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.

 IronMaster wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

CumsnComments wrote:


I don't have a BA codex on me but I'm.going to assume it operates similar to a dreadclaw. In the dread claws rules it says "assault vehicle" and lists "transport capacity" however it goes in the fast attack slot. For all intents and purposes, if you use it as a transport it counts as a transport vehicle. Which means I could not embark demons upon it before the game only during the movement phase. Ill have to look up the Drop pod rules from BA to get a better grasp on it though.

What is the point of a drop pod if you can't actually put models in it?

The main reason for taking it as a fast attack choice would be to place models within your CAD that can't take dedicated transports in the Drop Pod. The FAQ is ruled towards Battle Brothers, meaning a separate codex trying to take and use the Drop Pods. There's still purpose to those Fast Attack Pods.

The post I was responding to was claiming that you can't embark into the pod until it's on the table... I was asking how he thought that was a reasonable interpretation.

This grenade update may just be a lifesaver to my poor Imperial Guard tankers. No more being rushed by SM grenadiers!

 IronMaster wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

CumsnComments wrote:


I don't have a BA codex on me but I'm.going to assume it operates similar to a dreadclaw. In the dread claws rules it says "assault vehicle" and lists "transport capacity" however it goes in the fast attack slot. For all intents and purposes, if you use it as a transport it counts as a transport vehicle. Which means I could not embark demons upon it before the game only during the movement phase. Ill have to look up the Drop pod rules from BA to get a better grasp on it though.

What is the point of a drop pod if you can't actually put models in it?

The main reason for taking it as a fast attack choice would be to place models within your CAD that can't take dedicated transports in the Drop Pod. The FAQ is ruled towards Battle Brothers, meaning a separate codex trying to take and use the Drop Pods. There's still purpose to those Fast Attack Pods.

ostensibly there was a reason they didnt have access to drop pods in the first place...so I dont get the reasoning to make them FA so units that shouldnt have access to drop pods...can get access to drop pods

 Vaktathi wrote:
ostensibly there was a reason they didnt have access to drop pods in the first place...so I dont get the reasoning to make them FA so units that shouldnt have access to drop pods...can get access to drop pods

The BB transport thing is dumb anyway as it only helped Codexes that where hurting in the frst place (except Skitarii) On top of this there are 3, i repeat, 3 Codexes that do not have Battle Brothers.

Tau
Necrons
Orks

Thats it. Everyone else has Battle Brothers even if they dont take advantage of them. I know that Craftworld Eldar liked to put Dark Reapers in Raiders, i know that Sisters of Battle liked putting Repentia in Inquisitorial Land Raiders and putting everything in Drop Pods, i know the Tempestus Scions liked using Drop Pods. Actually this ruling probably hurts Inquisition the most.

And to top it all off this ruling does absolutely nothing to impact the Big 4 in any way, because out of the Big 4 only 1 of them reliably used allies and that was Space Marines and it wasnt for transports.

I assume the big four are Eldar, Tau, Space marines, and Necrons?

 Galef wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Yes. Because they then become part of that unit.

But remember, formation and detachment rules don't jump between detachments anymore.

Doesn't one of the new FAQs state that combined units count as having both Factions? Meaning that an IC with BB faction:A still cannot embark in a transport during deployment even if joined to a unit with BB faction:B?

Heh, you're right. I hadn't thought of that.

Ok, no ally-ICs in transports.

 Grimgold wrote:
I assume the big four are Eldar, Tau, Space marines, and Necrons?

*sees Tau in big 4* BWAHAHAHAHA no, Tau are not Big 4, the 4th member is actually Chaos Daemons, cuz Summoning+Bleakor+2++ Re-Rollable= Win

Tau are just out of the big 4, otherwise you are right.

 Grimmor wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I assume the big four are Eldar, Tau, Space marines, and Necrons?

*sees Tau in big 4* BWAHAHAHAHA no, Tau are not Big 4, the 4th member is actually Chaos Daemons, cuz Summoning+Bleakor+2++ Re-Rollable= Win

Tau are just out of the big 4, otherwise you are right.

Nope, with the new version of Null zone out Daemons are hurting, Tau is now in their spot.

Eh, I still think demons got us beat, just not as much.

This isn't a thread of "Who is better".

So the Heavy Vehicle thing got put to bed, it's too bad but it is what it is.

The grenade thing is massive, those S6 krak grenades on every model really hosed things up, and with IA 1 (V2) you can take grenade nets that use to not really be worth it...now? I think I'd take it to stop that lone melta bomb sarge....

Invisibility got a massive nerf. Any psychic powers that do not have a shooting profile can auto hit now! (WOOT!) Beams can hit them now if you place your model in a way that lets the beam hit them (Same with blasts)..

 Quickjager wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I assume the big four are Eldar, Tau, Space marines, and Necrons?

*sees Tau in big 4* BWAHAHAHAHA no, Tau are not Big 4, the 4th member is actually Chaos Daemons, cuz Summoning+Bleakor+2++ Re-Rollable= Win

Tau are just out of the big 4, otherwise you are right.

Nope, with the new version of Null zone out Daemons are hurting, Tau is now in their spot.

I dont believe theres been a tournament where that has been usable yet, so we should be able to see in the near future. Also this FAQ shakes up the entire meta so god only knows whats gonna happen now.

 insaniak wrote:

 IronMaster wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

CumsnComments wrote:


I don't have a BA codex on me but I'm.going to assume it operates similar to a dreadclaw. In the dread claws rules it says "assault vehicle" and lists "transport capacity" however it goes in the fast attack slot. For all intents and purposes, if you use it as a transport it counts as a transport vehicle. Which means I could not embark demons upon it before the game only during the movement phase. Ill have to look up the Drop pod rules from BA to get a better grasp on it though.

What is the point of a drop pod if you can't actually put models in it?

The main reason for taking it as a fast attack choice would be to place models within your CAD that can't take dedicated transports in the Drop Pod. The FAQ is ruled towards Battle Brothers, meaning a separate codex trying to take and use the Drop Pods. There's still purpose to those Fast Attack Pods.

The post I was responding to was claiming that you can't embark into the pod until it's on the table... I was asking how he thought that was a reasonable interpretation.

Drop pods are considered Vehicles(Transport, open topped)[I think] subjecting them to all the rules of transport vehicles.
Deployment happens before the turn.
Embarkation happens during the movement phase.[BRB]

So per RAW you cant embark during deployment.

Is this a reasonable interpretation on my part?

The deployment rules give specific permission to deploy units into transport vehicles.

The Reserves rules also allow you to embark units into transports in Reserve.

Models can deploy inside of transports sure. But that doesn't count as an embarkation which only happens In the movement phase. Battle-brothers can only embark, not deploy, in a transport vehicle. Not sure if they can embark while in reserves. KEY WORD: embark. The only time battle-brothers are listed as being able to board a transport.

EDIT: The only mention of transports in reserve is under 'combined reserve units' stating: "you must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any vehicles in reserve, in which case they will arrive together". However preparing reserves is still deployment according to BRB so while they are considered 'embarked' they must 'deploy' inside of a transport. Super duper murky n I can see how it could go either way. Glad they made a FAQ for it.

 sfshilo wrote:
Invisibility got a massive nerf. Any psychic powers that do not have a shooting profile can auto hit now! (WOOT!) Beams can hit them now if you place your model in a way that lets the beam hit them (Same with blasts)..

Except shooting attacks that automatically hit can never be snap shot.

 insaniak wrote:

CumsnComments wrote:


I don't have a BA codex on me but I'm.going to assume it operates similar to a dreadclaw. In the dread claws rules it says "assault vehicle" and lists "transport capacity" however it goes in the fast attack slot. For all intents and purposes, if you use it as a transport it counts as a transport vehicle. Which means I could not embark demons upon it before the game only during the movement phase. Ill have to look up the Drop pod rules from BA to get a better grasp on it though.

What is the point of a drop pod if you can't actually put models in it?

There are a couple different things with the Drop Pods. Say you have two squads of...something in Drop Pods. Off the bat, only one comes in turn one. Buy a FA Drop Pod, now you get both squads in on turn one. Or you have Cassor the Damned, who can't have a pod normally. Buy him a FA Drop Pod. You could also buy one for a Deredeo Dreadnought in place of a Lucius Pattern Drop Pod. They also give you a way to Deep Strike Scouts to wherever they need to go. Terminators can be stuffed in pods to ensure they come down turn one.

They do offer a number of tactical choices that are available without even needing to resort to Battle Brothers.

Again, that wasn't what I was asking...

 insaniak wrote:
Again, that wasn't what I was asking...

Are you saying there is no point to the Drop Pod because you can't actually put stuff in it? Like models in the harnesses?

No, the post I was responding to was saying that. I was asking what the point of that would be.

 insaniak wrote:
No, the post I was responding to was saying that. I was asking what the point of that would be.

Maybe if you tried clarifying instead of just going "nope."

You've said some confusing as feth things so far and your responses have only muddied the waters more.

The post you responded to seemed to be talking about how you can embark but not deploy, which obviously doesn't apply to a normal drop pod which completely loses its transport functionality the second it touches down.

I guess you mean "what's the point of a drop pod if you can't deploy with it?" Which is a fair point, but only applies to battle brothers.

 Purifier wrote:


I guess you mean "what's the point of a drop pod if you can't deploy with it?" Which is a fair point, but only applies to battle brothers.

The post that I initially responded to was an argument that resulted in no model ever being able to ride in a drop pod. I simply asked what the point of drop pods would be if that were the case.

I'm not sure what was so confusing about that.

Holy gak, I just noticed your avatar blinks.

 insaniak wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


I guess you mean "what's the point of a drop pod if you can't deploy with it?" Which is a fair point, but only applies to battle brothers.

The post that I initially responded to was an argument that resulted in no model ever being able to ride in a drop pod. I simply asked what the point of drop pods would be if that were the case.

I'm not sure what was so confusing about that.

Well, mostly the fact that he never said no models could ever ride in it, you derived that, made an argument against it, and then refused to explain how you came to that argument. So to everyone else that didn't have the information you made up, it was a weird leap and we were trying to figure out what exactly you were replying to.

It was very unclear until just now when you explained what you thought he said.

Sweet feth, it does.

"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase."

So did anyone else notice this one? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't this mean that pivots are no longer really "free" since by pivoting you're actually moving a part of the model a distance away from its starting point?

As an example of what will be illegal now according to this FAQ take the following instance: I move my chimera straight forward 6 inches, and then pivot it 180 degrees so that the rear is now facing forward. The model itself is exactly 6 inches closer to its destination/target, however, this would be illegal as the rear of the vehicle is now 6 inches plus 1 hull length from its starting point.

This would seem to be a rules rewrite rather than an FAQ as I've never seen anyone count pivoting against movement and the rulebook is crystal clear on it. Not once have I seen an argument over the pivoting rule. Yes there are those players that try to game the system by using pivoting to "get closer", but who wants to play against "TFG" anyways? With this new ruling, If I wanted to turn my Leman Russ 90 degrees to fire a side sponson as something, I could only move it up about 2-3 inches. I call BS on this nonsense as nothing else in the game has to deal with facings or firing arcs other than vehicles. It's clearly a nerf to them, in a game where vehicles are already overpriced in general.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase."

So did anyone else notice this one? If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't this mean that pivots are no longer really "free" since by pivoting you're actually moving a part of the model a distance away from its starting point?

As an example of what will be illegal now according to this FAQ take the following instance: I move my chimera straight forward 6 inches, and then pivot it 180 degrees so that the rear is now facing forward. The model itself is exactly 6 inches closer to its destination/target, however, this would be illegal as the rear of the vehicle is now 6 inches plus 1 hull length from its starting point.

This would seem to be a rules rewrite rather than an FAQ as I've never seen anyone count pivoting against movement and the rulebook is crystal clear on it. Not once have I seen an argument over the pivoting rule. Yes there are those players that try to game the system by using pivoting to "get closer", but who wants to play against "TFG" anyways? With this new ruling, If I wanted to turn my Leman Russ 90 degrees to fire a side sponson as something, I could only move it up about 2-3 inches. I call BS on this nonsense as nothing else in the game has to deal with facings or firing arcs other than vehicles. It's clearly a nerf to them, in a game where vehicles are already overpriced in general.

No, a 180 degree pivot isn't ruled out by that. The whole model would still be within 6 inches of where the model started. It's not each part that has to end 6 inches at most away from where that specific part started (how would you even determine what part is what? is the headlight its own part? Do we need to look at an atomic level?) it's the full model that can't have any part of it stretching over the 6 inches from where it started. If your model does a 180 turn, it should still be within the 6 inches, so long as you're pivoting it around its center, not around a point at the front.

Pivoting still wouldn't actually count as movement though with regards to determining which weapons can shoot and passengers. So nothing changed. No part of the vehicle could be more than X inches from it's previous position before either.

That's how we played it at least. Not that we were all that strict about enforcing it mind you.

Numerous people played it that a "free" pivot meant that you could move a Rhino up 6 inches, then spin around, and then disembark from that access point, effectively giving the unit more inches forward. The rules already pretty much said you couldn't do this, but it wasn't entirely clear.

At the same time, if you don't move in any other way, pivoting the vehicle is indeed free movement. It doesn't cost anything, so you don't count as moving for purposes of firing weapons or passengers, but if you had any other horizontal or vertical movement during the turn, then it does count.

 Yarium wrote:
Numerous people played it that a "free" pivot meant that you could move a Rhino up 6 inches, then spin around, and then disembark from that access point, effectively giving the unit more inches forward. The rules already pretty much said you couldn't do this, but it wasn't entirely clear.

At the same time, if you don't move in any other way, pivoting the vehicle is indeed free movement. It doesn't cost anything, so you don't count as moving for purposes of firing weapons or passengers, but if you had any other horizontal or vertical movement during the turn, then it does count.

The big issue with the "free pivot" interpretation some people used allowed them to use a vehicle's length to get extra movement out of long vehicles (specifically Ghost Arks and Raiders)

 Purifier wrote:
It's not each part that has to end 6 inches at most away from where that specific part started

That's exactly what it is:

"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase."

Pivots are no longer free.

As to how you'd measure that, your guess is as good as mine. The faq did not see fit to garnish us with that detail.