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.

My argument in short goes like this: Theres a reason that the Designer mentions Deep Strike in the drop pod rules and if ?Drop pods deepstrike? is the only reasonable explanation, we can come up with, then ?Drop pods deepstrike? should be accepted until someone can present an alternative way to read the rules.

This is simplified of course, so here comes a more in depth argument:

A premise is a true statement. In a logical argument premises are combined to deduce new true statements.

Example:
Premises a=b ; b=c
conclusion a=c
a=c can then be used as a premise for the next argument and so on.

I hope this illustrates that my premises are not neccessarily wrong for being deduced from other premises. Since you question the existence of thouse more basic premises Ill try to list them (most are obvious, but you asked for it and maybe you can indeed pinpoint a wrong one.) :

1a) Rulestext: "Such units remain in reserves and arrive via drop pod, even if the Mission being played does not normally allow Reserves or Deep Strike" - true by definiton.

1b) The rules are meant as they are written. - true by definition, since we are discussing the rules as written and not intend.

1c) The written rules (for drop pods) make sense. - we have to assume this when we want to discuss the RAW, so 1c is true by definition.

1d) Drop pods can be used in missions that normally dont allow Deep Strike. - a part of the ruletext, so true.

1e) Stating this, would make sense if drop pods used a variant of Deep Strike to enter play. - true.

1f) No where in the rules is it stated, that drop pods dont Deep Strike. - true.

1g) The rules allow the interpretation that drop pods use a variant of Deep Strike. - true, since 1e and 1f are true.

1h) I as a person can see no other interpretation of the rules (then the one mentioned in 1g), in which 1a-c are true. - I should know what I think, so true.


2a) If there is only one possible interpretation of all the given facts, then that interpretation can be accepted as true, until someone is able to present an alternative interpretation. - true

2b) No one has yet provided an alternative interpretation of the rulestext at hand, that covers the premises 1a-g. - true (Yakface you do at least not cover 1c)

Final conclusion: Since 1h, 2a and 2b are true, Drop Pods use a variant of Deep Strike.

1e) Stating this, would make sense if drop pods used a variant of Deep Strike to enter play. - true.

That would only be true if they didnt have their own clearly written rules in the Marine Codex.

If the Pods were intended to follow the rules for Deep Strike (and if we're going for 'what makes sense') wouldn't it have made more sense for the Drop Pod entry to simply say:

'Drop Pods follow the rules for Deep Strike, with the following changes...'

...rather than outlining specific rules for Drop Pod Assault?


So no, your premise here is incorrect. Frankly, it makes NO sense for Drop Pods to count as using a modified version of Deep Strike when the rules for Drop Pod Assault are spelled out in the Codex entry instead of simply referencing the Deep Strike rules.

1f) No where in the rules is it stated, that drop pods dont Deep Strike. - true.

Completely irrelevant to any rules discussion. We go by what the rules say, not what they don't say. And what they say is that troops in Pods enter play by means of the Drop Pod Assault, not that they enter by Deep Strike.

1g) The rules allow the interpretation that drop pods use a variant of Deep Strike. - true, since 1e and 1f are true.

Except that 1e is not true, and 1f is irrelevant. So 1g is also therefore false.

There is no interpretation required, let alone allowed, by the RAW. The pod uses Drop Pod Assault, a rule that is outlined in the Marine Codex.

Raider - let's go back to Yak's analogy with the front and back doors. All you did was say that you had a better analogy, but why is his bad? It's a situation where it makes perfect sense to reinforce that you can do A even though you can't normally do B.

The burden seems to be on you to show that the Drop Pod rules are not like this, as you're claiming that the very fact that that reinforcement exists proves that A and B are the same thing.

Gotta love how GW's can't write rules for crap.

By the RAW, Drop Pods don't deep strike. They use their own rules that work even if reserves or Deep Strike aren't allowed for the mission. Who knows why GW didn't make things clear.

If they ever get around to making the Eye of Terror FAQs official, then mystics will be able to shoot at incoming drop pods. If you're playing somewhere where the Eye of Terror FAQs are accepted, than mystics can shoot at incoming drop pods.

As long as both players involved know ahead of time what's going on, what's the big frakking deal? Ed, if you're playing in a tournament where its understood going into it that mystics shoot at Drop Pods, how can you justify awarding poor sportsmanship?

And by the way, Raider...

1c) The written rules (for drop pods) make sense. -we have to assume this when we want to discuss the RAW, so 1c is true by definition.

HAHAHAHAHAHA - this is Games Workshop we're talking about here. Remember, "Why would you give a Techpriest or a Bone'ead the Honorifica Imperialis?" as an answer to a FAQ question? Or Mr. "An army with two wounds has a lot going for it."

Your "argument" is really a whole bunch of conclusions that are not supported by premises. Only 1a, 1b, and 1d are actually premises. Everything else is either an unsupported assumption, irrelevent to to the discussion, or a conclusion based on one of the two previous things.

The written rules do not have to make sense. In fact, I refer you to the "How to have an intelligent rules discussion" and "The nature of YMDC" posts stickkied at the top of the forum...

"As long as both players involved know ahead of time what's going on, what's the big frakking deal? Ed, if you're playing in a tournament where its understood going into it that mystics shoot at Drop Pods, how can you justify awarding poor sportsmanship? "

If it's been published or otherwise made clear in advance that any house rule will be used in a tournament, I'm of course fine with it. I wouldn't show up at Adepticon for example, where they have a written FAQ with this rules change and then complain that it was being used. (I also wouldn't show up to Adepiticon with drop pods.)

But in all other situations, it's a zero. It's claiming an advantage that the rules do not afford you, and that is unethical and unsportsmanlike. And what is the sports score for if not to penalize bad sportsmanship.

The argument is moot except for the nether regions of this crazy forum. The fact of the matter is the 5 largest 40k tournaments in the country, the 4 GT's and Adepticon, will all rule that drop pods are deep striking. This begs the question of who is really trying to enforce their houserule on others.

This begs the question of who is really trying to enforce their houserule on others.

GW and Adepticon. Because they are the ones telling us to follow rules which are not in the rulebook or V4 FAQ.

It's claiming an advantage that the rules do not afford you, and that is unethical and unsportsmanlike.

You know, some people just call that cheating.

Sad but true.

Darth, could you provide a link documenting where it says that the GTs are going to be using the Eye of Terror FAQ? The GW forums/that FAQ have a caveat on them specifically stating that they're not official.

Personally, I agree with Yak on all points. I think they mentioned Deep Strike simply to make it clear that Drop Pod Assault IS allowed even when Deep Strike isn't, for the benefit of people who might confuse one with the other. 'Gods know I've run into enough players who thought that Daemon Summoning was the same thing as Deep Strike because they have similar rules.

GW is having GTs again?

"GW is having GTs again? "

Yeah, Canada is anyway. It.s on the same day as Games Day Toronto, has 25 players per system and is, wait for it ... 3 games long :S . Good Times.

In answer to the belief that Drop Pods cant use a form of Deep Strike to enter play for the reason that the Head Line of their rules is " Drop Pod assault":

A Dreadnaught is a vehicle. It has its own name, and some speciel rules in close combat, but its still a vehicle.

In analogy to this, the fact that the drop pod rules are called "Drop Pod assault" does not mean they CANT be a type of Deep Strike with some special rules. At first glance this may look unlikekily, since the rules nowhere explicitly state that Drop Pod assault is a variant of Deep Strike.

BUT (!) the rules DO IMPLY that drop pods use a variant of Deep Strike to enter play. Implication IS a weak argument, but since the rules do not state otherwise AND (!!!) one small peace of the rules CANT BE EXPLAINED OTHERWISE we have to accept that drop pods use a variant of Deep Strike.

Insaniak I hope this shows that 1e) is true.

1f) is not completely irrelevant, since the small peace of the rules I back up my opinion with, would crumble if an explicit statement somewhere else said otherwise.

Overall I am aware that the rules are permissive, so normally nothing is allowed unless its explicitly stated. Drop pods DO enter play though and the rules DO imply that this happens by a variant of Deep Strike. Example:

Peter is allowed to participate in the forum, allthough Flamers are normally not allowed to participate in the forum.

What does this tell us? It tells at least me three things:

- there is an exception made from the Forum rules.
- The exception is regarding Flaming
- The exception is made for Peter

So? You got it. Peters obviously a lttle Flamer, since otherwise the text above would make no sense.

And the same thing is true for drop pods and deepstrike.

Drop pods may be used in missions where Deep Strike is normally not allowed.

- there is an exception made from the typical Mission-rules.
- The exception is regarding Deep Strike
- The exception is made for Drop Pods

So one might dare to assume that under the premise that the rules are not totally screwed up, drop pods use a variant of Deep Strike, since otherwise the text above would again make no sense.

No

And you're making less and less sense the more you go.

At least two premises and a conclusion. That's the only way you'll win this (or any) rules debate. Editorializing for several paragraphs doesn't help your cause.

Permissive Raider. Rules say what they do, the Drop Pod Assault rules do not state anywhere that they are a form of Deepstrike or that they are considered to be Deep Striking.

Therefore they are not deepstriking.

The mention of deepstrike is just letting the players know that regardless of the MISSION being played the drop pods work. So in effect your whole argument is based upon what the SM codex says about the MISSION being played and not the Drop Pod.... Square peg into a round hole anyone?

but since the rules do not state otherwise AND (!!!) one small peace of the rules CANT BE EXPLAINED OTHERWISE

It's been explained otherwise several times by several different people. You just chose to ignore the answer.

Peter is allowed to participate in the forum, allthough Flamers are normally not allowed to participate in the forum.

What does this tell us?

It tells us nothing, because the wording is different.

The Drop Pod entry doesn't say 'although'... it says:
"Such units remain in reserve and arrive by drop pod, even if the mission being played does not normally allow Reserves or Deep Strike."

Note: "...arrive by drop pod..."


If I have a key, I can enter the house through the front door.

If I have a rock, I can enter the house through the window, even though I normally can't enter the house without a key.

That doesn't make the rock a kind of key, nor does it make the window a type of front door. They are simply two different ways of achieving a similar outcome... ie: I enter the house.

Same thing here...
If I have Terminator Armour, I can Deep Strike from Reserves, if the mission allows it.

If I have a Drop Pod, I can Drop Pod from Reserves, even if the mission doesn't normally allow Reserves or Deep Striking.

The clarification 'even if the mission doesn't normally allow Reserves or Deep Strike' is merely there to show that Drop Pods are an exception to the normal rules. It does not make Pods a type of Deep Strike, it merely shows that they are similar ways to get your models on the board.

Insaniak: "If I have a rock, I can enter the house through the window, even though I normally can't enter the house without a key."


Convinced.


Your example shows that the rules do not inevitably mean, that Pods use Deep Strike. Therefore my reasoning no longer holds.

Can the following find consensus?

P1: The Drop pod entry does not say that drop pods use Deep Strike.

P2: The rules are permissive, so if something is not explicitly called Deep Strike, it is not Deep Strike.

Conclusion: Drop Pods do not Deep Strike.

Hallelujah.

Amazing, insaniak was even able to do that without some childish insult. See folks, it CAN be done.  Awesome!