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.

 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.