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.

And that intent is told to us by the rules. If the rules don't back it up, then why should we believe that they intended for it to be that way?

 Ghaz wrote:
And that intent is told to us by the rules. If the rules don't back it up, then why should we believe that they intended for it to be that way?

Many of those who said the exact wording is not there have claimed that the intent is.

I am addressing that.

but while we are at it, please quote me the exact rule that says we are to "pretend that the plastic model is shooting".

...because by RAW, we should be having plastic models that actually shoot!

legion of the damned must always arrive by deepstrike.

"arrive by deepstrike" doesn't just mean they somehow got onto the table with something that was deepstriking, they have to follow the sequence for "arriving by deepstrike" as we are told they always arrive that way.

if they come in a drop pod they do not follow that sequence as the sequence requires the unit that is deep striking to be placed per the arriving by deepstrike rules, which never happens if they embarked on a transport that deep strikes.

Arriving by Deep

Strike Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows: First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would

Aid unlooked for
They always start the game in reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike. When they arrive by Deep Strike, you may re-roll the Scatter dice if you wish.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

if they come in through a drop pod they have not followed the rule of always arriving by deepstrike.

as for

In the Movement phase during which they arrive, deep striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a deep striking Transport vehicle if they are in one.

if the unit is embarked on a deep strike transport, it does not have deep strike. It is arriving through a deep striking transport, and -may- count as deep striking, but it is not arriving by deepstrike. Despite the word arrive and deepstrike being in the sentence there is nothing linking that the unit embarked on a transport which arrives by deep strike is also arriving by deepstrike, which is RAW obvious because it does not follow the RAW for arriving by deep strike.

as LOTD must always arrive by deepstrike they cannot be embarked on a transport that deepstrikes. They have no permission to ignore the arrive by deepstrike rules sequence which they are required to always follow.

blaktoof wrote:
legion of the damned must always arrive by deepstrike.

"arrive by deepstrike" doesn't just mean they somehow got onto the table with something that was deepstriking, they have to follow the sequence for "arriving by deepstrike" as we are told they always arrive that way.

if they come in a drop pod they do not follow that sequence as the sequence requires the unit that is deep striking to be placed per the arriving by deepstrike rules, which never happens if they embarked on a transport that deep strikes.

Arriving by Deep

Strike Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows: First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would

I get that. I got that from pg 1. I just don't agree with it.

I feel that a Pod with a unit embarked are also arriving from deep strike.
I feel that the intent matches this due to the wording.
I have quoted many times why I feel this way, which you and others don't agree with.

I'm ok with that.
Our local gaming community which runs monthly tournaments believe that units deep strike along with the transport, so I don't really care anymore.

Just thought I'd throw in a monkey wrench about our plastic models actually having to shoot by RAW.
Guess it wasn't funny, but its true.


Also, for more fuel to add to the fire, I found this:
Pg 135
"Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they arrive together."

Again - really don't care as more then likely someone will loop this into having to do the "DS sequence", which I feel is overridden when you are in a transport as indicated above.
Have fun with that.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Now that you can put any imperium unit in a drop pod thanks to space wolves, I was wondering if LotD could get in those drop pods and arrive via drop pod assault?

What do you mean exactly, thank to the Space Wolves? Are you telling me that the Space Wolf Codex includes rules that apply to Imperial player's units?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I started reading the 40K rules and my LOTD Codex about this question, nothing. However I noticed LOTD have absolutely no mention of vehicles period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...color me vexed...

 Kelly502 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Now that you can put any imperium unit in a drop pod thanks to space wolves, I was wondering if LotD could get in those drop pods and arrive via drop pod assault?

What do you mean exactly, thank to the Space Wolves? Are you telling me that the Space Wolf Codex includes rules that apply to Imperial player's units?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I started reading the 40K rules and my LOTD Codex about this question, nothing. However I noticed LOTD have absolutely no mention of vehicles period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...color me vexed...

Battle Brothers can utilize vehicles from another Battle Brother, and be deployed inside them as long as they are not dedicated transports.
SW have FA Drop Pods...

It's called battle brother allies

Ok, thanks for that clarification.

xAndurilx wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
legion of the damned must always arrive by deepstrike.

"arrive by deepstrike" doesn't just mean they somehow got onto the table with something that was deepstriking, they have to follow the sequence for "arriving by deepstrike" as we are told they always arrive that way.

if they come in a drop pod they do not follow that sequence as the sequence requires the unit that is deep striking to be placed per the arriving by deepstrike rules, which never happens if they embarked on a transport that deep strikes.

Arriving by Deep

Strike Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows: First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would

I get that. I got that from pg 1. I just don't agree with it.

I feel that a Pod with a unit embarked are also arriving from deep strike.
I feel that the intent matches this due to the wording.
I have quoted many times why I feel this way, which you and others don't agree with.

I'm ok with that.
Our local gaming community which runs monthly tournaments believe that units deep strike along with the transport, so I don't really care anymore.

Just thought I'd throw in a monkey wrench about our plastic models actually having to shoot by RAW.
Guess it wasn't funny, but its true.


Also, for more fuel to add to the fire, I found this:
Pg 135
"Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they arrive together."

Again - really don't care as more then likely someone will loop this into having to do the "DS sequence", which I feel is overridden when you are in a transport as indicated above.
Have fun with that.

the unit is arriving from reserves

it may count as deep striking if its embarked in a transport that is deepstriking.

but unless its following the rules for arriving by deep strike only one of the units involved is arriving by deepstrike, the pod.

Models that are arriving by Deep Strike or Outflank deploy using their special rules.

the special rules for arriving from deepstrike are spelled out, as you even mentioned. The models that arrive in a deep striking transport are not following those special rules. The act of arriving by deep strike has along with it a special method of deploying.

Models that are held in deep strike reserves and arrive in a drop pod that arrived by deepstrike may dismebark, but they did not follow the rules for deploying under arrive by deepstrike because they did not "arrive by deepstrike"

Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows: First, place one model from the unit anywhere on

clearly the unit in the drop pod is not doing that.

I am glad your gaming group has a HIWPI rule, but that's all it is. BAO has a rule that says ICs can join infiltrating units, despite the RAW in ICs saying the completey opposite.

Just as I thought... looping back to the sequence.

Never-mind that the unit is placed in DS Reserve with the Pod and arrive with the pod together...

And our community doesn't see it as an HIWPI, not that I would be able to convince you or anyone else otherwise.

xAndurilx wrote:
Just as I thought... looping back to the sequence.

Never-mind that the unit is placed in DS Reserve with the Pod and arrive with the pod together...

And our community doesn't see it as an HIWPI, not that I would be able to convince you or anyone else otherwise.

Well from a RAI stand point LotD shouldn't be able to arrive via drop pods as that defeats the point of their special rule.

 CrownAxe wrote:

xAndurilx wrote:
Just as I thought... looping back to the sequence.

Never-mind that the unit is placed in DS Reserve with the Pod and arrive with the pod together...

And our community doesn't see it as an HIWPI, not that I would be able to convince you or anyone else otherwise.

Well from a RAI stand point LotD shouldn't be able to arrive via drop pods as that defeats the point of their special rule.

Fluff-wise I think your absolutely right.

That said, I still think that Units inside a Deep striking transport is deep striking too, even if they don't follow the sequence.
And unfortunately, even the rules that i see as clear as day indicating this, others don't agree.

Oh well... hopefully it will be cleared up in the FAQ

xAndurilx,
Game Workshop's motto is 'selling models first and Rules sometime when we get around to it' as far as many people here are concerned. The concept that the Authors real intentions are not written well into the Rules is justified, and only an idiot would blindly follow Rule as Written during an actual game. Gray zones and black holes, literal spots where Rules bend or cease to function, exist throughout this book to the point that we have a Rule telling us that we can agree with our opponents how to play the game should we encounter their mistakes. In such situations "Authors Intent" arguments are a very good thing to have around to justify why we need to deviate away from the Written Rule to avoid possible unintended problems.

However do not make the assume that 'Author Intent' somehow trump Rule as Written because I am willing to speak ill about Game Workshops ability to write their Rules. There are many reasons as to why the Written Rules themselves always will supersede any Author Intended arguments found on the internet. The most common and true is that we are all bias enough that it can sway our opinion without justification, none of us are proven telepaths that we actually can read the Authors minds and all of us have equal 'credentials' because we do not exist with identities. Given that this is an internet forum, where we are all faceless untrustworthy name-tags on a screen, it is generally accepted that one needs to be able to bring more then 'Authors Intent' to these things when requested to do so.

A few minor sentences that hint at Authors Intent do not a Rule as Written argument make.

By the way, one of the most interesting reasons as to why Rules as Written trumps is Author intent is thanks to The Most Important Rule itself:
In order to deviate away from the Written Rules it takes an opponents agreement to do so, as none of us are opponent in our scenarios we are unable to evoke anything more then Written Rules themselves in our debates

JinxDragon wrote:
xAndurilx,
Game Workshop's motto is 'selling models first and Rules sometime when we get around to it' as far as many people here are concerned. The concept that the Authors real intentions are not written well into the Rules is justified, and only an idiot would blindly follow Rule as Written during an actual game. Gray zones and black holes, literal spots where Rules bend or cease to function, exist throughout this book to the point that we have a Rule telling us that we can agree with our opponents how to play the game should we encounter their mistakes. In such situations "Authors Intent" arguments are a very good thing to have around to justify why we need to deviate away from the Written Rule to avoid possible unintended problems.

However do not make the assume that 'Author Intent' somehow trump Rule as Written because I am willing to speak ill about Game Workshops ability to write their Rules. There are many reasons as to why the Written Rules themselves always will supersede any Author Intended arguments found on the internet. The most common and true is that we are all bias enough that it can sway our opinion without justification, none of us are proven telepaths that we actually can read the Authors minds and all of us have equal 'credentials' because we do not exist with identities. Given that this is an internet forum, where we are all faceless untrustworthy name-tags on a screen, it is generally accepted that one needs to be able to bring more then 'Authors Intent' to these things when requested to do so.

A few minor sentences that hint at Authors Intent do not a Rule as Written argument make.

By the way, one of the most interesting reasons as to why Rules as Written trumps is Author intent is thanks to The Most Important Rule itself:
In order to deviate away from the Written Rules it takes an opponents agreement to do so, as none of us are opponent in our scenarios we are unable to evoke anything more then Written Rules themselves in our debates

Yep. I agree with you.

The only difference is that I feel that the rules do support the argument, and you do not.

Could GW be more clear with this scenerio? Absolutely.

They are very clear all ready. Where is any transport allowed listed with the unit. There are none. No land raider no razor back no drop pod no Rhino. GW does not need to respond there are not transports allowed for the unit in question Period.

xAndurilx,
There is one thing you could easily do to convince me that there is Rule as Written support: Quote the Rule which states that the Disembarking Unit counts as having Arrived by Deep Strike.

While I am more then willing to accept a 'Authors Intent' argument given who the Authors we are dealing with are, I can only accept an argument claiming Rule as Written support that actually has quotable Rules and not just ones which hint at the 'Authors Intent.' If your group have their own measuring bars set lower then the regulations of an internet forum as to what constitutes 'Rule as Written,' then that is something for your group to ponder on. Given that this debate is occurring on this forum, until we have some written Rules which do more then hint at a vague shape of intent, all I can do is categorize it as bad editing and wait till the Authors get around to fixing it....
If ever.

I underlined editing because that is where these sort of problems stem from. As the Core Rulebooks is written by four or five different Authors, sometimes things get misplaced due to formatting errors or fall through the cracks as one Authors believed another penned a section when it never actually got written. That is why it is up to the Editor to locate and correct these sort of problems, but Game Workshop's title of Editor is a joke... referred to as a 'ceremonial title only.' Deep Strike related Rules are prime candidates for such mistakes because there are multiple sections where one might expect to find a Rule related to the action of 'Arriving by Deep Strike.' It already can be noticed with the stuff they have penned, with related Rules found as it is in at least three different sections of the book, so it is very likely that Author 1 penned a sentence believing the intent was different to what Author 2 was penning.

Therefore there is nothing wrong claiming that a "Rule as Intended" argument is needed to fix situations where bad Editing has occurred and no Rule as Written actually exists.

As for Intent in an Internet Forum:
Nice to see we have encountered two of the largest problems with allowing "Author Intent" in an internet debate, thanks to Fire-raven for highlighting it. With 'Author Intent' arguments it is entirely possible to lay a foundation for one action via 'Author Intent' before placing another 'Author Intended' action on-top pf that, and so forth. This can eventually lead to situations where the final outcome of three or four Rule interactions falls clearly in the 'insane' category but thanks to the previously 'Author Intent' arguments it is 'technically legal' as those arguments have been accepted as 'Rules' prior. Worse, thanks to the existence of this pyramid of psydo-Rules supporting, there will always be a few people nodding their head in agreement with the end result no matter how insane it might be.

There is also the 'Vanishing Intent' paradox that allowing 'Author Intended' Arguments to bleed into Rule as written Arguments creates. This occurs when the support for this change to Rule as Written suddenly vanishes in one particular situation as the Author's intent suddenly "changed." Be it written in the Fluff for that Unit, written into some Special Rule that makes it clear that the previous 'Author Intent Argument' can not be correct or indicated through their own 'Authors intent' due to formatting... no matter how it is put forth, it becomes apparent that the Author did not intend what the 'Author Intended' supported rules are backing. That leads to situations where side A wants intent 1 to stand while side B wants intent 2 to stand, and no way to actually resolve the problem.

So what does the two points above mean for the subject at hand:
In this situation we need one thing to be true without a doubt; that a Unit Disembarking from a Transport that Arrived By Deep Strike have themselves Arrived by Deep Strike.

Should we accept the argument that the 'Authors Intended' it to be so, without actually having a Rule which literally states the above, then we have to allow that argument to be applied to future debates concerning Transports and Disembarking. This would be the foundation for a pyramid of Rule Interactions designed to give a specific sentence some purpose it doesn't other wise have, which would then be used to evoke other Rules both Written and Intended. Then this forming pyramid encounters a Unit called Legion of the Damned, a Unit with considerable fluff and crunch to suggests that the Authors never intended for this specific Unit to Arrive in a Drop Pod on Turn 1.
So the Authors Intention of this Unit is somehow made void because of Author Intention for this Unit...?

PS Game Workshop:
Feel free to steal - "A Unit Disembarking from a Transport that Arrived By Deep Strike have themselves Arrived by Deep Strike" if you want to patch the Rules but keep in mind that certain Units like the Legion of the Damned will be able to circumvent certain limitations via that Rule. There will need to be specific Exceptions written for Units not designed to Arrive by Drop Pod or other Deep Striking Transports but that one is easily written as well. It would simply read 'Name of Model Here' may not Embark on a Transport that has been placed into Reserves.

I sent GW a message, I think it would behoove all of us to do the same and see if we get a clarification.

Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

Johnnytorrance wrote:
I sent GW a message, I think it would behoove all of us to do the same and see if we get a clarification.

Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

YMDC Tenet #2. An email from GW holds no more weight than asking the guy running your local GW store. They have no special insight into the rules, all you'll get is their opinion on the rule. It won't be an official answer.

It's where you submit FAQ that sometimes make it into the FAQ and Errata which by all accouns does hold water

You seem to think GW actually produces FAQs. GW's recent record with FAQs they have actually produced have been underwhelming to say the least, answering questions no one asked or changing rules that are actually clear.

I'm still stuck on how you can stick a unit in reserves in a transport that it is not purchased with the unit. When RAW under deployment of transport vehicles its clear you cannot. or for that matter embark a unit in a transport in your deployment phase that also was not bought or purchased with the unit also all under the same rules set.

'Combined Reserve Units' in the 'Preparing For Battle' section of the rulebook.

Fireraven wrote:
I'm still stuck on how you can stick a unit in reserves in a transport that it is not purchased with the unit. When RAW under deployment of transport vehicles its clear you cannot. or for that matter embark a unit in a transport in your deployment phase that also was not bought or purchased with the unit also all under the same rules set.

No such prohibition exists. In fact the converse restriction exists on dedicated transports

Fireraven wrote:
I'm still stuck on how you can stick a unit in reserves in a transport that it is not purchased with the unit. When RAW under deployment of transport vehicles its clear you cannot. or for that matter embark a unit in a transport in your deployment phase that also was not bought or purchased with the unit also all under the same rules set.

A stormraven has never been a dedicated transport. Yet they can have up to 12 guys inside and a dreadnought on the clamps outside. Only one way to bring it in and that's buy putting them all in reserves.

The only restriction is that if you buy a dedicated transport. One that doesn't cost a slot in the force org chart. You can only start the unit who bought it inside.

Other than that. You can buy a transport and stick whatever can fit inside it.

U can not do it before the embarking and disembarking-- Movement phase, which happened after the first movement phase of turn `1 . They have to be a dedicated transport to deploy with the unit they are selected with during the deployment part of setting up the game.
Because it embark you actually have to do the action not just do it has been done with a magical wand. How can you do an action before you are allowed to by the game rules.
Page 180 BRB under embarking and disembarking. Yes it does state you can embark under the transport part (non-Dedicated )of the page then read a little more to find out WHEN you can.

Fireraven wrote:
U can not do it before the embarking and disembarking-- Movement phase, which happened after the first movement phase of turn `1 . They have to be a dedicated transport to deploy with the unit they are selected with during the deployment part of setting up the game.
Because it embark you actually have to do the action not just do it has been done with a magical wand. How can you do an action before you are allowed to by the game rules.
Page 180 BRB under embarking and disembarking. Yes it does state you can embark under the transport part (non-Dedicated )of the page then read a little more to find out WHEN you can.

First of all, it's 'you' not 'u'. Please familiarize yourself with the Forum Rules, specifically Rule #7.

From 'Deployment', under the heading 'Preparing For Battle':

Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.

From 'Combined Reserve Units', under the heading 'Preparing For Battle':

Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case, when making a Reserve Roll... for a combined unit, roll a sigle dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle.

Sorry, but the rules clearly and undeniably say that you are wrong.

Deploying inside the transport in the deployment zone yes but not in a drop pod out side of it. 2 different things.

Again, the rules say otherwise.

Fireraven wrote:
Deploying inside the transport in the deployment zone yes but not in a drop pod out side of it. 2 different things.

Why else would GW make the Space wolf Drop pod a fast Attack transport that can be purchased by any unit?

Fireraven wrote:
Deploying inside the transport in the deployment zone yes but not in a drop pod out side of it. 2 different things.

Either models can embark in transports held in reserve or they can't, if a unit who has bought a drop pod as a dedicated transport can do it, so can any other unit embark in a drop pod that is purchased as a fast attack choice (assuming they can fit in to it).