I read a post earlier about BT's and someone mentioned a "BT trick". They stated that the BT drop pods don't have to disembark because it is not mentioned in the BT's most updated FAQ. All other drop pods mention in their description that the units inside must immediately disembark, and in the BT there is no mention of this particular rule.

Is this a huge oversight? Is this a BT unique special rule? Or are they looking way into RAW?

Would any tournament or friendly game allow this? I'm a huge advocate for BT and their special rules but this blew my mind when I read about it this morning. Considering I run a duo LRC and triple DP list, this open many, many doors.

Edit:
I thought the OP was pretty clear, as well as the voting criteria. As someone pointed out, there are three ways to answer. The first is the BT codex/faq is mistyped and should follow the same rules as the "drop pod assault" rule in the 6th BRB. The second is the BT codex/faq is written as intended and the BTs have an extremely unique set of rules and circumstances that allow the unit to remain embarked in a drop pod for as long as the want (similar to a Rhino, etc). The last is in fact a hybrid of the two: you understand that BT have a unique ruling (per RAW) and can see the evidence to back it up, however, you (personally) would never allow it. It goes against logic, regardless of what the rules read.

I hope that clears things up. Some people understood what I meant while others sat in utter bewilderment. I can only assume, for those that think I was treading in murky waters, I wanted RAW or HYWPI debate. It is in fact both. The evidence is 100% clear (in my opinion). It is clear in the FAQ that the BT pod (whether on purpose on not) is different than any other drop pod and doesn't have to disembark.

I started the poll to see how people have played it or would play it in the future. Hence the three options I presented. They have to disembark, they don't have to disembark, and they don't have to, but they should.

Cheers.

If we're talking RAW here, they may stay inside.

Read the FAQ. It's plain as day. I don't understand why this is hard to comprehend.

Black Templar don't have to disembark from their drop pods.

It has not been FAQed, so I'm not sure what you are alluding to Icculus?

 troa wrote:
It has not been FAQed, so I'm not sure what you are alluding to Icculus?

This is my point. They released a FAQ that updated the drop pod entry in the BT codex. They updated the inertial guidance system and the drop pod assault. They did not make the change to include the immediate disembarking. Which means it doesn't have it.

It is plain as day that the rule stays as written in the book. That section did not need to be changed.

You could go through and argue they misprinted point costs between marine codices because they are the same marines but cost different points, but its written in the codex so it stands.

Also the BT drop pod can only carry 10 marines, the vanilla can carry 12. Im not arguing we should be able to carry 12 because they didnt update that rule.

Dark Angels and Space Wolves have 10 capacity drop pods, too.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Dark Angels and Space Wolves have 10 capacity drop pods, too.

I don't see what those books have to do with the situation.

you brought up the capacity situation.

Well either way, lets get back on topic.

If my codex says that I MUST disembark, then I'll do it. They released a FAQ and didn't include that as an update, which means I wouldn't have to.

The only reason people are saying you must disembark is because it's in the other books. but each codex is a standalone.
So it's useless to compare one codex to another.

So I assume you don't assault from a BT Land Raider as the rule is not the same as the BRB?

I've never used a LR, let me check the differences.
While I'm looking it up. which differences are you referring to?

EDIT:

If you are talking about them being assault vehicles, that is covered in the errata.
www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2940040a_Black_Templars_v1.2_JANUARY13.pdf
check out where it says page 42

BT are not required to disembark from their DP upon landing.

Furthermore, other units then the one that bought the Drop Pod can embark into it later.

If I was a TO (and HIWPI) standard DP rules - must disembark, nobody can embark.

The BT codex does state that nobody can embark on it later. it just doesnt say that the units must disembark on the first turn.

 Icculus wrote:
The BT codex does state that nobody can embark on it later. it just doesnt say that the units must disembark on the first turn.

Page? I know on page 38, it says that once the passengers disembark they may not re-embark. But that has nothing to do with other units embarking.

"Once passengers have disembarked they may no re-embark"

Hmmm, this is a bit of an issue the way the wording is set up. But because it just says passengers, and not THE passengers, i think it means that no passengers may re-embark.

So you can not have any passengers re-embark. the first embarking would have been the initial passengers, but nobody my embark after that.

so if the wording was:

"Once THE passengers have disembarked they may no re-embark"

then I think it would be different. Because we go from talking about general passengers, of any nature, to the very specific passengers that came in with the pod.

You're stretching there.

As worded, it simply means that any passengers who leave the pod can't get back in. It doesn't stop another unit from climbing aboard, although when that new unit gets out, they would also be unable to re-embark.

Simply put, the BT pod rules are currently a mess, but it's yet another on the list of widely known rules issues that GW, for some inexplicable reason, hadn't bothered to fix.

^^^^ 46% of people didn't read the thread and don't own the Black Templars codex / couldn't be bothered to look at the FAQ.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
^^^^ 46% of people didn't read the thread and don't own the Black Templars codex / couldn't be bothered to look at the FAQ.

...or simply assume that the obvious oversight is, you know, an obvious oversight.

 Icculus wrote:
Read the FAQ. It's plain as day. I don't understand why this is hard to comprehend.

Black Templar don't have to disembark from their drop pods.

This. If it's not in their rules, you can't assume they have it. Call it cheese or whatever you want, you can't assume it was suppose to written in. Though I am sure it was a mistake in the first place...

Well if it is the case that drop pods can be embarked by other units you can lay down mid-field fortification for your footslogging units in mid-game.

Kind of funny actually. You could start the game with a dread in the backfield. drop-pod a crusader squad mid field. they stay for a turn, shoot. charge out next turn. Then you can have you dread move up and get in to the drop pod and stay put as a well-fortified turret.

Icculus wrote:Well if it is the case that drop pods can be embarked by other units you can lay down mid-field fortification for your footslogging units in mid-game.

Or you could... right up until you actually try it against a living opponent.


Regardless of what the rules currently say, this one just isn't going to fly in most games.

 insaniak wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
^^^^ 46% of people didn't read the thread and don't own the Black Templars codex / couldn't be bothered to look at the FAQ.

...or simply assume that the obvious oversight is, you know, an obvious oversight.

The poll didn't say it was HYWPI though, so you should assume it is a RAW poll. So you should not "assume" anything. As much as I agree with you, people should only choose the option they think is correct. If they think it shouldn't be allowed, but acknowledge the RAW, they should choose option 3. Choosing option 1 shows a misunderstanding of the RAW.

Yeah that's true because actually option 1 would affect the capacity wouldnt it? If all pods played the same they would all have the same carrying capacity.

So the 14 people that voted "Yes. All drop pods work the same regardless of army" must not have realized the implications of what it means for different armies to have different rulebooks.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
The poll didn't say it was HYWPI though, so you should assume it is a RAW poll.

The third option on the poll suggests otherwise... it makes option 1 and option 3 essentially the same.

So you should not "assume" anything. As much as I agree with you, people should only choose the option they think is correct.

If you believe that the FAQ entry is in error, then option 1 is 'correct'.

It's not strictly RAW right now, but ultimately the 'correct' interpretation of the rules of a game isn't RAW. It's how people choose to play the game... because the whole purpose of the rules is to play a game.

Based on previous discussions on this topic, the vast majority of players accept that the errata for the BT pod is just sloppily written, and wasn't actually meant to remove the requirement to disembark on landing. Pick whichever poll response you feel adequately sums that up, it ultimately makes no difference to whether or not people will allow it on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Icculus wrote:
Yeah that's true because actually option 1 would affect the capacity wouldnt it? If all pods played the same they would all have the same carrying capacity.

If they had the same carrying capacity, sure.

The problem here is that the poll is badly worded. It's not terribly clear if the OP is asking for RAW or HIWPI, and the issue isn't really whether all pods should have identical rules (because they don't, hence the different carrying capacity and weapon options) but whether or not BT pods should still have the requirement to disembark on landing, or if it was just removed accidentally.

 insaniak wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
The poll didn't say it was HYWPI though, so you should assume it is a RAW poll.

The third option on the poll suggests otherwise... it makes option 1 and option 3 essentially the same.

So you should not "assume" anything. As much as I agree with you, people should only choose the option they think is correct.

If you believe that the FAQ entry is in error, then option 1 is 'correct'.

It's not strictly RAW right now, but ultimately the 'correct' interpretation of the rules of a game isn't RAW. It's how people choose to play the game... because the whole purpose of the rules is to play a game.

Based on previous discussions on this topic, the vast majority of players accept that the errata for the BT pod is just sloppily written, and wasn't actually meant to remove the requirement to disembark on landing. Pick whichever poll response you feel adequately sums that up, it ultimately makes no difference to whether or not people will allow it on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Icculus wrote:
Yeah that's true because actually option 1 would affect the capacity wouldnt it? If all pods played the same they would all have the same carrying capacity.

If they had the same carrying capacity, sure.

The problem here is that the poll is badly worded. It's not terribly clear if the OP is asking for RAW or HIWPI, and the issue isn't really whether all pods should have identical rules (because they don't, hence the different carrying capacity and weapon options) but whether or not BT pods should still have the requirement to disembark on landing, or if it was just removed accidentally.

Well what these discussions do is give me some information to work with when I go to present my case in my local game. Don't argue a point unless you know all of the counters to it. Also I love these sort of discussions and I liked that everyone seemed very civil about this whole thing. So many times can internet discussions turn ugly.

I suppose I will talk with my gaming group and see what comes of it.

Thanks for the fun discussions!

I hope they add this for blood angels, might help a assault based army get a leg up in a shooty edition. I see no reason why someone would have to immediately get out of a drop pod, i could imagine space marines only opening some doors to get out providing them more cover, or waiting inside for other back up, or transport elsewhere.

It won't be 'added' to anyone else. BT needed to be updated because their codex is from 4th edition. It's the oldest current marine codex, and was a little behind on some rules.

And BA aren't a little behind? They got kicked in the nuts even harder than BT.

Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

Martel732 wrote:
And BA aren't a little behind? They got kicked in the nuts even harder than BT.

They're at least a 5th edition codex...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot. .

Open-topped...

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

rigeld2 wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod? after all they are a presser Sealed transport dropped from Space.
I understand this is a Black Templar thing only but still, I wouldn't let my opponent shoot.

 kinratha wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod? after all they are a presser Sealed transport dropped from Space.
I understand this is a Black Templar thing only but still, I wouldn't let my opponent shoot.

The idea is to stay in a turn and then assault the second turn.

 Eldarain wrote:

 kinratha wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod? after all they are a presser Sealed transport dropped from Space.
I understand this is a Black Templar thing only but still, I wouldn't let my opponent shoot.

The idea is to stay in a turn and then assault the second turn.

I could be wrong here, but they are still disembarking the second turn, there for they can't assault after disembarking that turn.

 kinratha wrote:

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

No. The BT pod is simply Open-topped as per its profile.

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod?

No, as they wouldn't have LOS. But the doors on the model being open or not has no bearing on whether or not the vehicle is open topped. There is no requirement in the rules to leave the doors closed until the unit disembarks.

No, as they wouldn't have LOS. But the doors on the model being open or not has no bearing on whether or not the vehicle is open topped. There is no requirement in the rules to leave the doors closed until the unit disembarks.

Yeah, I can see that. Good thing this is a BT thing only.
I could see some Nasty Droppod armys if it was like this for all Codecs.

Actually, on consideration, there would be nothing stopping the unit inside the put from shooting, as LOS on an open topped transport is just taken from any point on the transport. It's just the pod's own weapon that can't draw LOS with the doors up...

Again, not advocating that people actually should play this way, because it's absurd... Just pointing out where the current rules mess leaves us, by RAW.

 kinratha wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 kinratha wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod? after all they are a presser Sealed transport dropped from Space.
I understand this is a Black Templar thing only but still, I wouldn't let my opponent shoot.

The idea is to stay in a turn and then assault the second turn.

I could be wrong here, but they are still disembarking the second turn, there for they can't assault after disembarking that turn.

You can assault out of an open topped transport I'm pretty sure, unless I'm mistaken. Just not the turn the pod arrives, or does the drop pod rule not allow it on any turn of disembarking?

TBH if someone tried to pull this in a game I'd let it go but I wouldn't be playing them again.

If I was a TO (and HIWPI) standard DP rules - must disembark, nobody can embark.

Common sense for the win. I doubt most TOs would allow it. If they did I'd be suspicious.

 vossyvo wrote:
You can assault out of an open topped transport I'm pretty sure, unless I'm mistaken. Just not the turn the pod arrives, or does the drop pod rule not allow it on any turn of disembarking?.

The Drop Pod Assault rules just forbid assaulting on the turn they arrive.

But you CAN assault out of an open topped vehicle. and out of any vehicle that didnt move in the previous turn.

But I dont understand why people are saying this rule is so absurd. Every edition change there are crazy new rules and crazy changes that people may say are absurd. Why is it so outlandish to play RAW?

Honestly is staying in a drop pod for one turn that broken? The black templar are outdated, yes. They pay a lot for a lot of things and have some really weird crazy rules. So you are forcing me to play with those older rules, but if it looks like there is one weird rule that would actually benefit the black templar it is now crazy and not allowed?

I guess the ruling baffles me. If a FAQ WASNT released after 6th edition came out, I would agree that the drop pod should play just like a BA drop pod. But the fact is there WAS a FAQ. A lot of things were updated. The LR and LRC becoming an assault vehicle for example. They fixed that. If they chose not to fix this drop pod issue. There is nowhere in the codex or the FAQ that says I must disembark after deep striking. Therefore I treat this vehicle just like any other vehicle and can use it to maintain safety.

Um, you can't assault.out of "any vehicle" anymore. And no one is saying your drop pod trick is broken, it's just cheesy as hell and too argumentative to try in a game.

Page 82 of the BRB
"Acting as an ideal attack platform, all Open-topped Transports are Assault Vehicles."

And my point is that it seems so obvious that it's RAW that I'm confused why people are arguing against it.

 Icculus wrote:
I guess the ruling baffles me. If a FAQ WASNT released after 6th edition came out, I would agree that the drop pod should play just like a BA drop pod. But the fact is there WAS a FAQ. A lot of things were updated. The LR and LRC becoming an assault vehicle for example. They fixed that. If they chose not to fix this drop pod issue. There is nowhere in the codex or the FAQ that says I must disembark after deep striking. Therefore I treat this vehicle just like any other vehicle and can use it to maintain safety.

The issue that most people have with it is simply that it doesn't make any sense for one Chapter to be able to remain in their pods when everyone else can't without there being some sort of explanation provided as to why this would be the case.

That, coupled with the fact that the FAQ simply replaced the Drop Pod assault entry whole-sale, and so also inadvertantly chopped out the reference to who can actually use it, leads people to believe that it was just a poorly thought out entry rather than a deliberate change.

If you can come up with a convincing reason that a Chapter reknowned for impetuous assaults would plummet into battle in their drop pods and then hang around inside and have a cuppa and smoke before charging out into battle when everyone else who uses drop pods is piling out before the ramps hit the ground, you might change some minds...

Tactical_Genius wrote:
^^^^ 46% of people didn't read the thread and don't own the Black Templars codex / couldn't be bothered to look at the FAQ.

If someone is pulling that BS with me, I will pack up my things and go.
In a real game I couldn't care less about these RAW vs common sense-cases, especially not in a game so badly written as WH40K.

I really think that his attitude is ruining this forum, all this acting as if RAW is some Holy Grail.
I've seen people here who actually came to ask a question because they needed help and it got followed with a 13-page philosophical discussion about some crap-rule.
End-result: The person still didn't get any help, it was all about four people bitching and bickering for pages in a row.

Icculus wrote:But you CAN assault out of an open topped vehicle. and out of any vehicle that didnt move in the previous turn.

The bolded is incorrect.

And my problem with it is that it doesn't make sense. At all. Given the fluff of a pod and the fact that of all the chapters BT are the only "special" ones with absolutely zero justification given... Just doesn't pass the test.

Kangodo wrote:
I've seen people here who actually came to ask a question because they needed help and it got followed with a 13-page philosophical discussion about some crap-rule.
End-result: The person still didn't get any help, it was all about four people bitching and bickering for pages in a row.

The thing is, in those sorts of situations, what generally happens is that either the question is answered in the first few posts, and then the thread turns into a prolonged discussions of the exact RAW (in which case the person did get the help they wanted, and can follow the ensuing discussion, or not, as suits them) or the question asked is a legitimate rules issue, in which case the ensuing discussion is the help they need, to show how the rule is an area needing discussion, and so they are aware of the various arguments around it.

YMDC isn't solely concerned with RAW. But where the RAW is in question, discussing that question is kind of important.

Yeah, and it's fun to go back and forth on these things. I never forget something if somebody openly proves me wrong about it.

RAW: They aren't forced to disembark and, if I remember my rules correctly, can't as the drop pod is moving at cruising speed.
HIWPI: Talk it over with BT players and reach a decision to either play it per RAW or according to normal drop pod rules, then abide by that decision until the Codex changes/an FAQ addresses the matter.

RAW: there are no access.points on a Black Templars drop pod, so you may never disembark.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
RAW: there are no access.points on a Black Templars drop pod, so you may never disembark.

Drop Pods are open-topped.

If you follow RAW then yes they can stay in. The FAQ's did a lot to make it cover up the possibilities of breaking it up; in the book under the transport section it doesn't say anyone can take a drop pod but in the FAQ's they fixed it. Honestly I would never do it because it feels cheesy (maybe in a tournament not a friendly). Worst case scenario you have to follow the BRB's "most important rule". In a tourney I think unless the TO has a special thing against it he would have to accept it as RAW.

If this wasn't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Seriously the rules lawyering can go a bit to far, if you honestly think this is intended game design good for you, but I think I'll play with someone else.

Spartak wrote:
If this wasn't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Seriously the rules lawyering can go a bit to far, if you honestly think this is intended game design good for you, but I think I'll play with someone else.

Now watch it, that kind of talk can get you suspended from these forums. Rules lawyering is the number 1 pastime of Warhammer players, next to mathammering and complaining about prices.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
If this wasn't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Seriously the rules lawyering can go a bit to far, if you honestly think this is intended game design good for you, but I think I'll play with someone else.

Now watch it, that kind of talk can get you suspended from these forums. Rules lawyering is the number 1 pastime of Warhammer players, next to mathammering and complaining about prices.

lol, your 100% right, I apologize

Spartak wrote:
If this wasn't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Seriously the rules lawyering can go a bit to far, if you honestly think this is intended game design good for you, but I think I'll play with someone else.

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

There has been one person in this thread saying that they would actually play this way. Regardless of the results of the poll (which due to the vagueness of the original post will be larglely reflecting RAW rather than how people will play), from my experience the vast majority of players accept that this is an unintentional oversight. The discussion here is just a curio, ultimately.

If it were just about discussing ideas it would be one thing, but it's not. People read these threads and take what they have read to the table. They use these RAW arguments to annoy veterans and take advantage of newcomers, I honestly think this type of lawyering is toxic to the game. It drives would be hobbyists away. That’s not just supposition, I've seen it firsthand. I'm sorry if I come across as harsh and I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone. My opinion is still the same, I just need to watch how I come across I guess.

Spartak wrote:
If it were just about discussing ideas it would be one thing, but it's not. People read these threads and take what they have read to the table. They use these RAW arguments to annoy veterans and take advantage of newcomers,

The thing is, this is also exactly why these threads need to exist...

We get an awful lot of threads in YMDC that start out with an inexperienced player who had something strange happen in a game, and they want to check if it's legit for the next time it comes up. Making sure that there is full and frank discussion of those areas of the game where the rules get a little screwy benefits everyone... in part because the more these issues get discussed, the more people become aware of them, and also because the more these issues get discussed, the more chance there is of GW taking notice (because regardless of the publicly-stated company opinion on forums, the studio guys do lurk around on the internet) and actually fixing these little bits of silliness.


People leaving the game because of dodgy rules aren't leaving because of discussion on forums. They're leaving because the rules are shoddy. DIscussion is the best weapon against shoddy rules, since it promotes better understanding of them.

I agree, which is why I said what I did. I believe, and no offense intended, that the assertion being made about the BT drop pods is ridiculous. I just regret the way I said it. My problem with the discussion is not that it's happening, it's that the absurdity is not being pointed out for what it is. We all know the rules can be poorly written at times, but there is difference, I think, in discussing how a rule should be interpreted and deliberately trying to twist the rules using RAW as your excuse. There is undoubtedly a place for RAW/YMDC discussions, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

This is madness. I understand most agument about RAW vs Rules as intended, But this I just dont understand. How could you posibly think that this isnt just an oversight? There are no presidents in the game..... There is no way that you can stay in the drop pod. I will comb through all the rules later and see if I can come up with anything... But still this is just crazy. This is one of those things that GW didnt FAQ because they figured no one would be dumb enough to argue it this way. I guess thats just GW thinking more of us then we really are... which is strange considering GW seems to hate their player base and think are all tards...

BigGreen wrote:
This is madness. I understand most agument about RAW vs Rules as intended, But this I just dont understand. How could you posibly think that this isnt just an oversight? There are no presidents in the game..... There is no way that you can stay in the drop pod. I will comb through all the rules later and see if I can come up with anything... But still this is just crazy. This is one of those things that GW didnt FAQ because they figured no one would be dumb enough to argue it this way. I guess thats just GW thinking more of us then we really are... which is strange considering GW seems to hate their player base and think are all tards...

Thank God, I was starting to feel loanly...

Madness?!?! THIS IS SPARTA!

 insaniak wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I guess the ruling baffles me. If a FAQ WASNT released after 6th edition came out, I would agree that the drop pod should play just like a BA drop pod. But the fact is there WAS a FAQ. A lot of things were updated. The LR and LRC becoming an assault vehicle for example. They fixed that. If they chose not to fix this drop pod issue. There is nowhere in the codex or the FAQ that says I must disembark after deep striking. Therefore I treat this vehicle just like any other vehicle and can use it to maintain safety.

The issue that most people have with it is simply that it doesn't make any sense for one Chapter to be able to remain in their pods when everyone else can't without there being some sort of explanation provided as to why this would be the case.

That, coupled with the fact that the FAQ simply replaced the Drop Pod assault entry whole-sale, and so also inadvertently chopped out the reference to who can actually use it, leads people to believe that it was just a poorly thought out entry rather than a deliberate change.

If you can come up with a convincing reason that a Chapter renowned for impetuous assaults would plummet into battle in their drop pods and then hang around inside and have a cuppa and smoke before charging out into battle when everyone else who uses drop pods is piling out before the ramps hit the ground, you might change some minds...

I think this is the best response as to why it should not be allowed that they stay in.

And I am fairly new to this game and to black templar, but I have been playing board games and RPGs for years. I am usually the DM in the RPGs, and am usually the one to buy a new board game and decipher the rules and explain it to my group of friends. So I am not new to reading and understanding rules. So I suppose my argument stems from "each codex is its own rulebook and should be followed as such"

Whereas the counter argument stems in to the background of the 40k universe and how these space marine chapters use the same sort of equipment and that a drop pod is still a drop pod no matter what army uses it.

Now I really like this viewpoint because in this game it seems that with some people, if you can come up with great fluff to back it up, they will sometimes let it fly. So you are saying that if I can come up with a convincing reason (fluffwise, not rules wise) that this chapter would have a different strategy, then you may allow this rule to take affect. Thats awesome.

Before anybody may disembark from their drop pod, they must recite a litany to the emperor. A final prayer is said before they join the fray. This prater pumps them up enough to be able to exit the pod in a headlong charge at the enemy.

Alternative explanation. Black Templar favor drop pod tactics and use them quite a bit. They have rigged their drop pods to be more sturdy to provide a more tactical use. They found that drop pods are not always dropped in an exact location and have changed the doors to be opened on command instead of blowing off immediately. This change was made because of the many battles where a pod was dropped in a wrong position only to expose its contents to fortified gunlines before the marines could make a tactical response. Now they are able to land, scout their surroundings and link up with the ground force communications to join in a unified assault on the enemy. This change was heavily supported as a tactical advantage amongst the Black Templar who prefer to strike with vengeance at the enemy and this ensures that their strike will be felt where and when it hurts the most.

After all these are black templar, sure they have righteous zeal and are a bit fanatical about killing, (a bit?! could be an understatement) but they arent blood thirsty barbarians. They are still astartes. They still have tactics and can use strategy.

What I don't get is how it could possibly be "rules lawyering" to play like this. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to disembark, so you don't have to. That's not bending or breaking any rule(s). I understand that it's probably an oversight and that it's not intended yadda yadda, but it can't possibly be rules lawyering to follow the rules when the only thing that's speaking against it is that it's traditionally not done that way.

For example, arguing that models without eyes can't fire because they can't draw LoS is rules-lawyering because it breaks the game. Arguing that you don't have to disembark from a transport doesn't break the game at all. One is following the rules in absurdum, the other is just following the rules for every other transport vehicle.

TL;DR: It's not "rules-lawyering" just because you disagree with it.

EDIT: Fluff-wise Drop Pod Assaults are the preferred mode of attack for the Templars.

Oh, and I don't see where they chopped off the part about who can take the drop pod. That part is still in there and wasn't replaced by errata.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What I don't get is how it could possibly be "rules lawyering" to play like this. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to disembark, so you don't have to. That's not bending or breaking any rule(s). I understand that it's probably an oversight and that it's not intended yadda yadda, but it can't possibly be rules lawyering to follow the rules when the only thing that's speaking against it is that it's traditionally not done that way.

For example, arguing that models without eyes can't fire because they can't draw LoS is rules-lawyering because it breaks the game. Arguing that you don't have to disembark from a transport doesn't break the game at all. One is following the rules in absurdum, the other is just following the rules for every other transport vehicle.

TL;DR: It's not "rules-lawyering" just because you disagree with it.

"What I don't get is how it could possibly be "rules lawyering" to play like this. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to disembark, so you don't have to."

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

LOL, you are now lawyering about my lawyering your rule lawyering. this is EPIC



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spartak wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

LOL, you are now lawyering about my lawyering your rule lawyering. this is EPIC

I did read what you said. Just because the rules do not prohibit something does not automatically mean they allow it. And no they DO NOT say you can.

furthermore:

Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? No, because the rules specifically say you do not have to move all the models in a unit. P10
Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? No, the rules specifically state that a player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers P13
Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering No, maybe you have rapid fire wep and firing would preclude you from charging (just one example) P52

Spartak wrote:
Just because the rules do not prohibit something does not automatically mean they allow it. And no they DO NOT say you can.

Except the rules do say you can in this circumstance.

You are allowed to embark on your DT.

Nothing tells you that you must disembark upon landing.

Therefore you do not have to disembark upon landing.

100% RAW.

Have you read the whole thread? Sigh... I feel like we just went full circle here.

Spartak wrote:
Have you read the whole thread? Sigh... I feel like we just went full circle here.

Of course I have.

Your claim that "no they DO NOT say you can." is 100% false.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spartak wrote:
Have you read the whole thread? Sigh... I feel like we just went full circle here.

Of course I have.

Your claim that "no they DO NOT say you can." is 100% false.

The rules specificly say "thou shalt stay in the drop pod after it deploys if thine desires" ? No, they dont.

Is that in and of itself a reason to say you cant ? No, its also not a reason to say you can tho.

My whole point is that its clear to "reasonable" people that this loop hole is not intentional and trying to say it is, is rules lawyering.

Spartak wrote:
I agree, which is why I said what I did. I believe, and no offense intended, that the assertion being made about the BT drop pods is ridiculous. I just regret the way I said it. My problem with the discussion is not that it's happening, it's that the absurdity is not being pointed out for what it is. We all know the rules can be poorly written at times, but there is difference, I think, in discussing how a rule should be interpreted and deliberately trying to twist the rules using RAW as your excuse. There is undoubtedly a place for RAW/YMDC discussions, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

You do realise that I've pointed out several times over the course of this thread (including in my first post back on page one) that this is a situation where the most players readily acknowledge that the RAW is not what was intended?

You're tilting at windmills here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Icculus wrote:
Oh, and I don't see where they chopped off the part about who can take the drop pod. That part is still in there and wasn't replaced by errata.

The list of who can take a drop pod is in the 2nd paragraph of the Drop Pod Assault section. The errata in the FAQ replaces the entire Drop Pod Assault section.

So, really, the whole issue is moot, since currently nobody actually has the ability to take a drop pod in the Black Templar codex...

BigGreen wrote:
...There are no presidents in the game.....

But there is an Emperor.

 insaniak wrote:

Spartak wrote:
I agree, which is why I said what I did. I believe, and no offense intended, that the assertion being made about the BT drop pods is ridiculous. I just regret the way I said it. My problem with the discussion is not that it's happening, it's that the absurdity is not being pointed out for what it is. We all know the rules can be poorly written at times, but there is difference, I think, in discussing how a rule should be interpreted and deliberately trying to twist the rules using RAW as your excuse. There is undoubtedly a place for RAW/YMDC discussions, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

You do realise that I've pointed out several times over the course of this thread (including in my first post back on page one) that this is a situation where the most players readily acknowledge that the RAW is not what was intended?

You're tilting at windmills here.

Yes I realize you have pointed it out, you seem to be under the misapprehension that my argument is with you, it is not. There are several others who have been very adamant that the RAW is legitimate, I maintain it is not. Windmills? I see only giants.

 insaniak wrote:

The list of who can take a drop pod is in the 2nd paragraph of the Drop Pod Assault section. The errata in the FAQ replaces the entire Drop Pod Assault section.

So, really, the whole issue is moot, since currently nobody actually has the ability to take a drop pod in the Black Templar codex...

Not to be that guy, but read the FAQ. Seriously.

Spartak wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

LOL, you are now lawyering about my lawyering your rule lawyering. this is EPIC

Right, I think we're done here. If you don't agree you're lawyering.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The list of who can take a drop pod is in the 2nd paragraph of the Drop Pod Assault section. The errata in the FAQ replaces the entire Drop Pod Assault section.

So, really, the whole issue is moot, since currently nobody actually has the ability to take a drop pod in the Black Templar codex...

Not to be that guy, but read the FAQ. Seriously.

Spartak wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

LOL, you are now lawyering about my lawyering your rule lawyering. this is EPIC

Right, I think we're done here. If you don't agree you're lawyering.

I thought it was funny...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not to be that guy, but read the FAQ. Seriously.

In the interests of not being 'that guy', pointing out what you were talking about would have been a more useful response.

So yes, they appear to have edited some of the unit Transport entries to actually include the Drop Pod now. I had apparently forgotten that...Some of us don't have young people memories any more.

I voted 1 I agree with basically everything insaniac has said (except about no one being able to take a pod in the BT codex). This is another case of RaW breaking, this though is more of an oversight though than just poor RaW like the Ghostark or LoS through eyes...

As for the fluff justifications I think Insaniac was asking you to point to some fluff that supported the notion not just create it. We can all create fluff to justify anything. Is there any fluff about the BTs getting out of DPs in a different manner to other chapters? I'm guessing not.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I voted 1 I agree with basically everything insaniac has said (except about no one being able to take a pod in the BT codex). This is another case of RaW breaking, this though is more of an oversight though than just poor RaW like the Ghostark or LoS through eyes...

As for the fluff justifications I think Insaniac was asking you to point to some fluff that supported the notion not just create it. We can all create fluff to justify anything. Is there any fluff about the BTs getting out of DPs in a different manner to other chapters? I'm guessing not.

I don't think you understand. If you agree with Insaniak, then surely option 3 is the choice you want? Option 1 means you think the RAW says they can stay inside. Option 3 means you acknowledge that the RAW says they can, but you would not allow it.

No I think the rules are they can't stay inside. RaW they can, both 1 & 3 are basically the same thing. I presumed they were posted in an attempt to split the no vote so yes would have a stronger look so went with what I thought would be the more common No answer.

 FlingitNow wrote:
No I think the rules are they can't stay inside. RaW they can

That's a contradiction. You just said "I think the rules are they can't, but the rules say they can"
RAW = the rules
I don't understand why you make a distinction.

Tactical Genius - dont engage Fling on that topic, especially when Fling has been repeatedly told to stop using it.

Essentially Fling appears to think that "the rules" are NOT contained in the Rulebook, in the section entitled "THE RULES", but are instead a construct in the minds of the developers. As such, what they put down on paper may not be "the rules" as they intended them to be.

In essence it is a way of trying to argue RAI without actually stating so.

That's a contradiction. You just said "I think the rules are they can't, but the rules say they can"
RAW = the rules
I don't understand why you make a distinction

Because I don't think that RaW=RaI as you assert and many FAQs support this belief.

Nos is essentially correct I don't believe inanimate objects are capable of thought I instead believe that the GW design team created the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

That's a contradiction. You just said "I think the rules are they can't, but the rules say they can"
RAW = the rules
I don't understand why you make a distinction

Because I don't think that RaW=RaI as you assert and many FAQs support this belief.

Nos is essentially correct I don't believe inanimate objects are capable of thought I instead believe that the GW design team created the rules.

But the poll wasn't asking you for your opinion (unless you chose option 3). Options one and two are a vote on what the rules say. You cannot possibly claim to know what the designers intend, unless you are one, which I doubt.
I would also like to point out that I do not "assert" the RAW to equate to the RAI. If you want my opinion, I DO think it's an oversight. However, playing by what the rules say is not something which should be discouraged, unless it is something which breaks the game (see the ghost ark thread for details). So please, excuse me for playing by the rules.

I'ts an obvious oversight. What special rule or ability would allow them to stay in the drop-pod, beyond the rule writer's inconsistency? What is different about their drop-pods? What rule can be sited to show they CAN stay in the pod, when all other armies cannot and it is clearly stated they cannot?

Personally if an opponent tried to run this 'RAW', they'd be TFG for me :p.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spartak wrote:

BigGreen wrote:
This is madness. I understand most agument about RAW vs Rules as intended, But this I just dont understand. How could you posibly think that this isnt just an oversight? There are no presidents in the game..... There is no way that you can stay in the drop pod. I will comb through all the rules later and see if I can come up with anything... But still this is just crazy. This is one of those things that GW didnt FAQ because they figured no one would be dumb enough to argue it this way. I guess thats just GW thinking more of us then we really are... which is strange considering GW seems to hate their player base and think are all tards...

Thank God, I was starting to feel loanly...

Madness?!?! THIS IS SPARTA!

You're not alone! I also agree with the take above.

Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes. Which is exactly what option 1 says. Hence I picked that option.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

It does not say that you can. There is no special rule granting BT an exception to the general rules and behaviours for a drop-pod. It's just sloppily written and didn't get updated correctly (this could also be seen as a 'lawyering' interpretation granted).

It's difficult because the BRB says that codexes take precedence. So you're fully within your rights to make the argument here, in theory. You'd piss a lot of people off in actual games though, because whilst both interpretations can be seen as correct, yours is based on a very specific lack of a singular piece of information, whilst ours is contained with a context of many other codexes and the rulebook itself.

I personally wouldn't have a stupid fight about it table-side or similiar, but it's a strange interpretation to take (and one taken entirely for game advantage, i.e. contrived).

Black templar codex:

Page 22. under space marine special rules

Drop pod assault

right column, second paragraph down:

"Once the drop pod has landed the hatches are blown and all passengers must disembark. The passengers may not move (ecept to disembark) or assault in the turn they arrive"

Case closed?

DOOMONYOU wrote:
Black templar codex:

Page 22. under space marine special rules

Drop pod assault

right column, second paragraph down:

"Once the drop pod has landed the hatches are blown and all passengers must disembark. The passengers may not move (ecept to disembark) or assault in the turn they arrive"

Case closed?

Read the thread.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

I thought YMDC should always be considered RAW unless stated otherwise? And in this case there is only one RAW answer. Any claims to the contrary had better back it up with a page number.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes.

Citation needed.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

What the rule "seems to be" should have no bearing in non-HYWPI arguments. While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is the RAW does not.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

Please explain, here or PM, how exactly I seem "confused". I know how language works, and I know how made the rules. But who made the rules has no bearing on how to interpret them. They could have been made by juvenile aliens from Titan for all I care. The point is the rules say what they say, not what you think they're supposed to say.

DOOMONYOU wrote:
Black templar codex:

Page 22. under space marine special rules

Drop pod assault

right column, second paragraph down:

"Once the drop pod has landed the hatches are blown and all passengers must disembark. The passengers may not move (ecept to disembark) or assault in the turn they arrive"

Case closed?

BT FAQ wrote:Page 22 – Drop Pod Assault.
Replace this entry with the following rules:
“Drop Pod Assault: Drop Pods must enter play using the Deep
Strike rules. At the beginning of your first turn, choose half of
your Drop Pods (rounding up) to make a ‘Drop Pod Assault’.
Units making a Drop Pod Assault arrive on their controlling
player’s first turn. The arrival of the remaining Drop Pods is
rolled for as normal. A unit that Deep Strikes via Drop Pod
cannot charge in the turn it arrives.

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 that cannot be repaired in any
way.

Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of
impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe) then
reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order
to avoid the obstacle. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the
edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike Mishap as
per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.”

So no, the rules from the rulebook have been replaced and the sentence you quoted doesn't exist anymore.

Tactical let's not derail the thread. The forum is for discussing the rules using the rulebook and codexes as evidence. This does not mean you are limited to discussing the most literal interpretation of the written language or that if you are not discussing the most literal interpretation you are automatically discussing HYWPI...

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

I thought YMDC should always be considered RAW unless stated otherwise? And in this case there is only one RAW answer. Any claims to the contrary had better back it up with a page number.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes.

Citation needed.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

What the rule "seems to be" should have no bearing in non-HYWPI arguments. While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is the RAW does not.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

Please explain, here or PM, how exactly I seem "confused". I know how language works, and I know how made the rules. But who made the rules has no bearing on how to interpret them. They could have been made by juvenile aliens from Titan for all I care. The point is the rules say what they say, not what you think they're supposed to say.

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

 Tehjonny wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

I thought YMDC should always be considered RAW unless stated otherwise? And in this case there is only one RAW answer. Any claims to the contrary had better back it up with a page number.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes.

Citation needed.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

What the rule "seems to be" should have no bearing in non-HYWPI arguments. While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is the RAW does not.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

Please explain, here or PM, how exactly I seem "confused". I know how language works, and I know how made the rules. But who made the rules has no bearing on how to interpret them. They could have been made by juvenile aliens from Titan for all I care. The point is the rules say what they say, not what you think they're supposed to say.

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

Well generally when you play a game you must follow the rules given. Are you saying that a Black Templars player requires books other than his own codex and the BRB to play? Where does the codex tell me to reference other books? It doesn't, so I use the rules presented in the codex.

 Tehjonny wrote:
So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'?

Since every codex that can has the Drop Pod Assault rules spelled out in their codex, no - there's no "General Rules" for a drop pod assault.

Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

The BT FAQ, Errata section where it replaces the rules on page 22.

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

They do have different rules. That's trivial to demonstrate.
But yes, I think GW made a mistake and left a sentence out.

So people are looking for it to say somewhere in the rulebook that Black Templar dont have to get out of their drop pod.

The thing is drop pods are dedicated transports. They are open topped vehicles and are immovable and have the deep strike rule. If I follow all of the rules for a vehicle, I don't have to disembark. It's the same as if it were a deep striking rhino that was immovable. I could stay inside.

The reason people think you HAVE to disembark is because of drop pods from other space marine chapters. But each book is it's own codex, with it's own rules.

I could say that I should not have to pay so much for space marine bikes because they are cheaper in another space marine codex, they just forgot to update that in the FAQ. That is speculation. I'm speculating what RAI would have been.

The same is true for this drop pod situation. You are speculating that they "forgot" to change it.

If I were to rules lawyer this, your case would not hold up in court without expert testimony from GW admitting an error. In which case they could be liable for damages and mental anguish.


On another note, this all may be for nothing as the new space marine codex will probably have new black templar rules in it and change everything in a couple months, haha.

 Icculus wrote:
The same is true for this drop pod situation. You are speculating that they "forgot" to change it.

If I were to rules lawyer this, your case would not hold up in court.

Yes, it's speculation. It's supported by the fluff for a Drop Pod and that there's nothing supporting marines just saying inside, in addition to the precedent set by literally every other drop pod codex.

The rules are clear. Just like the rules are crystal clear that Wraith units cannot ever fire a weapon or assault.

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

An easy counter if someone did use this would be to surround their drop pod with infantry.

The drop pods bolter cant see because the doors are shut and the pod doesn't have any fire points per the Codex stating it doesn't.

If they can't disembark then they are stuck in their all game, can't score = win for opponent

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

I thought YMDC should always be considered RAW unless stated otherwise? And in this case there is only one RAW answer. Any claims to the contrary had better back it up with a page number.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes.

Citation needed.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

What the rule "seems to be" should have no bearing in non-HYWPI arguments. While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is the RAW does not.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

Please explain, here or PM, how exactly I seem "confused". I know how language works, and I know how made the rules. But who made the rules has no bearing on how to interpret them. They could have been made by juvenile aliens from Titan for all I care. The point is the rules say what they say, not what you think they're supposed to say.

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

Well generally when you play a game you must follow the rules given. Are you saying that a Black Templars player requires books other than his own codex and the BRB to play? Where does the codex tell me to reference other books? It doesn't, so I use the rules presented in the codex.

You mean the rules as presented in a poorly written errata. Fair enough, don't expect many of your opponents to accept your argument is all I would say. It's painfully obvious it's an error on GK's part and nothing more, and that you're gaming for advantage.

DOOMONYOU wrote:
An easy counter if someone did use this would be to surround their drop pod with infantry.

The drop pods bolter cant see because the doors are shut and the pod doesn't have any fire points per the Codex stating it doesn't.

If they can't disembark then they are stuck in their all game, can't score = win for opponent

I dont know how often this has been stated in this thread but......the drop pod is open-topped


EDIT:

Gaming for advantage? We are playing Black Templar. You call that gaming for advantage?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

The rules for 'Drop Pod Assault'.

I'm not in a position to cite currently. I don't need to cite at the end of the day. You're taking the absence of words to mean the opposite of the absence. It's stupid.

No-where in the rulebook does it say I cannot pickup my models and throw them at my opponent at the conclusion of any given assault phase. As such I can. Do you see how stupid that method of interpretation is? If it isn't said, it isn't said.

No-where does it say they have special rules in regards to drop-pod disembarkation. So they don't. You would need a special rule defining your ability to stay in the pod, rather than taking the absence of words as an implied special rule.

 Tehjonny wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

The rules for 'Drop Pod Assault'.

I'm not in a position to cite currently. I don't need to cite at the end of the day. You're taking the absence of words to mean the opposite of the absence. It's stupid.

No-where in the rulebook does it say I cannot pickup my models and throw them at my opponent at the conclusion of any given assault phase. As such I can. Do you see how stupid that method of interpretation is? If it isn't said, it isn't said.

No-where does it say they have special rules in regards to drop-pod disembarkation. So they don't. You would need a special rule defining your ability to stay in the pod, rather than taking the absence of words as an implied special rule.

That's not the argument. The rule for drop pods are just like any other vehicle!

People think you have to disembark because there is a sentence in other books that says "you must disembark." Without that sentence they are treated as any other vehicle.

This discussion comes down to this.

If you are playing RAW, BT can stay in the drop pod.

If you are playing speculation, and assume a mistake is made, then you could argue that it was an oversight and an agreement could be made to ignore this ruling and play Rules As Speculated. I am hesitant to say intended because we don't know the true intentions.

DOOMONYOU wrote:
The drop pods bolter cant see because the doors are shut and the pod doesn't have any fire points per the Codex stating it doesn't.

You should re-read the rules for Open Topped.

The drop pod bolters would not be able to fire, but everyone inside can fire.

 Tehjonny wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

The rules for 'Drop Pod Assault'.

Which are located where? Oh, in the BT codex. The one that has been errataed. The one that says absolutely nothing about disembarking.

How is it open topped if the doors are shut?

If someone actually tried to play it that the Templars could stay on board and then shoot their guns through the doors that are closed...well those kind of people just aren't worth playing against. They're the same type of people that exploit glitches in video games.

Because the Drop Pod rules say it's open topped?

And why do the doors have to stay shut?

Well here's another thing. The doors could still be open, and they could still be embarked on it.

So the drop pod lands, doors open and then....the templars sit in their seats for a while?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

The rules for 'Drop Pod Assault'.

Which are located where? Oh, in the BT codex. The one that has been errataed. The one that says absolutely nothing about disembarking.

So a game that defines the embarkation and disembarkation procedures for both vehicles generally, with some specific additions (all of which are clearly defined), doesn't bother to define the rules for disembarking for a specific armies drop pod.

It also does not define why the pod is any different (e.g., it doesn't, the pod is the same). You have 2 choices. 1) You go on general precedence and the accepted and defined disembarkation RULES for drop-pods, as repeated in several books Or 2) you take the absence of a specific mention in 1 book (as opposed to several that contradict that 1 book...) to mean they don't have to disembark?

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm not going to carry on arguing about it. This is going to make you look a complete tool in games, and that's that.

 shamikebab wrote:
So the drop pod lands, doors open and then....the templars sit in their seats for a while?

Well they shoot their guns and pick their target. Why pile out of cover to get shot at?

 Icculus wrote:
So people are looking for it to say somewhere in the rulebook that Black Templar dont have to get out of their drop pod.

The thing is drop pods are dedicated transports. They are open topped vehicles and are immovable and have the deep strike rule. If I follow all of the rules for a vehicle, I don't have to disembark. It's the same as if it were a deep striking rhino that was immovable. I could stay inside.

The reason people think you HAVE to disembark is because of drop pods from other space marine chapters. But each book is it's own codex, with it's own rules.

I could say that I should not have to pay so much for space marine bikes because they are cheaper in another space marine codex, they just forgot to update that in the FAQ. That is speculation. I'm speculating what RAI would have been.

The same is true for this drop pod situation. You are speculating that they "forgot" to change it.

If I were to rules lawyer this, your case would not hold up in court without expert testimony from GW admitting an error. In which case they could be liable for damages and mental anguish.


On another note, this all may be for nothing as the new space marine codex will probably have new black templar rules in it and change everything in a couple months, haha.

In court you'd simply show that all the other codexes have the SAME 'drop pod assault' rules, and that these form a precedence, and taken as a whole are a greater body of evidence then a singular contradiction. That wouldn't be difficult to argue.

 Icculus wrote:

 shamikebab wrote:
So the drop pod lands, doors open and then....the templars sit in their seats for a while?

Well they shoot their guns and pick their target. Why pile out of cover to get shot at?

because sitting stationary in an immobile vehicle that is open to fire from 360 degrees isn't much cover

 Icculus wrote:

 shamikebab wrote:
So the drop pod lands, doors open and then....the templars sit in their seats for a while?

Well they shoot their guns and pick their target. Why pile out of cover to get shot at?

How would you be getting 'cover'? You'd be inside a vehicle, and so could not be shot at until you disembarked. Aka having your cake and eating it. I'm guessing you'd still take the open-topped rules as standard and so the whole squad can shoot out of their pod-rhino?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey, I've also realised it doesn't say you can't un-deep strike and then re-deepstrike next turn. I guess that means you can?

 Tehjonny wrote:
So a game that defines the embarkation and disembarkation procedures for both vehicles generally, with some specific additions (all of which are clearly defined), doesn't bother to define the rules for disembarking for a specific armies drop pod.

It also does not define why the pod is any different (e.g., it doesn't, the pod is the same). You have 2 choices. 1) You go on general precedence and the accepted and defined disembarkation RULES for drop-pods, as repeated in several books Or 2) you take the absence of a specific mention in 1 book (as opposed to several that contradict that 1 book...) to mean they don't have to disembark?

Vehicles speeds are given and defined. Every Rhino in every Marine book is the same, right?
So why do the Blood Angels get Fast and the others don't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tehjonny wrote:
Hey, I've also realised it doesn't say you can't un-deep strike and then re-deepstrike next turn. I guess that means you can?

That's nothing like what's being discussed and you know it. Don't bother trying to straw man.

rigeld2 wrote:

So why do the Blood Angels get Fast and the others don't?

Because they discovered an STC which they didn't share with the rest of the Imperium?

 shamikebab wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So why do the Blood Angels get Fast and the others don't?

Because they discovered an STC which they didn't share with the rest of the Imperium?

Nope, sorry - no other book allows Rhinos to be fast so that sets a precedent that no Rhino can be fast.


See the issue with trying to apply "precedent"?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:
So a game that defines the embarkation and disembarkation procedures for both vehicles generally, with some specific additions (all of which are clearly defined), doesn't bother to define the rules for disembarking for a specific armies drop pod.

It also does not define why the pod is any different (e.g., it doesn't, the pod is the same). You have 2 choices. 1) You go on general precedence and the accepted and defined disembarkation RULES for drop-pods, as repeated in several books Or 2) you take the absence of a specific mention in 1 book (as opposed to several that contradict that 1 book...) to mean they don't have to disembark?

Vehicles speeds are given and defined. Every Rhino in every Marine book is the same, right?
So why do the Blood Angels get Fast and the others don't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tehjonny wrote:
Hey, I've also realised it doesn't say you can't un-deep strike and then re-deepstrike next turn. I guess that means you can?

That's nothing like what's being discussed and you know it. Don't bother trying to straw man.

On a similar note, why does the Vanilla Drop Pod have 12 capacity? CLEARLY there's precedent in other books...

And for the record, BT Drop Pods don't cost the same as others, so they're different anyway.

Except that book has a clear explanation for why. What's the reason for Templars being treated differently for drop pods?

And just so we're clear, this is a theoretical discussion, we can't know what the writers intend. At the moment it is 100% clear that the rule is Templars don't have to disembark. However IMO it is 99% clear that this is a mistake on GW's part rather than actual intent and anyone who tried to use it in a battle would be guilty of rules lawyering.

 Tehjonny wrote:

Hey, I've also realised it doesn't say you can't un-deep strike and then re-deepstrike next turn. I guess that means you can?

People have repeatedly proven what the rules as written are. Accept that RAW they can stay inside.
Your argument is null and void since its not even remotely the same.

We have a vehicle. That vehicle is a transport and open topped. Also it has deepstrike and a special rule that allows it to come in from reserves in turn1.
That is the black templar drop pod.

There we have another vehicle. Its a transport and open topped. Also it has deepstrike and a special rule that allows it to come in from reserves in turn1 and its rules additionaly state that its members have to disembark after landing.
That is a Space Marine Drop pod.

Theres no different interpretation.

You are constantly arguing HIWPI and RAI so please mark them as such.

I could simply argue that GW was streamlining USR to be contained in the main rulebook. They didnt do that with drop pod assault. So i argue they intentionally didnt do that because they wanted BT Drop Pods to function differently.

 Tehjonny wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm not going to carry on arguing about it. This is going to make you look a complete tool in games, and that's that.

The opinion is playing any other way than RAW. Rules as speculated would be opinion based. I am playing based on written documents. Both old written documents and updated written documents. Let's face it though. the BT codex is old. It needs more attention. Some rules are lame, some costs are overpriced, and this one, a little difference is not game changing, but it is a result of the old rules. If I am going to play black templar, I will suffer for all of the inadequacies as well as benefits. Overall this ruling is not overpowered or broken, but is instead a side effect of older vs new rules.

Am I going to sweep the tournaments and become grand champion with this list? not by any means. but in a game where rules have an effect and are to be abided by, then they should be. I also understand that houserules and friendly games people may agree to certain stipulations and variations. That's fine.

Of course it's most likely a mistake. The reason for Templars being treaded differently for Drop Pods is the same as for Vanilla Drop Pods having 12 slots: it's in the rules.

EDIT: And just to make the point clear, once again, since http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/544499.page proves that Tehjonny still hasn't understood:

You're allowed to stay embarked in a Transport Vehicle by the Transport Vehicle Rules. We're not arguing that "it doesn't say that we can't, so we can", we're arguing that "it doesn't say that we can't and here is our permission, so we can". You really ought to read what people write.

 shamikebab wrote:
Except that book has a clear explanation for why. What's the reason for Templars being treated differently for drop pods?

And just so we're clear, this is a theoretical discussion, we can't know what the writers intend. At the moment it is 100% clear that the rule is Templars don't have to disembark. However IMO it is 99% clear that this is a mistake on GW's part rather than actual intent and anyone who tried to use it in a battle would be guilty of rules lawyering.

Sure - and I agree with that (that it's pretty obvious that BT are intended to jump out when they come down like everyone else). Not that rules lawyering is inherently bad by the way - and I resent the implication that it is.

That is not what Tehjonny is arguing - he's saying that RAW they have to jump out which is demonstrably incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 shamikebab wrote:
Except that book has a clear explanation for why. What's the reason for Templars being treated differently for drop pods?

And just so we're clear, this is a theoretical discussion, we can't know what the writers intend. At the moment it is 100% clear that the rule is Templars don't have to disembark. However IMO it is 99% clear that this is a mistake on GW's part rather than actual intent and anyone who tried to use it in a battle would be guilty of rules lawyering.

Sure - and I agree with that (that it's pretty obvious that BT are intended to jump out when they come down like everyone else). Not that rules lawyering is inherently bad by the way - and I resent the implication that it is.

That is not what Tehjonny is arguing - he's saying that RAW they have to jump out which is demonstrably incorrect.

Yeah crossed wires I think, I agree he's completely wrong Rules lawyering isn't bad as such, it depends on your player group and what the goal of playing is.

I'm glad it seems to be making sense now. But I am a little saddened at the voting results. Because option 1 would infer that every drop pod would cost the same points and have the same carrying capacity.

rigeld2 wrote:

 shamikebab wrote:
Except that book has a clear explanation for why. What's the reason for Templars being treated differently for drop pods?

And just so we're clear, this is a theoretical discussion, we can't know what the writers intend. At the moment it is 100% clear that the rule is Templars don't have to disembark. However IMO it is 99% clear that this is a mistake on GW's part rather than actual intent and anyone who tried to use it in a battle would be guilty of rules lawyering.

Sure - and I agree with that (that it's pretty obvious that BT are intended to jump out when they come down like everyone else). Not that rules lawyering is inherently bad by the way - and I resent the implication that it is.

That is not what Tehjonny is arguing - he's saying that RAW they have to jump out which is demonstrably incorrect.

Its all down to the intention behind the rules lawyering. Is it as an intellectual exercise and interesting debate then it is fine as long as all those debating understand this. Is it to shed greater light on the rules by understanding fully the implications of what has been written. Then great. If it is to gain an in game advantage you know will go away the minute it is addressed in a FAQ then that is bad. Rules lawyering on YMDC is generally done for the first two reasons rules lawyering done in game is almost exclusivelly the last hence the bad name.

Clearly this rule is not clear, RaW is clear, so you'll have to house rule it. Personally I'd house rule it as they must disembark, but feel free to house rule in your area how you want and how your group agrees it should be played.

Honestly I would like to play with this rule. I think it will really help the black templar assault, as that's what their focus is. I would use it for my initiates to assault from.

but what I wouldnt do is this: drop in a Ven. Dread with las/ML and tank hunters and just leave it in there all game. Because you are adding AV12 3hp and when it does blow up it cant hurt the dread. So you are essentially doubling the HP of a ranged dreadnought and taking away rear armor.

That just seems unfair.

If you do want to do that then discuss it with your group and explain the situation. That way you're not rules lawyering for an advantage and they also know what could happen before hand. Rather than springing this on them turn 1 then claiming RAW allowance and then turn 2 disembarking with in 6" of the ends of the petals and assaulting a unit half way across the board... (all the above would be legal RAW)

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you do want to do that then discuss it with your group and explain the situation. That way you're not rules lawyering for an advantage and they also know what could happen before hand. Rather than springing this on them turn 1 then claiming RAW allowance and then turn 2 disembarking with in 6" of the ends of the petals and assaulting a unit half way across the board... (all the above would be legal RAW)

Now this brings up another question. I was always under the impression that you measured 6" from the Hull of the drop pod, not from the opened doors. I figured the doors were just symbolic and not considered to be the actual hull. Like If I modeled a trukk with the boarding planks sticking out I wouldnt disembark from the boarding planks would I?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

Technically, the BT CANNOT disembark the turn they deepstrike from a pure RAW standpoint. Deepstriking vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed, and the rules only permit you to exit a vehicle that moved at combat speed or less.

Also, while I do not play BT and have never battled a BT player (I started playing with 6th edition), I would be fine with my opponent playing this either way as long as I knew which set was being used, and they were consistent about it .

that's a nasty charge accellerator there... drop in a pod, get out, a unit comes up behind the pod, gets in, next turn gets out ~10" further forward than where they got in( 4" for the pod, 6" disembarking move), charges due to open-topped.

not exactly game-breaking, but probably not intended.

 Icculus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you do want to do that then discuss it with your group and explain the situation. That way you're not rules lawyering for an advantage and they also know what could happen before hand. Rather than springing this on them turn 1 then claiming RAW allowance and then turn 2 disembarking with in 6" of the ends of the petals and assaulting a unit half way across the board... (all the above would be legal RAW)

Now this brings up another question. I was always under the impression that you measured 6" from the Hull of the drop pod, not from the opened doors. I figured the doors were just symbolic and not considered to be the actual hull. Like If I modeled a trukk with the boarding planks sticking out I wouldnt disembark from the boarding planks would I?

Most people don't count the doors as anything and entirely ignore them which is the best solution. RAW you have two ways to treat them:

1) They are part of the Hull as during the dissent they clearly are and thus you deploy within 6" of them and no enemy model can go with 1" of them with out assaulting. They become huge road blocks and assault platforms with ridiculous deployment options to mean scattering is almost irrelevant. However it massively limits where you can DS as you have such a massive foot print.

2) They are not part of the hull. This means it is impossible to assault the vehicle because you can't get a model into base contact with the hull. It also means it is near impossible to get out of them within 6" and not being on the petals as even your own models are impassable terrain. In fact Dreads can't get out at all as their base is too big with you basically forced to deploy in the little triangle sections between the petals...

Obviously both methods are pretty dumb with the 2nd being the dumbest. Though I have heard of people that play the first. Hence people play the doors as not part of the model and just count them as battlefield debris.

 Tehjonny wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

I thought YMDC should always be considered RAW unless stated otherwise? And in this case there is only one RAW answer. Any claims to the contrary had better back it up with a page number.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes.

Citation needed.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

What the rule "seems to be" should have no bearing in non-HYWPI arguments. While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is the RAW does not.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

Please explain, here or PM, how exactly I seem "confused". I know how language works, and I know how made the rules. But who made the rules has no bearing on how to interpret them. They could have been made by juvenile aliens from Titan for all I care. The point is the rules say what they say, not what you think they're supposed to say.

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

Well generally when you play a game you must follow the rules given. Are you saying that a Black Templars player requires books other than his own codex and the BRB to play? Where does the codex tell me to reference other books? It doesn't, so I use the rules presented in the codex.

You mean the rules as presented in a poorly written errata. Fair enough, don't expect many of your opponents to accept your argument is all I would say. It's painfully obvious it's an error on GK's part and nothing more, and that you're gaming for advantage.

The bolded is an assumption. Please don't presume to know me, because, if you did, you would in fact know that I don't even play BT, and I am simply arguing the RAW, as many do in YMDC. I agree it probably is an error, but that doesn't change what the RAW states. Please retract the personal attack.

Banbaji wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

Technically, the BT CANNOT disembark the turn they deepstrike from a pure RAW standpoint. Deepstriking vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed, and the rules only permit you to exit a vehicle that moved at combat speed or less.

Also, while I do not play BT and have never battled a BT player (I started playing with 6th edition), I would be fine with my opponent playing this either way as long as I knew which set was being used, and they were consistent about it .

1. You cannot disembark if you move more than 6". Not if you move at Cruising Speed.
2. DS gives specific allowance for embarked models to disembark, because disembarking is Movement and you normally cannot Move after DSing.

 Happyjew wrote:

Banbaji wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

Technically, the BT CANNOT disembark the turn they deepstrike from a pure RAW standpoint. Deepstriking vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed, and the rules only permit you to exit a vehicle that moved at combat speed or less.

Also, while I do not play BT and have never battled a BT player (I started playing with 6th edition), I would be fine with my opponent playing this either way as long as I knew which set was being used, and they were consistent about it .

1. You cannot disembark if you move more than 6". Not if you move at Cruising Speed.
2. DS gives specific allowance for embarked models to disembark, because disembarking is Movement and you normally cannot Move after DSing.

OK then. That is what I get for posting without my rule book. My apologies.

You should re-read the rules for Open Topped.

I know the rules for open-topped. If you surround them they cannot disembark.

As for shooting out of it the codex states "Fire points: None"

Codex > BRB

DOOMONYOU wrote:

You should re-read the rules for Open Topped.

I know the rules for open-topped. If you surround them they cannot disembark.

As for shooting out of it the codex states "Fire points: None"

Codex > BRB

Only when there is a conflict does Codex trump BRB.

The vehicle does not have any fire points, but it is open topped, and that means models inside can still fire using the rules in the Open topped section.

The vehicle does not have any fire points, but it is open topped, and that means models inside can still fire using the rules in the Open topped section.

OK, I see now. my bad. open topped says no specific fire points.

Still if you keep surrounding it they cannot disembark

I noticed that the BT DP also has PotMS and BS 2 but we aren't arguing that. I say the BT DP is special and can keep its doors closed. That's how all the BT players at our club play it and we have no problem with it. Just like how the tau bomber can't drop any bombs since it doesn't have any.

 A GumyBear wrote:
I say the BT DP is special and can keep its doors closed.

People keep mentioning the doors being closed as if that has anything to do with the models being inside or not.

It doesn't.

If you do go with the current RAW, and allow models to remain in the pod, there is no requirement to keep the doors closed. How you choose to place the pod on the table (doors open or doors closed) makes absolutely no difference to how and when models disembark from it.

 insaniak wrote:

 A GumyBear wrote:
I say the BT DP is special and can keep its doors closed.

People keep mentioning the doors being closed as if that has anything to do with the models being inside or not.

It doesn't.

If you do go with the current RAW, and allow models to remain in the pod, there is no requirement to keep the doors closed. How you choose to place the pod on the table (doors open or doors closed) makes absolutely no difference to how and when models disembark from it.

Ya I know it can stay closed I just said that to mean they can stay inside

 A GumyBear wrote:
I noticed that the BT DP also has PotMS and BS 2 but we aren't arguing that.

Actually. it's BS4 due to the following from the BT Codex:

Q: There is no Black Templars vehicles reference section at the back of
the rulebook. Does this mean I should use the Codex: Space Marines
vehicle reference section instead (meaning my Venerable Dreadnoughts
are now Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 5, for example)?
A: Yes

The FAQ did change PotMS on Drop Pods though. They no longer have it. Just to add to the discussion!

I'll have to talk to my FLGS's TO and see if he'll let BT Drop Pods remain embarked. I feel like it's a really hard concept for people to grasp that a BT drop pod is completely unique. Hence the back and forward there has been the last few days.

I can't believe theres 5 pages of this.

RAW is clear.

If someone tried to pull that against me I'd make a derp face and play someone else.

Saythings wrote:
The FAQ did change PotMS on Drop Pods though. They no longer have it. Just to add to the discussion!

I'll have to talk to my FLGS's TO and see if he'll let BT Drop Pods remain embarked. I feel like it's a really hard concept for people to grasp that a BT drop pod is completely unique. Hence the back and forward there has been the last few days.

It's not hard to grasp that its unique - it's hard to believe that it's intended to be unique in that way.

Gwyidion wrote:
I can't believe theres 5 pages of this.

RAW is clear.

You are correct the RaW is clear.

If someone tried to pull that against me I'd make a derp face and play someone else.

Tried what, to play them like all the other pods?

as you said the RaW is clear.

Ya'll would do well to keep this one in mind I think.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Spartak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spartak wrote:
Have you read the whole thread? Sigh... I feel like we just went full circle here.

Of course I have.

Your claim that "no they DO NOT say you can." is 100% false.

The rules specificly say "thou shalt stay in the drop pod after it deploys if thine desires" ? No, they dont.

Is that in and of itself a reason to say you cant ? No, its also not a reason to say you can tho.

My whole point is that its clear to "reasonable" people that this loop hole is not intentional and trying to say it is, is rules lawyering.

I'll call bs there.
It is NOT rules lawyering, no matter how much you want it to be. If you call a cat a dog, no matter how much you want that cat to be a dog, it is, in reality, still a dog.
It is clearly RAW straight out of the box.
Your opinion of whether or not it is "clear to "reasonable" people" is irrelevant - RAW is RAW, and until they faq the faq, it is what it is.

Am I the only person that would let my opponent play this way?

First off, I honestly think that it fits with the BT fluff, (I play orks and DA myself) If I am a close combat marine, and my drop pod hits, everybody is going to immediately fire upon it, so why wouldn't I stay sheltered, wait for the firing to stop, and then attempt to immediately assault them?

Plus, I would not even consider my opponent as a TFG for trying to pull this. (come on now, they are playing BT in the first place so apparently they are not a cheese player and play for personal preferance as opposed to what army is the best and how can I make them better.)

So to me, even though I do not think this rule is RAI, I still think it fits the BT fluff and would allow it with open arms against me.

Honestly, I think if you are so worried about defeat at the hands of a BT army, that you have to even make a fuss about this ruling in the first place, you are closer to a TFG then the player pulling this.

I can pull them off of an objective by killing 1 model, I think I can afford to let them get this 1 power up lol.

Wow, almost 40% of people voting that they can stay in their pods! I had never considered this possibility...

Hopefully, this gets fixed with the new SM 'dex

 RiTides wrote:
Wow, almost 40% of people voting that they can stay in their pods! I had never considered this possibility...

Hopefully, this gets fixed with the new SM 'dex

and another 26% people admit it is RAW but will refuse to allow it. Maybe I should start refusing to allow rules from other people's codex...

There is a reason I voted the way I did. I accept that RAW they do not have to disembark. I freely admit that HWPI is same as other Drop Pods (except of course against a few people, such as the one guy from my group who ranted for 2 hours how the Heldrake is "broken" ). If I was a TO they would follow the same rules as other DPs. In a friendly game...I'm playing against BT. They need all the help they can get, I wouldn't care if my opponent played it that way.

My point is that RAW is clear, but I think, so also is RAI.

This reminds me of the old vindicator problem. If i recall the situation correctly, the profile in the codex (I think C:SM) did not have large blast, but every vindicator EVER has been a large blast.

I think? it eventually got FAQ'd. No one I ever played against tried to say the vindicator didn't have a large blast.

GW is not good at writing consistent rules.

For all of 5th Ork's got "6s on their fleet rolls" when they waaagh'd. Sucks there are no fleet rolls, but I never played anyone who tried to deny them the automatic 6 while running.

I wouldn't play this any differently. The biggest difference here is that the apparent error in writing instead allows an advantage (staying in a pod, or embarking in a pod), rather than incurs a disadvantage.

This is why, as above, I said that I wouldn't play against someone who tried to play their BT pods like this.

If I played orks, I probably wouldn't play someone who said I didn't get an automatic 6 for run movement, even though the rules that enable that are two editions old.

Gwyidion wrote:
For all of 5th Ork's got "6s on their fleet rolls" when they waaagh'd. Sucks there are no fleet rolls, but I never played anyone who tried to deny them the automatic 6 while running.

I see nothing in the codex or FAQ that says the underlined (and I'm referring to the 5th ed FAQ).

Well, I can't give a page reference for a long while.

The problem with the "seasoned veterans" thing is you guys think you know what GW wants. What if it was GW's intention to allow BT players to stay in drop pods to help balance. You don't know. If your in a class room that say no talking as a rule and go into another classroom that doesn't have that rule does that still mean you cannot talk. NO. Just because BT drop pods are different then marines who cares. They are different. We can put terminators in ours you can't so they are already different drop pods. The BT drop pod is not the same as the Marine drop pod, or the Blood Angel drop pod, or the Dark Angel drop pod. If your saying we should follow what makes sense then what's not written then half the laws in the world don't make sense but guess what; you still have to follow the RULES.

You can put terminators inside Marine drop pods as well.

Where does it say that noseferatu

Page 34 – Sword Brethren Terminator Squad, Transport.
Change the first sentence to read: “A Terminator Squad which
numbers eight models or less may select a Land Raider
Crusader as a Dedicated Transport”.

We can't get Dedicated drop pods for our Terminators anymore :(

awww **** I didn't see that in the FAQ's :(

 ravengatorfan wrote:
Where does it say that noseferatu

1) Terminators are infantry. Thus can embark in a vehicle
2) Terminator ICs can be joined to units.

Done.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 ravengatorfan wrote:
Where does it say that noseferatu

1) Terminators are infantry. Thus can embark in a vehicle
2) Terminator ICs can be joined to units.

Done.

3) As was pointed out, there is no restriction on non-passengers embarking.

BT pre FAQ's could take drop pods as dedicated transport for terminator squads not just hqs. in the marine codex you can only take a Land raider

 ravengatorfan wrote:
BT pre FAQ's could take drop pods as dedicated transport for terminator squads not just hqs. in the marine codex you can only take a Land raider

At the time the BT codex was published, regular Marine Terminators could also take Drop Pods as dedicated transports.

Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

There are broken rules in 40k, not saying this is one of them but saying that 100% RAW is how it should always be played is not always going to go down well.

For one of the RAW broken rules I refer you to attacking hyperios in close combat, now thats going to go down very well that you can roll to wound but cannot allocate any wounds to them RAW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

Regardless of what one believes about RAI, calling the RAW a "house rule" is objectively wrong. House rules are departures from the rules, not following them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

Regardless of what one believes about RAI, calling the RAW a "house rule" is objectively wrong. House rules are departures from the rules, not following them.

Thank you

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

House-rule does not mean what you think it means. A house-rule is something that is not in the rules as they are written; something like following RAI because you think the RAW is stupid, that's a house-rule; resolving an ambiguous rule by reaching consensus in your club as to how you want to play, also a house-rule. But following the letter of the rules as they are written is not a house-rule, it's just the rules.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

Regardless of what one believes about RAI, calling the RAW a "house rule" is objectively wrong. House rules are departures from the rules, not following them.

Remember this is Fling, who believs that despite the rulebook being called just that, and the section with the rules contained in it being called "THE RULES", that the developers are in fact idiots who dont know what theyre doing, and just randomly wrote things down, rather than actually writing down what they meant to write down.

Thus you get Flings version of "the rules", which is sometimes what is written, and sometimes isnt, with a distinction only Fling can decide upon.

In other words - trying to claim "RAI" without actually being honest and stating they are making a best guess at intent. Its just Flings opinion, essentially. Fling has also been repeatedly asked to stop taking that line, but seems to just ignore the mods.

One reason I have Fling on ignore

Good thing is, this will be resolved in 4 weeks!

Firstly I think people need to know what a house rule is. It occurs in one of two situations:

1) you and your opponent/gaming group know what the rule is but don't like it or agree to change it for what ever reason. Thus you create a new rule.
2) you and your opponent/gaming group don't know what a rule is as it is unclear from the written text and there is no FAQ telling you what the intent is. Thus you create a version of that rule that you and your gaming group are happy with (which may incidently turn out to be the actual rule).

In this incidence I believe the rule is clear and thus, if you agree with me, playing it as they can stay on board is a house rule. Or if you disagree with my interpretation then again playing by RaW is a house rule as we can't agree on the intent of the rule we create a house rule in the second example from above.

Those claiming that playing by RaW can't be a house rule are either saying they believe that RaW=The Rules and numerous FAQs would illustrate that RaW =/= RaI (whilst they can coincide numerous times). Or they are saying they don't understand the purpose of language or they believe the rules were created by an inanimate object. If you'd like to understand more please PM me as I don't want to derail this thread. Plus this will probably all be sorted in a few weeks any way.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly I think people need to know what a house rule is. It occurs in one of two situations:

1) you and your opponent/gaming group know what the rule is but don't like it or agree to change it for what ever reason. Thus you create a new rule.
2) you and your opponent/gaming group don't know what a rule is as it is unclear from the written text and there is no FAQ telling you what the intent is. Thus you create a version of that rule that you and your gaming group are happy with (which may incidently turn out to be the actual rule).

In this incidence I believe the rule is clear and thus, if you agree with me, playing it as they can stay on board is a house rule. Or if you disagree with my interpretation then again playing by RaW is a house rule as we can't agree on the intent of the rule we create a house rule in the second example from above.

Those claiming that playing by RaW can't be a house rule are either saying they believe that RaW=The Rules and numerous FAQs would illustrate that RaW =/= RaI (whilst they can coincide numerous times). Or they are saying they don't understand the purpose of language or they believe the rules were created by an inanimate object. If you'd like to understand more please PM me as I don't want to derail this thread. Plus this will probably all be sorted in a few weeks any way.

So the first part of this (in bold) made perfect sense, and then descended into what I can only describe as an incredible feat of mental contortion. As far as I can tell, in the second paragraph you said that if the RAW is clear and you play by said rule, then you're actually playing by a house rule? How precisely could you come to that conclusion?

 grrrfranky wrote:
As far as I can tell, in the second paragraph you said that if the RAW is clear and you play by said rule, then you're actually playing by a house rule? How precisely could you come to that conclusion?

This is because Fling believes that the rulebooks for Warhammer 40000 don't actually contain the rules for Warhammer 40000. They contain a rough approximation of the rules that may or may not be accurately recorded, and we're actually supposed to play the game using the rules that exist in the heads of the Games Developers. Presumably through the use of some sort of psychic link.

eh, this will be a moot point in a month anyway...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly I think people need to know what a house rule is. It occurs in one of two situations:

1) you and your opponent/gaming group know what the rule is but don't like it or agree to change it for what ever reason. Thus you create a new rule.
2) you and your opponent/gaming group don't know what a rule is as it is unclear from the written text and there is no FAQ telling you what the intent is. Thus you create a version of that rule that you and your gaming group are happy with (which may incidently turn out to be the actual rule).

In this incidence I believe the rule is clear and thus, if you agree with me, playing it as they can stay on board is a house rule. Or if you disagree with my interpretation then again playing by RaW is a house rule as we can't agree on the intent of the rule we create a house rule in the second example from above.

Those claiming that playing by RaW can't be a house rule are either saying they believe that RaW=The Rules and numerous FAQs would illustrate that RaW =/= RaI (whilst they can coincide numerous times). Or they are saying they don't understand the purpose of language or they believe the rules were created by an inanimate object. If you'd like to understand more please PM me as I don't want to derail this thread. Plus this will probably all be sorted in a few weeks any way.

Fling - don't you think it might be time to drop this?

 insaniak wrote:

 grrrfranky wrote:
As far as I can tell, in the second paragraph you said that if the RAW is clear and you play by said rule, then you're actually playing by a house rule? How precisely could you come to that conclusion?

This is because Fling believes that the rulebooks for Warhammer 40000 don't actually contain the rules for Warhammer 40000. They contain a rough approximation of the rules that may or may not be accurately recorded, and we're actually supposed to play the game using the rules that exist in the heads of the Games Developers. Presumably through the use of some sort of psychic link.

That's not really accurate. I think the rules are what Games Workshop designed (RaI). You don't think the rules are what games workshop designed but are the literal translation of what is was written in the book, presumably because you don't believe that language exists to communicate ideas but language itself is capable of creating ideas...

We have to work out the rules by reading what's in the book. Sometimes we have to use common sense or reasoning to work out what they meant because the rules are written imperfectly (because they were written by humans).

If you're not playing the game that Games Workshop designed can you really call it Warhammer 40,000?

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly I think people need to know what a house rule is. It occurs in one of two situations:

1) you and your opponent/gaming group know what the rule is but don't like it or agree to change it for what ever reason. Thus you create a new rule.
2) you and your opponent/gaming group don't know what a rule is as it is unclear from the written text and there is no FAQ telling you what the intent is. Thus you create a version of that rule that you and your gaming group are happy with (which may incidently turn out to be the actual rule).

In this incidence I believe the rule is clear and thus, if you agree with me, playing it as they can stay on board is a house rule. Or if you disagree with my interpretation then again playing by RaW is a house rule as we can't agree on the intent of the rule we create a house rule in the second example from above.

Those claiming that playing by RaW can't be a house rule are either saying they believe that RaW=The Rules and numerous FAQs would illustrate that RaW =/= RaI (whilst they can coincide numerous times). Or they are saying they don't understand the purpose of language or they believe the rules were created by an inanimate object. If you'd like to understand more please PM me as I don't want to derail this thread. Plus this will probably all be sorted in a few weeks any way.

Fling - don't you think it might be time to drop this?

I doubt it, Fling still believes that when the rulebook states "THE RULES" they really mean "these may or may not be the rules, we just randomly write things down, and only FLING can determine whether we meant to write this or not"

 FlingitNow wrote:
You don't think the rules are what games workshop designed but are the literal translation of what is was written in the book...

No, I think that GW designed the rules, but those rules are what is written in the book. That's why it's called a Rulebook.

Those rules may not necessarily be what GW intended them to be. That doesn't change the fact that unless GW changes those rules by actually telling us that what they initially wrote isn't what they meant, what they intended is irrelevant when playing the game.

You establish what the rules are by reading the rulebook which, by very definition, contains the rules of the game.

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You don't think the rules are what games workshop designed but are the literal translation of what is was written in the book...

No, I think that GW designed the rules, but those rules are what is written in the book. That's why it's called a Rulebook.

Those rules may not necessarily be what GW intended them to be. That doesn't change the fact that unless GW changes those rules by actually telling us that what they initially wrote isn't what they meant, what they intended is irrelevant when playing the game.

You establish what the rules are by reading the rulebook which, by very definition, contains the rules of the game.

Stop applying logic, it will confuse him.

No, I think that GW designed the rules, but those rules are what is written in the book

So are "The Rules" what Games Workshop's design team designed? Yes or No?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So are "The Rules" what Games Workshop's design team designed? Yes or No?

The rules are what is contained in the rulebook and codexes. They may be different to what the studio intended, depending on how accurately they were recorded in the relevant books.

So that's a no you don't play the game designed by the GW design team...

 FlingitNow wrote:
So that's a no you don't play the game designed by the GW design team...

Really? I could have sworn that my 40k rulebook says that it was printed by GW.

Who do you think wrote it, then?

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So that's a no you don't play the game designed by the GW design team...

Really? I could have sworn that my 40k rulebook says that it was printed by GW.

Who do you think wrote it, then?

I think GW intended me to play by the rules they printed in the rulebook, as those are "THE RULES"

Fling doesnt think that, and has this highly, erm, "individual" opinion otherwise

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So that's a no you don't play the game designed by the GW design team...

Really? I could have sworn that my 40k rulebook says that it was printed by GW.

Who do you think wrote it, then?

Games Workshop wrote them. Which you don't seem to believe. Language exists to communicate ideas. That is what language is for and does. It is not a sentient being capable of thought itself.

I play a game designed by Games Workshop I play by the rules they designed. You don't.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Language exists to communicate ideas. That is what language is for and does..

Indeed. And it's really not doing it for you, here.

Nobody thinks that the rulebook is sentient. You keep bringing this up, and it's no less batgak crazy now than it was the first time you tried this argument.

The GW studio wrote the rulebook. They published the rulebook. We use that rulebook to establish the rules of Warhammer 40000.

If you choose to ignore one of the rules in that rulebook in favour of playing the game the way you think works better, that's entirely your choice. But no matter how much you think your changed rule may be what the writers actually intended, you're not playing some ethereal 'true' game. You're playing the rule as you think the writer intended despite it not being what they actually wrote. You might be correct. You might not be. Unless you actually get confirmation from the guy who wrote it, you'll never really know for sure, no matter how much you insist otherwise.

And even if you do get that confirmation from the writer, the simple fact that you're playing the rule differently to how the rulebook says to play it means that you're not playing by the rules of the game. Because the rules of the game are the rules that the game's creators wrote down in the rulebook.

If what's in the rulebook doesn't actually match the way they want the game to work, well, that's what FAQs and errata are for. That gives them a way to tell us that the rules as they wrote them originally were wrong. Or, in some cases, to tell us that the rules as they wrote them didn't come out as intended, but we should play them as written anyway. I find myself at least slightly curious as to just what you would do in that latter situation...

Your later paragraphs don't make sense with your first. You claim RaW=The Rules then accept that when FAQs clarify what RaI is then those become the rules. Which means RaW isn't the rules. Or you wouldn't follow any FAQ that ruled against RaW, only errata.

You claim it is impossible to "know" intent and that any intent argument is purely guess work. But it is impossible to "know" anything. Sometimes intent is very clear (like helmeted models drawing line of sight from the lenses of the helmet or eye less models drawing LoS from the head) and to claim we can't know that is as ridiculous as claiming we can know anything. Because inherently it is impossible to rule put any possibility of us being wrong even on RaW.

So yes we can't know anything. We can work stuff out beyond reasonable doubt as to what is RaW and what is RaI. Sometimes it is impossible to work out RaI without further guidance from GW (ghost arks for instance) some times it is impossible to work out RaW (death ray hits, death wing reserve allocation) as pages of arguments on here have proven. But the aim should be to play the game by as close to the rules as possible not by as close to RaW as possible. We all make allowances for RaW silliness for instance no one counts it as a house rule that FMCs have Relentless & Smash rather than the as yet undefined Relentless Smash. Likewise no one says at the start of a game "do you mind if we play by the house rule that helmeted models can draw Line of Sight?"

In these instances people are happy to recognise that RaI is the rule (regardless of what they may say on the internet) yet when someone is pulling some RaW that gives them an advantage which they know wouldn't go their way in an FAQ it is all OK to try it? If the BT players think that if this question came up in an FAQ they think it would be ruled that they can stay in and that other units can embark, then they'd have an argument. But I wouldn't believe anyone on the internet making that claim anymore than I believe someone saying they genuinely believe that Wraithguard/blades/lords/knights are intended to not be able to draw LOS ever...

FlingItNow, you have been warned before about arguing Rules as Intended in the 40K You Make Da Call forum.

The point of this forum is to resolve questions about the rules as they are written. You seem to be on some sort of idealistic crusade to play the game as you see fit without regard to what is actually printed.

This inherently shows that you think that your way of thinking is superior to everyone arguing against you. Why are you trying to convince people to play the way YOU want to play when it is clearly not supported by the rules printed by Games Workshop? Especially when these people are definitely not local to you. Seems like a hell of an ego trip to me.

Any further disruptive behavior of this sort will result in further action. I'm going to lock this thread at this point, considering that the point has been made and there's no reason to continue.

RAW is the rules, but the FAQ changes the RAW and thus the rules.