Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I say no:

P1. Mystics allow free shots at deepstriking or summoned models.

P2. Vanilla pods do not follow the rules for deepstriking or summoning.

C: Mystics don't get free shots at vanilla pods.

(I realize that there formerly existed an FAQ on GW's boards that addressed this, but it no longer exists)

Posted By mauleed on 08/22/2007 4:31 AM

Unjust rules or laws should always be broken.

About sums it up. 

It all depends if your deep striking pods are really deep striking or if they are simply striking deeply. I suggest that you view this subject again through a magic cylinder to find your answer. Or barring that, ask a handy terminator what armor he is wearing.

The only quote that mentions deep striking in the Drop Pod Assault section:

"Such units remain in reserve and arrive by drop pod, even if the Mission being played does not normally allow Reserves or Deep Strike."

It isn't  mentioned again. The section never specifcally says "Drop pods Deep Strike." But why even mention whether or not the mission allows deep strike if deep strike weren't an issue?

I think the mystic certainly ought to be allowed to shoot em. I think we need to determine if the brief mention of deep strike above means that is what GW wants them to be considered.

ender502

If you're interested in what GW wants them to be considered, check out the newest rendition of the drop pods (DA/BA). That says outright that they deepstrike.

Posted By mauleed on 08/22/2007 4:31 AM

P2. Vanilla pods do not follow the rules for deepstriking or summoning.

I like how you have to specify that it is for vanilla pods. Because in the other codexes, they do say that they follow the rules for deepstriking with some additional rules (inertial guidance)..

And I am glad that you posted this...I was about to ask he same question.
 

Let?s also state that the clarifications that used to be posted on the GW Forum by Pete Haines the author of the Space Marine codex allowed Mystics to fire on Drop Pods.

Course you can take the position that the clarification no longer exists on the GW website, it was just a list of clarifications that at the time they intended to put into an FAQ but they never made it into an official FAQ, and go by the RAW that Mauleed has put forward.

That also means that you must ignore the entire list of clarifications that Pete Haines put forward.

Stuff like :

> #1 - Should the rules for the Land Raider Crusader from the Space Marine codex replace the >entry for the Grey Knight Land Raider Crusader from the Daemonhunter codex? Infernal Device >on Chaos Land Raider - work the same?
> Also for other codexes where landraiders are taken as transports (DH, WH and Chaos), do these >idential vehicles count as scoring units as well?

>Yes

or

> On a related note, it would also be nice to know if all Imperial Dreadnoughts (i.e. Space Wolf >Venerable, Grey Knight, Furioso, Moriar, etc) have access to Drop Pods in Standard Missions per >the new SM Codex.

>If they have access to drop pods they use the new rules

Or you can accept the written word of the author of the Space Marine Codex and the writer of the Drop Pod rules and allow Mystics to fire on Drop Pods.

It is easy to forget around that time frame Pete left GW for one reason or another and since then official stance on FAQ's and what they may or may not contain has changed dramatically.


I can accept it either way .. I'd like to use the Crusader rules still in the Demon Hunter codex ...

I say yes, and I play drop pod Marines.

To not allow my opponent to shoot at my drop pods because my marines are vanilla and not red or green would be so freakin cheesey, I would have to ask my opponent to zero me on sportsmanship.

To try that arguement at a RTT/GT would be about as lame as bringing a Siren prince. Sure, you could try that approach, and you might be able to justify it to yourself, but everyone else will know you are a douche.

Darrian

Well said Darrian...

You hear that Sparky ... douche ... just remember that come the 26th ..

Yes, on the basis of the DA and BA codexes. I'll zero anyone on sports who doesn't agree with me (on anything, ever, you've all got zeros - I'm making a list right now)!

Posted By muwhe on 08/22/2007 8:41 AM

Let’s also state that the clarifications that used to be posted on the GW Forum by Pete Haines the author of the Space Marine codex allowed Mystics to fire on Drop Pods.

Yeah, but Pete Haines is a douche so.....

ender502

PH34R MY SELF RIGHTEOUS FINGER POINTING!

Seriously, it's getting old.

I thought the point about YMDC is to talk about what the rules say, not what we think they should say, or what "everyone" plays it as, or what the designers clarified in an email.

What does the official printed material say?

There is a difference between what is printed and what people think it should be; VERY old ground.

Technically no they can't.

Consistency in the rules when absent is agravating. That said, I would caution some not to assume that apparently common elements accross codices should have the same rules, they dont. Look at Rhinos for example, different for points and rules in many codici, but apparently the same concept. No one argues that all rhinos are the same.

Zero sports for something clearly printed in a book is just bad form. But generally sports scores are a giant opportunity for bad form,... another discussion.

I agree that mystics should be able to fire at either the pod or the occupants.

Always how I've viewed it. Always how we've played it.

Always how it's been at Adepticon, whom took the time to tell everybody months (almost year) in advance it would be that way.

Shoot things. It's fun. I have armies with pods and without. My position remains the same.

Now, let's talk about mystics and DreadClaws or Valkries shall we....oh wait, those are "outside the main printed rules and therefore have no bearing on some of us in places other than 'addicted to resin-land' ". Sorry. I almost digressed into caring there. Forgive me.

First, if the rules say they deep strike (no matter the method of deep strike OR variations to the rules) then the pods deep strike. The designation of being adeep striker is not determined by the rules they follow but by the title given to rule.

If it says "X unit deep strikes. Flip a coin and belch the alphabet. Then place X wherever you want it on the table" ... then X deep strikes. 

Second, if the rules are identical and one is called deep strike and the other is called "purple belly lint" then purple belly lint does NOT deep strike.

The pod rules do mention deep strike in them as I quoted above. What is the purpose of the quote? Why mention deep strike if that is not what they are doing?

And don't flippantly answer "they made a istake" or "they're stupid." We don't know that. All we know is what they wrote.

ender502

 

Why mention deep strike if that's not what they're doing?

Simple!

The drop pod assault rule and the deepstrike rule are similar enough that they didn't want them to be confused as the same thing. If they didn't have that clause in there, then in any mission where deepstrike was not allowed, opponents would be contending that you couldn't use the drop pod assault rule because "deepstrike" was not allowed.

It is better to always use the same procedure rather than approach every dispute on a case by case basis. Of course there will always be exceptions but they should be kept to a minimum. We should also consider what each person who responds to this question has to gain or lose before we accept their judgement.

- G

Posted By whitedragon on 08/22/2007 10:03 AM
PH34R MY SELF RIGHTEOUS FINGER POINTING!

Seriously, it's getting old.

I thought the point about YMDC is to talk about what the rules say, not what we think they should say, or what "everyone" plays it as, or what the designers clarified in an email.

What does the official printed material say?

That's funny, I though the forum was called "You make the call" not "You make the call on the rules as written..."

Whenever GW has made an un-official ruling on the matter, Drop Pods deep strike.

Both Pete Haine's answer in the GW boards, and also the FAQs for the UK GTs.

 

Posted By Saldiven on 08/22/2007 11:40 AM

Why mention deep strike if that's not what they're doing?

Simple!

The drop pod assault rule and the deepstrike rule are similar enough that they didn't want them to be confused as the same thing. If they didn't have that clause in there, then in any mission where deepstrike was not allowed, opponents would be contending that you couldn't use the drop pod assault rule because "deepstrike" was not allowed.

Exactly.

We have no idea why they mentioned deepstrike in a tangient manner. But we do know they did not give pods the deepstrike rule....

....even if it would have saved them a bunch of work.

So the bottom line is this:

The RAW says they don't deepstrike. There is no ambiguity.

But regardless, some unsportsmanlike jerks will still zero people for following that rule.

unsportsmanlike jerks will still zero people for following that rule...

Thats why I dont play in RTTs anymore sports = pitty points, club abuse and penalties for winning a game.

As to the forum, i suppose it could be YMDWK.  You make da wrong kall.

Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Deep striking is mentioned in one point in the rules. If we assume that it isnt Deepstriking then we'll all be charging out of Drop Pods.

While it is true that the old FAQ is no longer avaliable, we do have a precedent set. In law you have lawyers who argue the law, and judges who interpret the law, using experiances, intent, and precedents. In this case intent and precedent both support Mystics.

On a more personal note, arguments like this are why there is sportsmanship scores. Also, I'm sorry if your Pod army has a foil. Its been a good ride but now that people have caught on, the jig is up, move on and don't try and salvage the sinking ship.

I do think eventually all drop pods will work the same in terms of the inertial guidance system. JJ responded on the Bolter and Chainsword forums via Andy Hoare and explicitly stated you cannot charge the same turn the drop pod arrives. I think no honest player aware of this would attempt to charge the same turn. Of course tournament organizers have the freedom to amend the rules however they see fit but their changes may not fit in well with the so called metagame.

- G

Anyone that thinks you can charge out of a pod the same turn it arrives is either a moron or hasn't read the book. Whether or not the pod deep strikes has no bearing whether you can assault out of the damn thing.

Quote: "The passengers may not move (other than to disembark) or assault in the turn they land."

It doesn't matter whether the pod deep striked or not. The rules specifically say you cannot assault out of the pod on the turn it arrived. Is that the reason people are debating this at all?

ender502

"""I think no honest player aware of this would attempt to charge the same turn"""

well its not a question of being honest or not the codex says they arrive and disembark per normal open topped vehicle rules which say you can assault after moving.... thats enough to start the arguement. that calification is not in c:sm but it is in c:da and c:ba

that is also why people are saying the damn things cost 20 points more a peice

but back to the topic on hand i am pretty sure it says drop pods arrive via deep strike rules... here in ends the debate they arrive via deep strike rule a mystic can shoot them

the only question is wether they shoot with the occupants in side or once they have disembarked it does say once you arrive you must immediately disembark.. so which came first the chicken or the egg

inquiring minds dont really care

Wouldn't the newest version of the rules for "drop pods" be used regardless of where they're printed?

Posted By DaIronGob on 08/23/2007 8:47 AM
Wouldn't the newest version of the rules for "drop pods" be used regardless of where they're printed?

I have to agree, otherwise you could maintain that Deamonhunters Assault Cannons on Land Raider Crusaiders don't have Rending... 

"well its not a question of being honest or not the codex says they arrive and disembark per normal open topped vehicle rules which say you can assault after moving.... thats enough to start the arguement. that calification is not in c:sm but it is in c:da and c:ba"

If you know what the developer said and still went against his true and explicit intent then you are a cheater.

I am now inclined to say it is far simpler to just use the most recent rules for all drop pods.

- G

Posted By mauleed on 08/22/2007 4:28 AM

Actually Mondo, you (or rather I) no longer have it in writing because GW took it down.

If it were still up I'd probably let you shoot, but when GW removes an FAQ, it's no longer a rule.

Which is why I said "please point me to the rule".

Yes, you used to be able to shoot my pods, but no longer. But sure, let's move it to YMDC.

So, you know that was the rule, and both Pete Haines clarified it, and they also rules that they deep strike at the UKGT. Also, the latest codex’s have them deep striking.

So you know they really do deep strike, but because of the rule oversight, you are going to use that to benefit you.

I thought that you said that is there is some debate about a rule, that you should take the less favorable rule interpretation.

 

No, if a rule is ambiguous you should take the least favorable interp.

Simply because a rule is being debated is no reason not to play it as written if you're sure it's not ambiguous. After all, if we didn't follow unambiguous rules every time some idiot didn't understand them, no one would ever roll a die again.

And yes, perhaps it used to be a rule. But it used to be a rule I could assault from Rhinos. But it's not now. I only play by this edition's official and available rules. I'd love to see you jokers trying to explain to some new player that you get to shoot his pod because some guy that doesn't work for GW anymore said 18 months ago on a message board that no longer exists that you could.