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.

SumYungGui wrote:Nope! It's a monstrous creature, not a vehicle. This is the exact same logic that was throw in the face of every single 'Nid player for the Prime/Spore nerf and their almost 100% complete inferiority in every way. It's not a vehicle so no dangerous terrain checks.

I'm not following your logic.

A Spod landing in difficult terrain doesn't take a Dangerous terrain test because it's a vehicle... it takes the test because it is Deep Striking into difficult terrain.
The unit inside the Spod doesn't take a Dangerous terrain test because it is disembarking from a vehicle... it takes the test because the Spod rules point out that they are also considered to be Deep Striking, and they are doing so into difficult terrain.

The rule requiring Deep Striking models to take a Dangerous terrain test for landing in difficult terrain applies to all Deep Striking models, not just to vehicles and their occupants.

The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant to Spods... But that doesn't change the way the rules already apply to them anyway.

insaniak wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:Nope! It's a monstrous creature, not a vehicle. This is the exact same logic that was throw in the face of every single 'Nid player for the Prime/Spore nerf and their almost 100% complete inferiority in every way. It's not a vehicle so no dangerous terrain checks.

I'm not following your logic.

A Spod landing in difficult terrain doesn't take a Dangerous terrain test because it's a vehicle... it takes the test because it is Deep Striking into difficult terrain.
The unit inside the Spod doesn't take a Dangerous terrain test because it is disembarking from a vehicle... it takes the test because the Spod rules point out that they are also considered to be Deep Striking, and they are doing so into difficult terrain.

The rule requiring Deep Striking models to take a Dangerous terrain test for landing in difficult terrain applies to all Deep Striking models, not just to vehicles and their occupants.

The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant to Spods... But that doesn't change the way the rules already apply to them anyway.

This.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This.

Really? In that case:

insaniak wrote:The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant

Fixed.

kirsanth wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This.

Really? In that case:

insaniak wrote:The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant

Fixed.

Are you reading what we're writing?

Is a spod a vehicle? No.

Does any model, not just vehicles, that deep strike into difficult terrain treat it as dangerous? Yes. Thus, spod isn't "better".

I think the reference isn't to how the pod itself is "protected", but rather how the unit exiting from it is.

Steelmage99 wrote:I think the reference isn't to how the pod itself is "protected", but rather how the unit exiting from it is.

But is it? It's still deepstriking, isn't it? Otherwise I want to know how the cargo got to where it got, since it can't embark on a non-vehicle model.

The unit isn't exiting from a vehicle, which is what the FAQ talks about.

It's the same logic marine players used to weasel their way out of dangerous terrain for the drop pod for the longest time until it was clearly FAQ'd. 'We're not deep striking, the Drop Pod is!'. The FAQ was worded poorly and only said vehicle however, so a monstrous creature gets to finally pull one over on the vehicle. Rules lawyerish interpretation? Yeah. Of course. Do I know they probably intended the FAQ to cover the spore as well? Yup, but as Tyranids are so frequently bludgeoned over the head with 'rules as intended are rules as interpreted, we must go by what's written.' Good for the goose good for the gander, I say.

calypso2ts wrote:It wasn't the lava part, it was more the pod lands in a forest which is difficult terrain but a DS model has to treat it as dangerous.

Ah, I guess that means people need to be more careful where they target so that they miss terrain and also don't target such that they are likely to get a mishap. Makes it a bit trickier rather than a no brainer.

Homer

kirsanth wrote:I think his point related more to the FAQ. . .

GWs FAQ wrote:Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.

Is a spod a vehicle?

A Drop pod is a vehicle, a Spore Pod is a MC.

A unit that arrives being transported by a vehicle that has arrived by Deep Strike that turn counts as having arrived by Deep Strike. The Spore Pod is not a vehicle, so, it's cargo did not arrive via Deep Strike? Maybe?

RAW? I don't know, I'm a little confused.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Insta-gib my Daemons? I'd take the mishap over that thank you.

The real nerf on drop pods is taking away the marines ability to combat squad after leaving a drop pod. (Despite the fact that the codex was already quite clear on the issue before the FAQ).

How does it take away their ability to combat squad after arriving by DP? The FAQ says they can't combat squad in reserve. The DP says they may combat squad upon arrival. That seems crystal clear to me so long as I am not missing something here.

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

It does not say the restriction only affects them while in reserves.

/shrug

Editing to add:
I think I can read it both ways. Regardless it would seem that pod's rules (under combat squads) would still allow it, as that is a specific allowance despite the general FAQ rule.

Yeah, I agree. The DP rules specifically state that the unit may combat squad upon arrival as an exception to the rule, which to me, clearly overrides the general FAQ.

yes, specific pod> loose faq ruling

I suppose. But the FAQ muddies the waters on this one. Where I could use this tactic in the past w/ impunity, I am now subject to a rules debate and TFG accusations should I attempt it.

I 110% agree that the DP rules override the FAQ and would have no issues whatsoever doing it or having my opponent do it. If someone calls you out for being a TFG for doing what is clearly within the bounds of the rules then you might want to evaluate the person/people you are playing with.

Just my 2 cents.

I suppose this doesn't affect Necrons exiting a monolith after it deepstrikes?

Only if Necrons gain the ability to combat squad.

[nitpick] Also, the rules excepting DPs are actually the Combat Squad rules, not Drop Pod rules. [/nitpick]

this FAQ didn't change anything...

Deep Strike Rules: Models ariving deep strike into dif ter, treat dif as dangerous ter.

Are the troops models? yes! troops must treat it as dangerous ter. and roll their dice. big deal. You still have guidence systems to avoid buildings and impassible ter.

I've always seen the rules as such. I simply think that the pod landed oddly due to trees, rubble, etc and possibly a marine took a casualty. Remember that an unsaved wound doesn't mean death, it just means the sm can't fight anymore, so is removed from game play.

Che-Vito wrote:

Tri wrote:

Reecius wrote:@Tri
Oh gawd, hahaha, I can see some folks making that argument already!

Again, I know a real life has no bearing on the rules, but a pod lands in some bushes, super soldiers inside wearing power armor get out...and die! Like, what's the pod for? Might as well just puch the marines out of the back of a t-hawk, same odds to get hurt as in a giant, armored vehicle that is designed to land safely and protect the guys inside. haha, just seems funny to me, but rules are rules.

@Fayric
I think the issue here is that the new FAQ states that units arriving in a vehicle by deep strike count as deep-striking themselves. That covers units moving in a vehicle as normal. I don't like it myself, but the ruling is quite clear, IMO.

... i'd love for real dangerous terrain on a 5+,4+,3+,2+ model takes a wound but then i'd also like to be able to an armour save against it (but not inv or cover)

So you'd love to shaft Daemons of one thing that makes their army much more viable, and make MEQ better...

True Daemons would have an exception and something would need an AP value ... I just like the idea of SM walking into a burning area and out the other side but IG burning to death.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This.

Really? In that case:

insaniak wrote:The FAQ ruling for Drop Pods is indeed completely irrelevant

Fixed.

Are you reading what we're writing?

Is a spod a vehicle? No.

Does any model, not just vehicles, that deep strike into difficult terrain treat it as dangerous? Yes. Thus, spod isn't "better".

Technically a Spod isn't a model, it's a "counts as". There are no models for Spods.

Kilkrazy wrote:Technically a Spod isn't a model, it's a "counts as". There are no models for Spods.

Awesome.

In all seriousness though, the spods rules already state the models deploying from them are deepstriking.
"A unit that Deepstrikes via a Mycetic Spore. . ."

Just so people do not really think it helps Tyranids.
I mean really, an FAQ that helps Tyranids? psh. . .

SumYungGui wrote:The FAQ was worded poorly and only said vehicle however, so a monstrous creature gets to finally pull one over on the vehicle.

Except, once again, they don't, because the Spod's own rules already state that the unit on board are Deep Striking.

The FAQ doesn't give anything to Spods, because it is nothing whatsoever to do with them. A ruling that applies to Drop Pods has absolutely nil effect on how the rules for Spods work.

Tyranids climbing out of a pod into difficult terrain will still have to take a Dangerous terrain test, because they are Deep Striking into difficult terrain. An FAQ answer relating to vehicles has no effect on that rule.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Uh, no? The VEHICLE came by deep-strike, but the units that it delivered COUNT as being delivered by deep strike. You will observe that it does specify "count as having arrived by deepstrike". This does not mean they take the dangerous terrain test for slamming into it head first at terminal velocity or faster. The rules state that vehicles that are immobilized immediately vomit their payload out of every hatch. Because drop-pods are immobilized after arriving on the tabletop, they vomit their cargo out wherever it lands, so if that happens to be dangerous terrain, they take a dangerous terrain check. It is not however the same test for landing in dangerous terrain. Deepstrike plants your units where you want them to, and as you may recall, a deep-striking assault squad that does not die a horrible horrible death being impaled on boulders may not commit any sort of assault. So, units arriving via drop pod may also not perform any assaults, or fire their las-cannons/multi-meltas/heavy-bolters at point blank range the turn that they arrive. The deepstrike mishap or whatever other rule that you are concerned about that I can't be bothered to reach for at this moment does not happen to both drop-pods AND their cargo; it only happens to the first thing getting on the table.

I really dont understand why there was a FAQ on this, the only armies that can take drop pods already specify in that entry that the unit may not assault. All I see with the current FAQ is that the disembarking unit may now no longer move after disembarking either, nor shoot heavy weapons, but in every game I played, it was assumed that that was already implicit.

poda_t wrote:Uh, no? The VEHICLE came by deep-strike, but the units that it delivered COUNT as being delivered by deep strike. You will observe that it does specify "count as having arrived by deepstrike". This does not mean they take the dangerous terrain test for slamming into it head first at terminal velocity or faster.

No, actually, it does.

If they count as arriving by Deep Strike, then any rules that apply to models arriving by Deep Strike will apply to them. That's what the 'counts as' means...

Additionally, the FAQ is only a clarification. The actual Deep Strike rules are clearer on the fact that they're not just 'counting as' Deep Striking. The models arriving in a Deep Striking vehicle are also considered to be Deep Striking.

The rules state that vehicles that are immobilized immediately vomit their payload out of every hatch. Because drop-pods are immobilized after arriving on the tabletop, they vomit their cargo out wherever it lands, so if that happens to be dangerous terrain, they take a dangerous terrain check.

The passenegers in a Drop Pod disembark as soon as it lands simply because the Drop Pod rules say they have to.

I really dont understand why there was a FAQ on this, the only armies that can take drop pods already specify in that entry that the unit may not assault. All I see with the current FAQ is that the disembarking unit may now no longer move after disembarking either, nor shoot heavy weapons, but in every game I played, it was assumed that that was already implicit.

Perhaps if you can't see any reason for the FAQ entry using your interpretation of the rules, it might be worth reconsidering the value of the other intepretation, under which the FAQ clarification does make sense...

pdawg517 wrote:I 110% agree that the DP rules override the FAQ and would have no issues whatsoever doing it or having my opponent do it. If someone calls you out for being a TFG for doing what is clearly within the bounds of the rules then you might want to evaluate the person/people you are playing with.

Just my 2 cents.

The problem with this interpretation is that there is no conflict between the army book and the core rulebook, wherefore there is nothing in the army book with regard to drop pods that trumps the core rulebook. The only thing a drop-pod trumps is that it does not ever dive face-first into impassable terrain.

insaniak wrote:

poda_t wrote:Uh, no? The VEHICLE came by deep-strike, but the units that it delivered COUNT as being delivered by deep strike. You will observe that it does specify "count as having arrived by deepstrike". This does not mean they take the dangerous terrain test for slamming into it head first at terminal velocity or faster.

No, actually, it does.

If they count as arriving by Deep Strike, then any rules that apply to models arriving by Deep Strike will apply to them. That's what the 'counts as' means...

Additionally, the FAQ is only a clarification. The actual Deep Strike rules are clearer on the fact that they're not just 'counting as' Deep Striking. The models arriving in a Deep Striking vehicle are also considered to be Deep Striking.

The rules state that vehicles that are immobilized immediately vomit their payload out of every hatch. Because drop-pods are immobilized after arriving on the tabletop, they vomit their cargo out wherever it lands, so if that happens to be dangerous terrain, they take a dangerous terrain check.

The passenegers in a Drop Pod disembark as soon as it lands simply because the Drop Pod rules say they have to.

I really dont understand why there was a FAQ on this, the only armies that can take drop pods already specify in that entry that the unit may not assault. All I see with the current FAQ is that the disembarking unit may now no longer move after disembarking either, nor shoot heavy weapons, but in every game I played, it was assumed that that was already implicit.

Perhaps if you can't see any reason for the FAQ entry using your interpretation of the rules, it might be worth reconsidering the value of the other intepretation, under which the FAQ clarification does make sense...

My problem with the words "count as" is that you get the whole Counter-Attack & Furious Charge foeces flinging contest again, even though it's clear the furious charge does not stack on... Then there is the issue of the codex explicitly stating that the drop pod counts as having an irreparable immobilized damage result, which in turn automatically gives the opponent victory points, which seems off to me.

Ha, I retract my comment regarding disembarking on an immobilized result--obviously I don't remove it for the sake of discussion continuity--units are not required to disembark. Oddly, something so ferocious that immobilized the tank seems to have no crew shaken/stun effect, which on reading it again seems a little odd to me.

My reading of drop-pods always assumed that the deep-strike rule was implicit in the arriving squad. I suppose if someone is cheesemongering, and wants to be smug when they point out it does not say anywhere that they counted as deep-striking, I would smack them with the BRB. And point out every instance where a vehicle trumps all infantry deployment rules if the infantry deploy with it. If the case happens to be that the vehicle arrives by deepstrike, then the vehicle trumps the cargo's deployment rules, and they arrive via the vehicle's rules (different meanings for IG codex as well, if the chimera gets a scout or outflank rule, the units deployed inside it "also get it" otherwise, they would not be arriving with the vehicle).

By reading of the original rules, without counting as deep-striking, the models could do anything except assault (says right under drop-pod in relevant army codex), but it seemed to me to be implicit that the models were considered to be arriving by deep-strike, ergo unable to move and counted as having moved.

I still fail to see though why it is that models disembarking from deep-strike into difficult terrain count as entering dangerous terrain. This needs to be more clearly defined. I refer you to IG Grav-chute Insertion rule which goes out of its way to clarify the lovely horrible things that happen to the squad.