
And this doesn't just apply to Drop Pods... it applies to any transport vehicle that Deep Strikes into difficult or dangerous terrain. The passengers count as Deep Striking on the turn they arrive.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Reecius wrote:So the drop pod lands. The doors open. The Marines get out....and then get hurt! Haha, might as well say the same thing for disembarking from a vehicle in that case.
It's an abstraction. Just like cover saves can be gained from moving very fast even though the unit in question isn't really in cover.
27149
Post by: Viper217
I'm playing a planetstirke game tomorrow, and I know there will be a few drop pods in play. In planetstrike units that deep strike onto the board can assault that same turn.
Does this FAQ now allow units to assault out of drop pods in planetstrike, or does the fact they are trying to assault out of a deep striking vehicle still restrict them from assaulting?
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
Reecius wrote:So the drop pod lands. The doors open. The Marines get out....and then get hurt! Haha, might as well say the same thing for disembarking from a vehicle in that case.
Like everything else in 40k, you can't interpret this 100% literally. It could easily be that drop pod smashed through a few trees on the way down, and that incapacitated a Marine by breaking a key bone or something. Or it could be that the pod has landed in a way that it's not very stable, and the Marines are slowed down by trying to get out without bringing the whole thing coming down on their heads.
As was said previously, it's an abstraction of what's happening in 'reality'. Don't look at it too literally.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
You cant assault from drop pods in Planetstrike, as the allowance to assault is ONLY if you have the deepstrike rule -which they dont.
60
Post by: yakface
Viper217 wrote:I'm playing a planetstirke game tomorrow, and I know there will be a few drop pods in play. In planetstrike units that deep strike onto the board can assault that same turn.
Does this FAQ now allow units to assault out of drop pods in planetstrike, or does the fact they are trying to assault out of a deep striking vehicle still restrict them from assaulting?
The Planetstrike rules actually specifically cover this on page 13, and the answer is no, they cannot assault if they came in on a vehicle that Deep Strikes but don't have the Deep Strike rule themselves.
746
Post by: don_mondo
Cheexsta wrote:Completely agree with Yakface, that was more or less what I was thinking.
Imagine a drop pod landing in a forest or ruin - I'm sure there's at least some chance that someone will get hurt in the process. Or a unit disembarking from a skimmer (like a Valkyrie or a Raider or something), moving at high speed and having to avoid impaling themselves or breaking their legs or whatever.
Been there, done that, sorta. Jumped out of a M-113, ran to take up position, hit a thigh deep fighting position at a full run (nighttime, so didn't see it in time), blew out my right knee. So yeah, I can see them taking a dangerous terrain test.
2776
Post by: Reecius
I understand fully that the game is an abstraction of reality and that comparisons to real life fall short. I was merely commenting on the the comments of previous posters about the cinematic effects this has, or comparisons to BL fluff.
By this logic, troops disembarking from vehicles moving into difficult terrain should also take dangerous terrain tests as the hurtle out of a moving vehicle.
It is silly is my point and I just disagree with the ruling. Others are free to hold contrary opinions of course.
6769
Post by: Tri
Reecius wrote:By this logic, troops disembarking from vehicles moving into difficult terrain should also take dangerous terrain tests as the hurtle out of a moving vehicle
... don't give them ideas ...
2776
Post by: Reecius
Hahaha, yeah right? Getting out of a transport causes 1 in 6 of your super soldiers to instantly explode!
6769
Post by: Tri
Reecius wrote:Hahaha, yeah right? Getting out of a transport causes 1 in 6 of your super soldiers to instantly explode!
We are talking about cruising speed ... the same speed that a Deep striking unit counts as moving ....
25400
Post by: Fayric
Hm, the SW FAQ said, back in 2009:
Q. The description of the Rune Priest psychic
power Tempest’s Wrath states that some units
within of 24" of the Rune Priest treat all terrain
as difficult and dangerous terrain. According to
the rulebook, disembarking is not subject to
difficult and dangerous terrain effects. So can
we assume a unit disembarking from a transport
vehicle into cover whilst within of 24" of the
Rune Priest wouldn’t have to take a test for
dangerous terrain?
A. Correct, but remember that the Tempest’s
Wrath may affect them later that turn.
Edit: nevermind. this say nothing about deepstriking ( i was thinking about thepower affecting deepstrikers. Sorry.)
2776
Post by: Reecius
@Tri
Oh gawd, hahaha, I can see some folks making that argument already!
Again, I know a real life has no bearing on the rules, but a pod lands in some bushes, super soldiers inside wearing power armor get out...and die! Like, what's the pod for? Might as well just puch the marines out of the back of a t-hawk, same odds to get hurt as in a giant, armored vehicle that is designed to land safely and protect the guys inside. haha, just seems funny to me, but rules are rules.
@Fayric
I think the issue here is that the new FAQ states that units arriving in a vehicle by deep strike count as deep-striking themselves. That covers units moving in a vehicle as normal. I don't like it myself, but the ruling is quite clear, IMO.
6769
Post by: Tri
Reecius wrote:@Tri
Oh gawd, hahaha, I can see some folks making that argument already!
Again, I know a real life has no bearing on the rules, but a pod lands in some bushes, super soldiers inside wearing power armor get out...and die! Like, what's the pod for? Might as well just puch the marines out of the back of a t-hawk, same odds to get hurt as in a giant, armored vehicle that is designed to land safely and protect the guys inside. haha, just seems funny to me, but rules are rules.
@Fayric
I think the issue here is that the new FAQ states that units arriving in a vehicle by deep strike count as deep-striking themselves. That covers units moving in a vehicle as normal. I don't like it myself, but the ruling is quite clear, IMO.
... i'd love for real dangerous terrain on a 5+,4+,3+,2+ model takes a wound but then i'd also like to be able to an armour save against it (but not inv or cover)
30625
Post by: SumYungGui
This ruling is fantastic because it's finally something in favor of the Myetic Spore. No dangerous terrain for a monstrous creature unloading!
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
SumYungGui wrote:This ruling is fantastic because it's finally something in favor of the Myetic Spore. No dangerous terrain for a monstrous creature unloading!
Except you're deep striking into terrain, thus treating it as dangerous...
5873
Post by: kirsanth
I think his point related more to the FAQ. . . GWs FAQ wrote:Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.
Is a spod a vehicle?
30625
Post by: SumYungGui
Nope! It's a monstrous creature, not a vehicle. This is the exact same logic that was throw in the face of every single 'Nid player for the Prime/Spore nerf and their almost 100% complete inferiority in every way. It's not a vehicle so no dangerous terrain checks.
99
Post by: insaniak
SumYungGui wrote:Nope! It's a monstrous creature, not a vehicle. This is the exact same logic that was throw in the face of every single 'Nid player for the Prime/Spore nerf and their almost 100% complete inferiority in every way. It's not a vehicle so no dangerous terrain checks.
I'm not following your logic.
A Spod landing in difficult terrain doesn't take a Dangerous terrain test because it's a vehicle... it takes the test because it is Deep Striking into difficult terrain.
The unit inside the Spod doesn't take a Dangerous terrain test because it is disembarking from a vehicle... it takes the test because the Spod rules point out that they are also considered to be Deep Striking, and they are doing so into difficult terrain.
The rule requiring Deep Striking models to take a Dangerous terrain test for landing in difficult terrain applies to all Deep Striking models, not just to vehicles and their occupants.
The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant to Spods... But that doesn't change the way the rules already apply to them anyway.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
insaniak wrote:SumYungGui wrote:Nope! It's a monstrous creature, not a vehicle. This is the exact same logic that was throw in the face of every single 'Nid player for the Prime/Spore nerf and their almost 100% complete inferiority in every way. It's not a vehicle so no dangerous terrain checks.
I'm not following your logic.
A Spod landing in difficult terrain doesn't take a Dangerous terrain test because it's a vehicle... it takes the test because it is Deep Striking into difficult terrain.
The unit inside the Spod doesn't take a Dangerous terrain test because it is disembarking from a vehicle... it takes the test because the Spod rules point out that they are also considered to be Deep Striking, and they are doing so into difficult terrain.
The rule requiring Deep Striking models to take a Dangerous terrain test for landing in difficult terrain applies to all Deep Striking models, not just to vehicles and their occupants.
The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant to Spods... But that doesn't change the way the rules already apply to them anyway.
This.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This.
Really? In that case: insaniak wrote:The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant
Fixed.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
kirsanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This.
Really? In that case: insaniak wrote:The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant
Fixed.
Are you reading what we're writing?
Is a spod a vehicle? No.
Does any model, not just vehicles, that deep strike into difficult terrain treat it as dangerous? Yes. Thus, spod isn't "better".
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
I think the reference isn't to how the pod itself is "protected", but rather how the unit exiting from it is.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Steelmage99 wrote:I think the reference isn't to how the pod itself is "protected", but rather how the unit exiting from it is.
But is it? It's still deepstriking, isn't it? Otherwise I want to know how the cargo got to where it got, since it can't embark on a non-vehicle model.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
The unit isn't exiting from a vehicle, which is what the FAQ talks about.
30625
Post by: SumYungGui
It's the same logic marine players used to weasel their way out of dangerous terrain for the drop pod for the longest time until it was clearly FAQ'd. 'We're not deep striking, the Drop Pod is!'. The FAQ was worded poorly and only said vehicle however, so a monstrous creature gets to finally pull one over on the vehicle. Rules lawyerish interpretation? Yeah. Of course. Do I know they probably intended the FAQ to cover the spore as well? Yup, but as Tyranids are so frequently bludgeoned over the head with 'rules as intended are rules as interpreted, we must go by what's written.' Good for the goose good for the gander, I say.
8854
Post by: Homer S
calypso2ts wrote:It wasn't the lava part, it was more the pod lands in a forest which is difficult terrain but a DS model has to treat it as dangerous.
Ah, I guess that means people need to be more careful where they target so that they miss terrain and also don't target such that they are likely to get a mishap. Makes it a bit trickier rather than a no brainer.
Homer
36588
Post by: Footsloggin
kirsanth wrote:I think his point related more to the FAQ. . . GWs FAQ wrote:Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.
Is a spod a vehicle?
A Drop pod is a vehicle, a Spore Pod is a MC. A unit that arrives being transported by a vehicle that has arrived by Deep Strike that turn counts as having arrived by Deep Strike. The Spore Pod is not a vehicle, so, it's cargo did not arrive via Deep Strike? Maybe? RAW? I don't know, I'm a little confused.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
36588
Post by: Footsloggin
Insta-gib my Daemons? I'd take the mishap over that thank you.
31000
Post by: Thaylen
The real nerf on drop pods is taking away the marines ability to combat squad after leaving a drop pod. (Despite the fact that the codex was already quite clear on the issue before the FAQ).
2776
Post by: Reecius
How does it take away their ability to combat squad after arriving by DP? The FAQ says they can't combat squad in reserve. The DP says they may combat squad upon arrival. That seems crystal clear to me so long as I am not missing something here.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.
It does not say the restriction only affects them while in reserves.
/shrug
Editing to add:
I think I can read it both ways. Regardless it would seem that pod's rules (under combat squads) would still allow it, as that is a specific allowance despite the general FAQ rule.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Yeah, I agree. The DP rules specifically state that the unit may combat squad upon arrival as an exception to the rule, which to me, clearly overrides the general FAQ.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
yes, specific pod> loose faq ruling
31000
Post by: Thaylen
I suppose. But the FAQ muddies the waters on this one. Where I could use this tactic in the past w/ impunity, I am now subject to a rules debate and TFG accusations should I attempt it.
24299
Post by: pdawg517
I 110% agree that the DP rules override the FAQ and would have no issues whatsoever doing it or having my opponent do it. If someone calls you out for being a TFG for doing what is clearly within the bounds of the rules then you might want to evaluate the person/people you are playing with.
Just my 2 cents.
22761
Post by: Kurgash
I suppose this doesn't affect Necrons exiting a monolith after it deepstrikes?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Only if Necrons gain the ability to combat squad.
[nitpick] Also, the rules excepting DPs are actually the Combat Squad rules, not Drop Pod rules. [/nitpick]
11289
Post by: MisterMoon
this FAQ didn't change anything...
Deep Strike Rules: Models ariving deep strike into dif ter, treat dif as dangerous ter.
Are the troops models? yes! troops must treat it as dangerous ter. and roll their dice. big deal. You still have guidence systems to avoid buildings and impassible ter.
I've always seen the rules as such. I simply think that the pod landed oddly due to trees, rubble, etc and possibly a marine took a casualty. Remember that an unsaved wound doesn't mean death, it just means the sm can't fight anymore, so is removed from game play.
6769
Post by: Tri
Che-Vito wrote:Tri wrote:Reecius wrote:@Tri
Oh gawd, hahaha, I can see some folks making that argument already!
Again, I know a real life has no bearing on the rules, but a pod lands in some bushes, super soldiers inside wearing power armor get out...and die! Like, what's the pod for? Might as well just puch the marines out of the back of a t-hawk, same odds to get hurt as in a giant, armored vehicle that is designed to land safely and protect the guys inside. haha, just seems funny to me, but rules are rules.
@Fayric
I think the issue here is that the new FAQ states that units arriving in a vehicle by deep strike count as deep-striking themselves. That covers units moving in a vehicle as normal. I don't like it myself, but the ruling is quite clear, IMO.
... i'd love for real dangerous terrain on a 5+,4+,3+,2+ model takes a wound but then i'd also like to be able to an armour save against it (but not inv or cover)
So you'd love to shaft Daemons of one thing that makes their army much more viable, and make MEQ better...
True Daemons would have an exception and something would need an AP value ... I just like the idea of SM walking into a burning area and out the other side but IG burning to death.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
AlmightyWalrus wrote:kirsanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This.
Really? In that case: insaniak wrote:The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant
Fixed.
Are you reading what we're writing?
Is a spod a vehicle? No.
Does any model, not just vehicles, that deep strike into difficult terrain treat it as dangerous? Yes. Thus, spod isn't "better".
Technically a Spod isn't a model, it's a "counts as". There are no models for Spods.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Kilkrazy wrote:Technically a Spod isn't a model, it's a "counts as". There are no models for Spods.
Awesome. 
In all seriousness though, the spods rules already state the models deploying from them are deepstriking.
"A unit that Deepstrikes via a Mycetic Spore. . ."
Just so people do not really think it helps Tyranids.
I mean really, an FAQ that helps Tyranids? psh. . .
99
Post by: insaniak
SumYungGui wrote:The FAQ was worded poorly and only said vehicle however, so a monstrous creature gets to finally pull one over on the vehicle.
Except, once again, they don't, because the Spod's own rules already state that the unit on board are Deep Striking.
The FAQ doesn't give anything to Spods, because it is nothing whatsoever to do with them. A ruling that applies to Drop Pods has absolutely nil effect on how the rules for Spods work.
Tyranids climbing out of a pod into difficult terrain will still have to take a Dangerous terrain test, because they are Deep Striking into difficult terrain. An FAQ answer relating to vehicles has no effect on that rule.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
38250
Post by: poda_t
Uh, no? The VEHICLE came by deep-strike, but the units that it delivered COUNT as being delivered by deep strike. You will observe that it does specify "count as having arrived by deepstrike". This does not mean they take the dangerous terrain test for slamming into it head first at terminal velocity or faster. The rules state that vehicles that are immobilized immediately vomit their payload out of every hatch. Because drop-pods are immobilized after arriving on the tabletop, they vomit their cargo out wherever it lands, so if that happens to be dangerous terrain, they take a dangerous terrain check. It is not however the same test for landing in dangerous terrain. Deepstrike plants your units where you want them to, and as you may recall, a deep-striking assault squad that does not die a horrible horrible death being impaled on boulders may not commit any sort of assault. So, units arriving via drop pod may also not perform any assaults, or fire their las-cannons/multi-meltas/heavy-bolters at point blank range the turn that they arrive. The deepstrike mishap or whatever other rule that you are concerned about that I can't be bothered to reach for at this moment does not happen to both drop-pods AND their cargo; it only happens to the first thing getting on the table.
I really dont understand why there was a FAQ on this, the only armies that can take drop pods already specify in that entry that the unit may not assault. All I see with the current FAQ is that the disembarking unit may now no longer move after disembarking either, nor shoot heavy weapons, but in every game I played, it was assumed that that was already implicit.
99
Post by: insaniak
poda_t wrote:Uh, no? The VEHICLE came by deep-strike, but the units that it delivered COUNT as being delivered by deep strike. You will observe that it does specify "count as having arrived by deepstrike". This does not mean they take the dangerous terrain test for slamming into it head first at terminal velocity or faster.
No, actually, it does.
If they count as arriving by Deep Strike, then any rules that apply to models arriving by Deep Strike will apply to them. That's what the 'counts as' means...
Additionally, the FAQ is only a clarification. The actual Deep Strike rules are clearer on the fact that they're not just 'counting as' Deep Striking. The models arriving in a Deep Striking vehicle are also considered to be Deep Striking.
The rules state that vehicles that are immobilized immediately vomit their payload out of every hatch. Because drop-pods are immobilized after arriving on the tabletop, they vomit their cargo out wherever it lands, so if that happens to be dangerous terrain, they take a dangerous terrain check.
The passenegers in a Drop Pod disembark as soon as it lands simply because the Drop Pod rules say they have to.
I really dont understand why there was a FAQ on this, the only armies that can take drop pods already specify in that entry that the unit may not assault. All I see with the current FAQ is that the disembarking unit may now no longer move after disembarking either, nor shoot heavy weapons, but in every game I played, it was assumed that that was already implicit.
Perhaps if you can't see any reason for the FAQ entry using your interpretation of the rules, it might be worth reconsidering the value of the other intepretation, under which the FAQ clarification does make sense... 
38250
Post by: poda_t
pdawg517 wrote:I 110% agree that the DP rules override the FAQ and would have no issues whatsoever doing it or having my opponent do it. If someone calls you out for being a TFG for doing what is clearly within the bounds of the rules then you might want to evaluate the person/people you are playing with.
Just my 2 cents.
The problem with this interpretation is that there is no conflict between the army book and the core rulebook, wherefore there is nothing in the army book with regard to drop pods that trumps the core rulebook. The only thing a drop-pod trumps is that it does not ever dive face-first into impassable terrain.
insaniak wrote:poda_t wrote:Uh, no? The VEHICLE came by deep-strike, but the units that it delivered COUNT as being delivered by deep strike. You will observe that it does specify "count as having arrived by deepstrike". This does not mean they take the dangerous terrain test for slamming into it head first at terminal velocity or faster.
No, actually, it does.
If they count as arriving by Deep Strike, then any rules that apply to models arriving by Deep Strike will apply to them. That's what the 'counts as' means...
Additionally, the FAQ is only a clarification. The actual Deep Strike rules are clearer on the fact that they're not just 'counting as' Deep Striking. The models arriving in a Deep Striking vehicle are also considered to be Deep Striking.
The rules state that vehicles that are immobilized immediately vomit their payload out of every hatch. Because drop-pods are immobilized after arriving on the tabletop, they vomit their cargo out wherever it lands, so if that happens to be dangerous terrain, they take a dangerous terrain check.
The passenegers in a Drop Pod disembark as soon as it lands simply because the Drop Pod rules say they have to.
I really dont understand why there was a FAQ on this, the only armies that can take drop pods already specify in that entry that the unit may not assault. All I see with the current FAQ is that the disembarking unit may now no longer move after disembarking either, nor shoot heavy weapons, but in every game I played, it was assumed that that was already implicit.
Perhaps if you can't see any reason for the FAQ entry using your interpretation of the rules, it might be worth reconsidering the value of the other intepretation, under which the FAQ clarification does make sense...
My problem with the words "count as" is that you get the whole Counter-Attack & Furious Charge foeces flinging contest again, even though it's clear the furious charge does not stack on... Then there is the issue of the codex explicitly stating that the drop pod counts as having an irreparable immobilized damage result, which in turn automatically gives the opponent victory points, which seems off to me.
Ha, I retract my comment regarding disembarking on an immobilized result--obviously I don't remove it for the sake of discussion continuity--units are not required to disembark. Oddly, something so ferocious that immobilized the tank seems to have no crew shaken/stun effect, which on reading it again seems a little odd to me.
My reading of drop-pods always assumed that the deep-strike rule was implicit in the arriving squad. I suppose if someone is cheesemongering, and wants to be smug when they point out it does not say anywhere that they counted as deep-striking, I would smack them with the BRB. And point out every instance where a vehicle trumps all infantry deployment rules if the infantry deploy with it. If the case happens to be that the vehicle arrives by deepstrike, then the vehicle trumps the cargo's deployment rules, and they arrive via the vehicle's rules (different meanings for IG codex as well, if the chimera gets a scout or outflank rule, the units deployed inside it "also get it" otherwise, they would not be arriving with the vehicle).
By reading of the original rules, without counting as deep-striking, the models could do anything except assault (says right under drop-pod in relevant army codex), but it seemed to me to be implicit that the models were considered to be arriving by deep-strike, ergo unable to move and counted as having moved.
I still fail to see though why it is that models disembarking from deep-strike into difficult terrain count as entering dangerous terrain. This needs to be more clearly defined. I refer you to IG Grav-chute Insertion rule which goes out of its way to clarify the lovely horrible things that happen to the squad.
99
Post by: insaniak
poda_t wrote: I still fail to see though why it is that models disembarking from deep-strike into difficult terrain count as entering dangerous terrain.
Because the Deep Strike rules state that Deep Striking models treat difficult terrain as dangerous terrain... and treat models arriving in a Deep Striking transport vehicle as Deep Striking themselves.
There is a certain amount of ambiguity in the rules as originally written, as there is no time period stated for the dangerous terrain effect... RAW, you could have argued that Deep Striking models will treat difficult terrain as dangerous for the rest of the game...
The argument against the passengers taking a dangerous terrain test was that the dangerous terrain effect is clearly supposed to apply only during the actual action of Deep Striking. Since the passengers disembark after the Deep Strike, they are not entering the terrain as a part of the Deep Strike, but instead as a part of a disembarking action. And difficult terrain doesn't count as dangerous just for disembarking.
What the FAQ seems to be clarifying, IMO, is that the dangerous terrain effect applies to the turn, rather than just the immediate act of disembarking. So the troops would still be forced to take the test as they disembark.
25839
Post by: Kolath
Except that it wouldn't apply to the turn, perhaps just to the movement phase. Otherwise a deepstriking unit that landed in clear terrain would have to take a dangerous terrain test if it ran into difficult terrain during the shooting phase.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
poda_t wrote:
My problem with the words "count as" is that you get the whole Counter-Attack & Furious Charge foeces flinging contest again, even though it's clear the furious charge does not stack on...
To be fair it was clear that Counter-Attack and Furious Charge did indeed stack...........but then the GW nimrods realized that armies, other than their beloved Spaz Mahreenz HUUR! (yes, I went there), could make use of it and not only that. They could do it better ( IG and Tyranids, I'm looking at you).
Of course GW couldn't have their poster boys shown up, so they reversed their decision.
38250
Post by: poda_t
sorry, if you are looking for a TLDR version, skip to where i have TLDR in caps in my post.
well im stilll having serious trouble understanding why it is necessary to have drop-pods froce dangerous terrain tests on its payload. If you want to be "the ultra-realism guy" any model disembarking from ANY drop-pod would ALWAYS have to take a dangerous terrain test on account of the fact that the drop pod leaves a crater behind it.... Between the fact that it forces an immobilised result, giving the enemy victory points and that it really does not make-up for jump-packs, I don't see why models disembarking from it need to smash their face in and die in the process.
Sure, in the holistic interpretations of the rules and fluff and bla-bla-bla, the sudden surge of defenders responding to the deep-strike, or whatever deepstrike mishapt that occours in the process acccounts for the casualties taken, but then the drop-pods having a guidance system is just.... its just a load of malarkey. All I see it doing is conferring an extended deployment zone, and even then, model's cant do anthing: move, shoot beyond 12" or assault, which leaves the disambarking models horribly open.
The fact was that I never saw counter-attack and furious charge stacking either. It seemed clear to me in the rules that it had to be the player's active turn in order to get bonus attacks.....
I guess I just have a problem with WH40k in general then because people insist on cheesemongering instead of trying to reason things through rationally. I would also like to call attention to the fact that i am posting this at 02:05 hours after a certain amount of alcohol has entered and failed to lieave my stystem. Somehow though my grievances have not changed, the core of which is being able to pull models from squads when the affected models have not been pulled from a template.... There is a bloody damn good reason for which the more competent military elements stopped saluting officers in the trenches of WW1 because the first thing that would happen afterward is that the officer's brainpan would be emptied across the trenches far wall! I just wish I had the time and money and space to invest in another game to see if there is something that struck my fancy better!!!!! (in retrospect, there were times in certain games that I realised I should have lost because I realized I was cheating, and others, where the rules simply collapsed into cheese monger. for instance, that flamer template cannot shoot from the corner of your APC, from its front left tread... thats just BS, and yet I did it, and no-where did I see it being wrong, but I insist that it was cheating!)
TLDR: I am still having extreme trouble seeing what this FAQ resolves........ insaniak convinced me of a few things, but then made me change my mind on other thins; for instance why is dangerous terrain not treated as impassable for the purposes of deep-striking? I mean, if difficult upgrades to dangerous, its only logical that dangerous upgrades to impassable!
Yeah, you will have to forgive me because I have a holistic view of rules; forgive me its part of my education/work experience where rules that adresss a topic that already seems clear are an indicator of other things being displaced too because of the one rule-change. nrgh, I am so angry now... AGAIN..... urgh....RAAAGE >=/
36487
Post by: sbu
Yes like don_mondo i have had this in real life, disembarked a chinnock helicopter as part of a night time assault training ex and there was a bit of rough ground underneath (Damb RAF pilots LOL). i popped my left knee and shattered my right ankle ( realy did fail my dangerous terain test that time LOL) infact 3 of the squad get seriously injured on that one debus !!!.
so yes jumping out od a valk or the like with even the smallest difficult rough terain has its dangers and the dangerous terain test is quite justified. but then i surpose the same could be said for getting out of any veichle that has been traveling at speed as you will not have had chance to get a lie of the terrain and first priority is to seek cover to compose yourself !!!
99
Post by: insaniak
poda_t wrote:... for instance why is dangerous terrain not treated as impassable for the purposes of deep-striking? I mean, if difficult upgrades to dangerous, its only logical that dangerous upgrades to impassable!
That's not really logical at all.
Dangerous terrain isn't an 'upgrade' to difficult terrain. They're two distinct classes of terrain, that are sometimes shared by the same terrain piece.
11289
Post by: MisterMoon
How would you handle it if the drop pod only partially landed on the dif terrain, or on the edge, and the marines got out on the side where there was no dif terrain?
Of course if you go RAW on deep strike, your marines would have to form a circle around the drop pod.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
The disembarking models are not the "arriving" model, so do not need to form a circle.
If they are not in difficult terrain they do not test. Very simple.
11289
Post by: MisterMoon
nosferatu1001 wrote:The disembarking models are not the "arriving" model, so do not need to form a circle.
If they are not in difficult terrain they do not test. Very simple.
But the FAQ says that the models in the vehicle are subject to deep strike rules as well... Automatically Appended Next Post: Perhaps I'm being too picky here... just trying to get a clear picture. I don't think models should have to test unless they depart into the dif ter.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Disembarking straight into difficult terrain for a cover save now has a tactical cost - a 1 in 6 chance of losing your model. I think it is actually good in terms of game balance. While the FAQ specifically states vehicles, when i run my 'nids in spore pods I will use the same logic, thus making deep striking a mycetic spore full of genestealers into a forest a slightly less attractive choice.
23332
Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren
MisterMoon wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:The disembarking models are not the "arriving" model, so do not need to form a circle.
If they are not in difficult terrain they do not test. Very simple.
But the FAQ says that the models in the vehicle are subject to deep strike rules as well...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perhaps I'm being too picky here... just trying to get a clear picture. I don't think models should have to test unless they depart into the dif ter.
This is the most frightening thing to come out of that FAQ... if this is true (and it makes sense, if the new rules do infact state "the unit disembarking count as deepstriking") then 10 man drop pods would be foolish, as you will almost always suffer a mishap (caused BY the pod...) the only exception would be:
Reecius wrote:How does it take away their ability to combat squad after arriving by DP? The FAQ says they can't combat squad in reserve. The DP says they may combat squad upon arrival. That seems crystal clear to me so long as I am not missing something here.
I think you are missing something... because the FAQ did not change (nor do I think it intended to change) anything about the Combat Squad/Drop Pod ruling.
What the Combat Squad/Drop Pod rule states is
You take 10 tac marines in a drop pod, once they deploy(out of the pod), you may Combat squad them into two 5 man groups.
- By FAQ this is still legal
What the FAQ is addressing is this:
You take 10 Tac Marines, during deployment, you put 5 on the board and save 5 in reserve to come with the Drop Pod - by the FAQ (and the rules) this is NOT legal
splitting into two 5mans now makes sense tho, as it keeps you from mishapping with your own drop pod (mathmatically impossible to disembard 2" away form pod and form a Circle without hitting the pod again).
Also, I think the main reason for the ruling was the prior ruling for Mystics as a tool of justification as well as a deterrent to intentionally drop on difficult terrain to exploit deepstrike/ disembarkation (and the drop pod rules in general).
So its not a nerf, but a "bug fix".
~DAR
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
"Models arriving via deep strike treat difficult as dangerous."-para brb pg95
The paraphrase is only removing the words "terrain".
We are not given a time-frame for how long they treat Difficult as dangerous. We must look to the Verb-tense to determine how long they treat it as such. Arriving is a Present-tense verb it is an act one takes.
Disembarking Infantry are not arriving; they have arrived, and are disembarking; and Difficult terrain is only treated as dangerous while the deep-strikers are arriving.
To say anything else invites all difficult terrain to be treated as dangerous by all deep striking models for the rest of the game.
The deepstrike rules themselves are separated into the order every rule is applied:
During the deepstrike: difficult is dangerous.
In the movement phase: may not move except to get out of the transport.
In the shooting phase: May shoot or run, counts as having moved.
In the Assault phase: May not assault.
Every one of the above is their own paragraph and in order.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
I wouldn't take the ruling so far as to say that a disembarking unit from a SM drop pod has to form a little circle. That formation is for determining deep strike scatter...once the pod has landed they should be allowed to disembark like any other unit getting out of a vehicle..but if they happen to do so in area terrain they will take dang terrain checks.
23332
Post by: Daemon-Archon Ren
Kommissar Kel wrote:"Models arriving via deep strike treat difficult as dangerous."-para brb pg95
The paraphrase is only removing the words "terrain".
We are not given a time-frame for how long they treat Difficult as dangerous. We must look to the Verb-tense to determine how long they treat it as such. Arriving is a Present-tense verb it is an act one takes.
Disembarking Infantry are not arriving; they have arrived, and are disembarking; and Difficult terrain is only treated as dangerous while the deep-strikers are arriving.
To say anything else invites all difficult terrain to be treated as dangerous by all deep striking models for the rest of the game.
The deepstrike rules themselves are separated into the order every rule is applied:
During the deepstrike: difficult is dangerous.
In the movement phase: may not move except to get out of the transport.
In the shooting phase: May shoot or run, counts as having moved.
In the Assault phase: May not assault.
Every one of the above is their own paragraph and in order.
this is dangerous logic as the same argument can be made to say that ALL units inside of a deepstriking Transport AUTOMATICALLY suffer a mishap from this new ruling.
"Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes."
If you are saying they only count as arriving AT THE MOMENT they arrive(not when they disembark) then they must somehow bend the rules of time and space to appear at the same time, in the same spot as the drop pod, as they both arrive togeather so they both (both units, as they are seperate units, and the rules for reserves only allow them to share the "arrival roll" not the "arriving from deep strike" rules, which the FAQ now states they are subject to) would need to complete the following
which would be impossible, so, given the rules for Reserves not making it on the board, they would auto die.
Just take the dangerous terrain test, if you are that bad at "not-rolling-ones" then those Space Mans in their Rock-Box won't do you much good anyway amrite?
~DAR Automatically Appended Next Post: tetrisphreak wrote:I wouldn't take the ruling so far as to say that a disembarking unit from a SM drop pod has to form a little circle. That formation is for determining deep strike scatter...once the pod has landed they should be allowed to disembark like any other unit getting out of a vehicle..but if they happen to do so in area terrain they will take dang terrain checks.
The rules for deep strike scatter are in the rules for arrival by deep strike
The FAQ states the the embarked unit follows the same rules for arrival by deep strike
this will probably be fixt around April when the GKs come out to play.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:*stuff*
Point taken, but I feel like that interpretation of the FAQ breaks Drop Pods and makes them unusable for all marine chapters...that is certainly not something GW would do on purpose for their poster-boys.
25963
Post by: Miraclefish
calypso2ts wrote:It wasn't the lava part, it was more the pod lands in a forest which is difficult terrain but a DS model has to treat it as dangerous.
Seems fair to me:
If I was shot out of a Battle Barge 100,000km from the planet's surface in a tin can travelling at hypersonic speeds - and accellerating to ever-more dangerous velocities along the way - barely slowing down enough upon re-entry to stop me being pulverised by the mass of my own body when it slams into the surface with unimaginable energy, then barely an instant later explosive bolts slam the doors outwards and I have to jump out, likely under a relentless barrage of weapons discharge from the most God-Emperor hated enemies known to Mankind, I'll be honest, there is more than likely a 1 in 6 chance that I'd trip over a tree root or a mega-squirrel and kill myself...
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
And that, miraclefish, is why you are not an Adeptus Astartes.
edit - While i have heard rumors of those mega-squirrels having AP3 gnawing attacks. Scary!
25963
Post by: Miraclefish
Haha but tetrisphreak, according to the new rules FAQ, there's also a 1 in 6 chance that the Astartes will fall prey to the dreaded tree bole!
Anyway that's not why I'm not in a Chapter, it's the damn dyslexia. I keep telling them I've never heard of the Dog-Emroper!
37913
Post by: Acidwraine
splitting into two 5mans now makes sense tho, as it keeps you from mishapping with your own drop pod (mathmatically impossible to disembard 2" away form pod and form a Circle without hitting the pod again).
You know that 25mm is only .98in as 25.4mm would be an inch. This would mean base to base you can fit models 3 wide into a 2" disembark, as the base only has to barely touch the 2" mark. And you can save some space by turning your circle about 9 degrees or so if that is too close for you.
38250
Post by: poda_t
Okay did some reading:
Disambarking from vehicles does not cause difficult/dangerous check. Ever.
It even states in the SM rulebook that marines disembark as normal. having deep-struck, all that does is make them unable to move, shoot beyond 12 or assault.
Although now reading this I discovered that someone could be a real cheesemonger:
Vehicles moving through dangerous terrain need to make a check. Are deep-striking vehicles required to take a dangerous check, becoming immobilised if they fail? And what would that do to a droppod? its already immobilised, so is it then wrecked?
37913
Post by: Acidwraine
Although now reading this I discovered that someone could be a real cheesemonger:
Vehicles moving through dangerous terrain need to make a check. Are deep-striking vehicles required to take a dangerous check, becoming immobilised if they fail? And what would that do to a droppod? its already immobilised, so is it then wrecked?
They always have had to make dangerous terrain tests. The deep strike rules refers to units, which according to p.3 includes a main battle tank.
And an immobilized result would become a weapon destroyed.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
poda_t wrote:Okay did some reading:
Disambarking from vehicles does not cause difficult/dangerous check. Ever.
Really? Are you sure? What was your reasoning? Because~! "Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move." Page 14 "Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase," Page 66 "A unit that begins its Movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved." Page 67 Cos' they would have entered DT that turn you know? But if you're still not convinced here's the damn FAQ answer... So read better next time  "Q: If models disembark from a transport into dangerous terrain, do they take a dangerous terrain test? Unlike Pilein or Consolidation moves, disembarking does not specifically states that it doesn't trigger dangerous terrain tests. (p67) A: Dangerous terrain says you test for every model that has 'entered, left or moved through' the terrain. As there is no exception in the text, disembarking models do have to test. However, if they disembark at the beginning of their move and then move after the disembarkation, only one test is needed, not two." WARHAMMER 40,000:RULEBOOK - Official Update Version 1.2 - Page 4
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:this is dangerous logic as the same argument can be made to say that ALL units inside of a deepstriking Transport AUTOMATICALLY suffer a mishap from this new ruling.
"Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes."
If you are saying they only count as arriving AT THE MOMENT they arrive(not when they disembark) then they must somehow bend the rules of time and space to appear at the same time, in the same spot as the drop pod, as they both arrive togeather so they both (both units, as they are seperate units, and the rules for reserves only allow them to share the "arrival roll" not the "arriving from deep strike" rules, which the FAQ now states they are subject to) would need to complete the following
.
Not at all we already have rules for several units arriving from reserves together be that via IC+Unit, or unit in a transport(or IC+Unit in transport). The entire bit does in fact Arrive together all at the same time.
As far as the embarked squad not being able to be placed via deepstrike rules; that is also a moot point already taken care of via the Transport Vehicle rules. A model is itself impassable terrain, however models can ride inside of Transport vehicles and are not effected by anything on table(excepting some very rare special rules; These rules are found on page 66 of the BRB under embarking, note that the embarked unit is kept off table). The unit begins the game held in reserves and embarked in the transport; the Unit+Transport are already considered as 1 unit-entity for reserves rolls( BRB page 94, preparing reserves entire 4th paragraph). When the transport deep-strikes it arrives via deepstrike, from reserves, with the unit embarked on(in) it, the vehicle is placed using the deepstrike rules and the Unit is kept off table via the transport rules, but also via the transport rules the embarked unit is considered to be safely inside the transport. When the transport+embarked unit arrvies via deepstrike any difficult terrain is treated as dangerous(something which the vehicle itself already did); when the unit embarks, which is after it+the transport vehicle arrived, the unit would no longer treat the difficult terrain as dangerous because it is no longer arriving via deepstrike(it has already arrived). it has however deep-striked(deep-struck?) onto the table and therefore follows all other rules for models that have arrived via deep-strike(because it, you know, did).
The FAQ did not change anything. All it did was give a definite and clear statement that models riding in deep-striking transports have in fact Deep-striked(which those of us who bothered to read and understand the deep strike rules already knew). You can also note that the past-tense of Arrive is used in the FAQ as well, it does not ask if the unit counts as Arriving via deepstrike, but if it counts as having arrived via deep strike.
38250
Post by: poda_t
ChrisCP wrote:poda_t wrote:Okay did some reading:
Disambarking from vehicles does not cause difficult/dangerous check. Ever.
Really? Are you sure? What was your reasoning? Because~!
"Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move." Page 14
"Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase," Page 66
"A unit that begins its Movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved." Page 67
Cos' they would have entered DT that turn you know? But if you're still not convinced here's the damn FAQ answer... So read better next time
"Q: If models disembark from a transport into dangerous terrain, do they take a dangerous terrain test? Unlike Pilein or Consolidation moves, disembarking does not specifically states that it doesn't trigger dangerous terrain
tests. (p67)
A: Dangerous terrain says you test for every model that has 'entered, left or moved through' the terrain. As there is no exception in the text, disembarking models do have to test. However, if they disembark at the beginning of their move and then move after the disembarkation, only one test is needed, not two." WARHAMMER 40,000:RULEBOOK - Official Update Version 1.2 - Page 4
the trick is they are not volutarily disembarking are they? The drop pod immediately kicks them out.
Also, this is why i $#!%$@!%$@!%$#@$%$!@%^$!^% hate the @$#@~$@!%$@!%$#@! errata and do my best to ignore them.
I want to take this stupid bloody damn BRB and set it on fire. Its 200 pages of useless,
99
Post by: insaniak
poda_t wrote:the trick is they are not volutarily disembarking are they? The drop pod immediately kicks them out.
Why would that make a difference?
The rules don't require them to be disembarking voluntarily... If they are disembarking into dangerous terrain, they are 'entering' the terrain... and so they take a dangerous terrain test. Whether they are disembarking voluntarily or not makes absolutely no difference to how that works. All that matters is whether they are 'entering, leaving or moving through' the dangerous terrain.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Miraclefish wrote:If I was shot out of a Battle Barge 100,000km from the planet's surface in a tin can travelling at hypersonic speeds - and accellerating to ever-more dangerous velocities along the way - barely slowing down enough upon re-entry to stop me being pulverised by the mass of my own body when it slams into the surface with unimaginable energy, then barely an instant later explosive bolts slam the doors outwards and I have to jump out, likely under a relentless barrage of weapons discharge from the most God-Emperor hated enemies known to Mankind, I'll be honest, there is more than likely a 1 in 6 chance that I'd trip over a tree root or a mega-squirrel and kill myself...
I don't know about any of the actual points raised in this thread, but I want to use this as my signature now
35456
Post by: Cjc1223
Does anybody see pigs flyig because it seems like an FAQ that HELPS tyranids?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Cjc1223 wrote:Does anybody see pigs flyig because it seems like an FAQ that HELPS tyranids?
No, it does not.
Really, think on things. This is a GW FAQ being referenced here, if you think it helps Tyranids, you are probably reading it wrong.
99
Post by: insaniak
Cjc1223 wrote:Does anybody see pigs flyig because it seems like an FAQ that HELPS tyranids?
And so, once again, it does nothing of the sort, because it has nothing to do with Tyranids.
38250
Post by: poda_t
Cjc1223 wrote:Does anybody see pigs flyig because it seems like an FAQ that HELPS tyranids?
nope, it does nothing of the like. The tyranid spore thing is a monstrous creature, so it already ignores whatever tests its subjected to.
You do raise a valid point though, because the last part of the entry reads 'that Deep Strikes via a mycetic spore cannot move or assauly in the same turn it arrives but may shoot (or run) as normal.
In many ways a Mycetic Spore like a Drop Pod, and the entry is written very similarily, which makes me wonder if it behaves like a drop-pod in the sense of what it does to the disembarking units. The FAQ clarified that models arriving by a vehicle having arrived by Deep Strike also count as arriving by Deep Strike.
The issue here is does the mycetic spore count as a vehicle? In every respect, it behaves like a drop pod for the purposes of deploying the unit. I would say that the FAQ includes the mycetic spore. Otherwise, why would Drop Pods be addressed in the general FAQ and not the SM FAQ?
The way the entry is written, it could trump the core rules anyway, because it says that they may shoot or run as normal. It does not mention anything about them counting as having moved the previous turn, and if they are merely 'disembarking' without counting as deep-striking, or moving etc. then they get the full range of their shot. Ha-HA! And then it does not even matter because all tyranids have assault weapons.
So we are down to: do tyranids take the dangerous terrain check in disembarking. I still think they fall under the auspices of "deep-striking via vehicle", especially as it is the only unit in the tyranid codex behaves like one, so its payload also takes dangerous terrain checks where relevant. I don't see this as doing anything particularily awful to tyranids because the mycetic spore already offers other advantages.
37913
Post by: Acidwraine
insaniak wrote:Cjc1223 wrote:Does anybody see pigs flyig because it seems like an FAQ that HELPS tyranids?
And so, once again, it does nothing of the sort, because it has nothing to do with Tyranids.
I thought not hurting tyranids was GWs way of helping them.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Poda - it doesnt ignore the DT test for landing in terrain....
99
Post by: insaniak
poda_t wrote:So we are down to: do tyranids take the dangerous terrain check in disembarking. I still think they fall under the auspices of "deep-striking via vehicle", especially as it is the only unit in the tyranid codex behaves like one, so its payload also takes dangerous terrain checks where relevant.
Yet again, Tyranids take a Dangerous Terrain test when they climb out of the pod into difficult terrain not because it follows the vehicle rules, but because they are Deep Striking.
The vehicle rules are completely irrelevant. It's not the vehicle rules that cause the unit to treat difficult terrain as dangerous. The Deep Strike rules do that. The only reason the vehicle rules enter into the discussion is because the original discussion was on vehicle passengers.
The Spod is not a vehicle. So it doesn't reference the vehicle rules. That has no effect on how the Deep Strike rules are applied to it, as the Deep Strike rules don't require it to be a vehicle.
|
|
