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.

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

rigeld2 wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod? after all they are a presser Sealed transport dropped from Space.
I understand this is a Black Templar thing only but still, I wouldn't let my opponent shoot.

 kinratha wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod? after all they are a presser Sealed transport dropped from Space.
I understand this is a Black Templar thing only but still, I wouldn't let my opponent shoot.

The idea is to stay in a turn and then assault the second turn.

 Eldarain wrote:

 kinratha wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod? after all they are a presser Sealed transport dropped from Space.
I understand this is a Black Templar thing only but still, I wouldn't let my opponent shoot.

The idea is to stay in a turn and then assault the second turn.

I could be wrong here, but they are still disembarking the second turn, there for they can't assault after disembarking that turn.

 kinratha wrote:

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

No. The BT pod is simply Open-topped as per its profile.

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod?

No, as they wouldn't have LOS. But the doors on the model being open or not has no bearing on whether or not the vehicle is open topped. There is no requirement in the rules to leave the doors closed until the unit disembarks.

No, as they wouldn't have LOS. But the doors on the model being open or not has no bearing on whether or not the vehicle is open topped. There is no requirement in the rules to leave the doors closed until the unit disembarks.

Yeah, I can see that. Good thing this is a BT thing only.
I could see some Nasty Droppod armys if it was like this for all Codecs.

Actually, on consideration, there would be nothing stopping the unit inside the put from shooting, as LOS on an open topped transport is just taken from any point on the transport. It's just the pod's own weapon that can't draw LOS with the doors up...

Again, not advocating that people actually should play this way, because it's absurd... Just pointing out where the current rules mess leaves us, by RAW.

 kinratha wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 kinratha wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

You should read the rules for Open Topped.

Isn't it open topped after the unit disembarks?

I mean would you let someone shoot out of a closed drop pod? after all they are a presser Sealed transport dropped from Space.
I understand this is a Black Templar thing only but still, I wouldn't let my opponent shoot.

The idea is to stay in a turn and then assault the second turn.

I could be wrong here, but they are still disembarking the second turn, there for they can't assault after disembarking that turn.

You can assault out of an open topped transport I'm pretty sure, unless I'm mistaken. Just not the turn the pod arrives, or does the drop pod rule not allow it on any turn of disembarking?

TBH if someone tried to pull this in a game I'd let it go but I wouldn't be playing them again.

If I was a TO (and HIWPI) standard DP rules - must disembark, nobody can embark.

Common sense for the win. I doubt most TOs would allow it. If they did I'd be suspicious.

 vossyvo wrote:
You can assault out of an open topped transport I'm pretty sure, unless I'm mistaken. Just not the turn the pod arrives, or does the drop pod rule not allow it on any turn of disembarking?.

The Drop Pod Assault rules just forbid assaulting on the turn they arrive.

But you CAN assault out of an open topped vehicle. and out of any vehicle that didnt move in the previous turn.

But I dont understand why people are saying this rule is so absurd. Every edition change there are crazy new rules and crazy changes that people may say are absurd. Why is it so outlandish to play RAW?

Honestly is staying in a drop pod for one turn that broken? The black templar are outdated, yes. They pay a lot for a lot of things and have some really weird crazy rules. So you are forcing me to play with those older rules, but if it looks like there is one weird rule that would actually benefit the black templar it is now crazy and not allowed?

I guess the ruling baffles me. If a FAQ WASNT released after 6th edition came out, I would agree that the drop pod should play just like a BA drop pod. But the fact is there WAS a FAQ. A lot of things were updated. The LR and LRC becoming an assault vehicle for example. They fixed that. If they chose not to fix this drop pod issue. There is nowhere in the codex or the FAQ that says I must disembark after deep striking. Therefore I treat this vehicle just like any other vehicle and can use it to maintain safety.

Um, you can't assault.out of "any vehicle" anymore. And no one is saying your drop pod trick is broken, it's just cheesy as hell and too argumentative to try in a game.

Page 82 of the BRB
"Acting as an ideal attack platform, all Open-topped Transports are Assault Vehicles."

And my point is that it seems so obvious that it's RAW that I'm confused why people are arguing against it.

 Icculus wrote:
I guess the ruling baffles me. If a FAQ WASNT released after 6th edition came out, I would agree that the drop pod should play just like a BA drop pod. But the fact is there WAS a FAQ. A lot of things were updated. The LR and LRC becoming an assault vehicle for example. They fixed that. If they chose not to fix this drop pod issue. There is nowhere in the codex or the FAQ that says I must disembark after deep striking. Therefore I treat this vehicle just like any other vehicle and can use it to maintain safety.

The issue that most people have with it is simply that it doesn't make any sense for one Chapter to be able to remain in their pods when everyone else can't without there being some sort of explanation provided as to why this would be the case.

That, coupled with the fact that the FAQ simply replaced the Drop Pod assault entry whole-sale, and so also inadvertantly chopped out the reference to who can actually use it, leads people to believe that it was just a poorly thought out entry rather than a deliberate change.

If you can come up with a convincing reason that a Chapter reknowned for impetuous assaults would plummet into battle in their drop pods and then hang around inside and have a cuppa and smoke before charging out into battle when everyone else who uses drop pods is piling out before the ramps hit the ground, you might change some minds...

Tactical_Genius wrote:
^^^^ 46% of people didn't read the thread and don't own the Black Templars codex / couldn't be bothered to look at the FAQ.

If someone is pulling that BS with me, I will pack up my things and go.
In a real game I couldn't care less about these RAW vs common sense-cases, especially not in a game so badly written as WH40K.

I really think that his attitude is ruining this forum, all this acting as if RAW is some Holy Grail.
I've seen people here who actually came to ask a question because they needed help and it got followed with a 13-page philosophical discussion about some crap-rule.
End-result: The person still didn't get any help, it was all about four people bitching and bickering for pages in a row.

Icculus wrote:But you CAN assault out of an open topped vehicle. and out of any vehicle that didnt move in the previous turn.

The bolded is incorrect.

And my problem with it is that it doesn't make sense. At all. Given the fluff of a pod and the fact that of all the chapters BT are the only "special" ones with absolutely zero justification given... Just doesn't pass the test.

Kangodo wrote:
I've seen people here who actually came to ask a question because they needed help and it got followed with a 13-page philosophical discussion about some crap-rule.
End-result: The person still didn't get any help, it was all about four people bitching and bickering for pages in a row.

The thing is, in those sorts of situations, what generally happens is that either the question is answered in the first few posts, and then the thread turns into a prolonged discussions of the exact RAW (in which case the person did get the help they wanted, and can follow the ensuing discussion, or not, as suits them) or the question asked is a legitimate rules issue, in which case the ensuing discussion is the help they need, to show how the rule is an area needing discussion, and so they are aware of the various arguments around it.

YMDC isn't solely concerned with RAW. But where the RAW is in question, discussing that question is kind of important.

Yeah, and it's fun to go back and forth on these things. I never forget something if somebody openly proves me wrong about it.

RAW: They aren't forced to disembark and, if I remember my rules correctly, can't as the drop pod is moving at cruising speed.
HIWPI: Talk it over with BT players and reach a decision to either play it per RAW or according to normal drop pod rules, then abide by that decision until the Codex changes/an FAQ addresses the matter.

RAW: there are no access.points on a Black Templars drop pod, so you may never disembark.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
RAW: there are no access.points on a Black Templars drop pod, so you may never disembark.

Drop Pods are open-topped.

If you follow RAW then yes they can stay in. The FAQ's did a lot to make it cover up the possibilities of breaking it up; in the book under the transport section it doesn't say anyone can take a drop pod but in the FAQ's they fixed it. Honestly I would never do it because it feels cheesy (maybe in a tournament not a friendly). Worst case scenario you have to follow the BRB's "most important rule". In a tourney I think unless the TO has a special thing against it he would have to accept it as RAW.

If this wasn't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Seriously the rules lawyering can go a bit to far, if you honestly think this is intended game design good for you, but I think I'll play with someone else.

Spartak wrote:
If this wasn't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Seriously the rules lawyering can go a bit to far, if you honestly think this is intended game design good for you, but I think I'll play with someone else.

Now watch it, that kind of talk can get you suspended from these forums. Rules lawyering is the number 1 pastime of Warhammer players, next to mathammering and complaining about prices.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
If this wasn't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Seriously the rules lawyering can go a bit to far, if you honestly think this is intended game design good for you, but I think I'll play with someone else.

Now watch it, that kind of talk can get you suspended from these forums. Rules lawyering is the number 1 pastime of Warhammer players, next to mathammering and complaining about prices.

lol, your 100% right, I apologize

Spartak wrote:
If this wasn't so sad and pathetic I would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Seriously the rules lawyering can go a bit to far, if you honestly think this is intended game design good for you, but I think I'll play with someone else.

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

There has been one person in this thread saying that they would actually play this way. Regardless of the results of the poll (which due to the vagueness of the original post will be larglely reflecting RAW rather than how people will play), from my experience the vast majority of players accept that this is an unintentional oversight. The discussion here is just a curio, ultimately.

If it were just about discussing ideas it would be one thing, but it's not. People read these threads and take what they have read to the table. They use these RAW arguments to annoy veterans and take advantage of newcomers, I honestly think this type of lawyering is toxic to the game. It drives would be hobbyists away. That’s not just supposition, I've seen it firsthand. I'm sorry if I come across as harsh and I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone. My opinion is still the same, I just need to watch how I come across I guess.

Spartak wrote:
If it were just about discussing ideas it would be one thing, but it's not. People read these threads and take what they have read to the table. They use these RAW arguments to annoy veterans and take advantage of newcomers,

The thing is, this is also exactly why these threads need to exist...

We get an awful lot of threads in YMDC that start out with an inexperienced player who had something strange happen in a game, and they want to check if it's legit for the next time it comes up. Making sure that there is full and frank discussion of those areas of the game where the rules get a little screwy benefits everyone... in part because the more these issues get discussed, the more people become aware of them, and also because the more these issues get discussed, the more chance there is of GW taking notice (because regardless of the publicly-stated company opinion on forums, the studio guys do lurk around on the internet) and actually fixing these little bits of silliness.


People leaving the game because of dodgy rules aren't leaving because of discussion on forums. They're leaving because the rules are shoddy. DIscussion is the best weapon against shoddy rules, since it promotes better understanding of them.

I agree, which is why I said what I did. I believe, and no offense intended, that the assertion being made about the BT drop pods is ridiculous. I just regret the way I said it. My problem with the discussion is not that it's happening, it's that the absurdity is not being pointed out for what it is. We all know the rules can be poorly written at times, but there is difference, I think, in discussing how a rule should be interpreted and deliberately trying to twist the rules using RAW as your excuse. There is undoubtedly a place for RAW/YMDC discussions, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

This is madness. I understand most agument about RAW vs Rules as intended, But this I just dont understand. How could you posibly think that this isnt just an oversight? There are no presidents in the game..... There is no way that you can stay in the drop pod. I will comb through all the rules later and see if I can come up with anything... But still this is just crazy. This is one of those things that GW didnt FAQ because they figured no one would be dumb enough to argue it this way. I guess thats just GW thinking more of us then we really are... which is strange considering GW seems to hate their player base and think are all tards...