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.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:03 PM
Again, it's simple to figure out what the 'basic version' of a 'troop type' is. It is the troop type's army list entry and nothing else.

No, that's simply your interpretation of what 'basic version' means.

That doesn't make it the right one, particularly since you have yet to provide any rules to back it up.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:03 PM
A codex is not a troop type.

What?

Of course it's not.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:03 PM
 It's not 'basic' if it has any additions, is it?

Ahh... so you're saying that a Tactical Squad in a DH army can not then have a Missile Launcher, or a flamer, or a Veteran Sergeant, then?

These are all, after all, additions.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:03 PM
You just don't want to see it because GW didn't give you a defintion so you think you can ignore the rule. Sorry, but I don't see anything that says you can ignore a rule just because you want to.

It's nothing whatsoever to do with 'ignoring' a rule. It's a simple case of not making up rules that don't exist, which is what you are doing.

No, that's what the common sense version is. You're the one whose yet to provide anything that says otherwise.


Then why are you trying to claim that the entire codex is a part of the troop type? It is not. Only the unit's army list entry is a part of it's troop type.


No, those are not 'additions'. Open your codex and you will see them right there in the unit entry. Now tell me where you see drop pods in the unit entry? That's what I thought. Drop pods are not a part of the 'basic version of the troop type' because they are not in the troop type's entry.


Yes, you are making up rules to allow you to take drop pods. Why should we allow you to take something you have not yet proven is legal? Just because the rules aree unclear to you? No. That is never a reason to allow you to do something. If anything, that is a good reason not to allow it.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:03 PM
Again, it's simple to figure out what the 'basic version' of a 'troop type' is. It is the troop type's army list entry and nothing else. A codex is not a troop type. It's not 'basic' if it has any additions, is it? No. You just don't want to see it because GW didn't give you a defintion so you think you can ignore the rule. Sorry, but I don't see anything that says you can ignore a rule just because you want to.

Pg 30 of the DH codex says all units are taken exactly as they appear in codex SM.

Pg21 SM codex "any command squad etc.

Cannot really argue with "any" can you?

I agree it is posible to work out what a basic troop is. It is a vanilla marine squad (combining designer note and 2nd paragraph of pg 21 DH "using inudcted IG etc" and therefore has access to drop-pods. I mean what else can it be - isn't it clear? It is the same argument you are making.

 

 

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:27 PM

No, that's simply your interpretation of what 'basic version' means.

That doesn't make it the right one, particularly since you have yet to provide any rules to back it up.

No, that's what the common sense version is. You're the one whose yet to provide anything that says otherwise.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:03 PM
A codex is not a troop type.

What?

Of course it's not.

Then why are you trying to claim that the entire codex is a part of the troop type? It is not. Only the unit's army list entry is a part of it's troop type.

Ahh... so you're saying that a Tactical Squad in a DH army can not then have a Missile Launcher, or a flamer, or a Veteran Sergeant, then?

These are all, after all, additions.

No, those are not 'additions'. Open your codex and you will see them right there in the unit entry. Now tell me where you see drop pods in the unit entry? That's what I thought. Drop pods are not a part of the 'basic version of the troop type' because they are not in the troop type's entry.

It's nothing whatsoever to do with 'ignoring' a rule. It's a simple case of not making up rules that don't exist, which is what you are doing.

Yes, you are making up rules to allow you to take drop pods. Why should we allow you to take something you have not yet proven is legal? Just because the rules aree unclear to you? No. That is never a reason to allow you to do something. If anything, that is a good reason not to allow it.

And what part of RAW is common sense part of? Common sense is not something two people can agree on. Wording however is. Arguing you idea of common sense is akin to arguing your version of intent.

I have no idea of your intelligence level so I put next to no weight on your idea of common sense. That is my choice - rather than your word I want to see what is a basic troop. As I said in an earlier post, the DH codex actually defines basic as vanilla (see page 27) and vanilla marines are allowed in drop pods.

Also, if you read Insaniak's post, he doesn't play DH so he isn't trying to take something he isn't allowed to. He is however allowing his opponent's to take something. Neither do I. I also dislike drop-pods raining down on me but I would allow it as I see it as an option via the rules.

Anyway, you need to to tone down how you write when people disagree with you, because you come across as pompous and it becomes difficult to take your points seriously. Not a flame, just an observation.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:27 PM
No, that's what the common sense version is.

Please post a page reference for the 'Common Sense' rule.

Because without that, it's simply the 'because Ghaz says so' rule... which, sorry, doesn't wash.

'Common Sense' says to me that the options listed in the codex are the options listed in the codex... but I'm crazy like that.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:27 PM
Then why are you trying to claim that the entire codex is a part of the troop type?

I'm not. If you're having this much trouble with basic english comprehension, it's no wonder you're having trouble with the rules.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:27 PM
No, those are not 'additions'. Open your codex and you will see them right there in the unit entry.

...as an optional extra, for which you have to pay extra points. How is that NOT an 'addition'?

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:27 PM
Now tell me where you see drop pods in the unit entry?

First, how about your reference from the DH or WH book where it references the unit entry in the first place?

Whether or not something appears in the unit entry is completely irrelevant, as the unit entry is never referenced by the rule in question.

The unit is allowed to take any normal options from the codex. You are simply not allowed to take variant lists.


Taking a Drop Pod does not make a Tactical Squad a part of a variant Chapter. It is an option available to ANY Tactical Squad.

So until you can provide a rule that actually refers to the unit entry, or that defines a 'basic' unit, you're making up rules.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:27 PM
Yes, you are making up rules to allow you to take drop pods.

Really? Or is the problem simply that your Marine codex is missing page 21?

Because there appears to be a very clear rule on that page that allows any Tactical Squad to take a Drop Pod.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:27 PM
 Why should we allow you to take something you have not yet proven is legal?

You shouldn't. Luckily, that's not the case in this situation.

I could ask you the same question: Why should we accept your definition of a 'basic' unit, when you can't provide a single rule to back it up?

Posted By insaniak on 12/27/2006 9:17 PM

Posted By Ghaz on 12/27/2006 8:27 PM
Yes, you are making up rules to allow you to take drop pods.

Really? Or is the problem simply that your Marine codex is missing page 21?

Because there appears to be a very clear rule on that page that allows any Tactical Squad to take a Drop Pod.

Is it me or does it seem like Ghaz doesn't reply to posts with page quotes etc, and just reinterates what he says whilst getting more bad tempered?

Missing page 21. .... to funny.

p. 25 of the WH codex says that: "When using Allied or Inducted troops, only the basic versions of these troop types published in the appropriate Codex can be used. No varients of any kind can be incorporated." and then in the section entitled 'Using Witch Hunters as Allies' it mentions: "Space Marines, including variant armies such as..." (Emphasis added by me)

Considering that variant is never defined specifically, one can assume, and yes I understand the danger in mentioning such a dreaded word as assume in YMTC, that because of its usage later on, on the very same page, that when variant is mentioned in relation to Space Marines, it means armies not in the Space Marines Codex.

(It can also be noted that the term troops is used twice, which by RAW would indicate that this rule only applies to troop choices, that is if one wants to ignore context and be very anal about it. Though you could replace the word troops with unit/s for accuracy and avoid that trouble.)

All that set aside for a moment, consider the following:

Can WH and DH use Space Marines as they are listed in their own Codex?

Can Space Marines as listed in their own Codex take drop pods?

If so, would you consider a Space Marine army that uses drop pods a varient, or not basic?

Also, would a Space Marine army using Traits be considered a varient, or basic?

I should mention that I am of the opinion that based on the rules as writen, drop pods are perfectly acceptable transport options when using Allied Space Marines in a DH or WH force. (Also forgive me if I am playing the part of the devils advocate on the troops bit)

Posted By fullheadofhair on 12/27/2006 9:27 PM

Is it me or does it seem like Ghaz doesn't reply to posts with page quotes etc, and just reinterates what he says whilst getting more bad tempered?

Missing page 21. .... to funny.

That's Ghaz's argument style here.  He makes up his mind about what the rule means, and then keeps on stubbornlly reinterating it regardless of what other people bring to the discussion.

Posted By skyth on 12/28/2006 6:49 AM

Posted By fullheadofhair on 12/27/2006 9:27 PM

Is it me or does it seem like Ghaz doesn't reply to posts with page quotes etc, and just reinterates what he says whilst getting more bad tempered?

Missing page 21. .... to funny.

That's Ghaz's argument style here.  He makes up his mind about what the rule means, and then keeps on stubbornlly reinterating it regardless of what other people bring to the discussion.

Which is a shame as once upon a time Ghaz was pretty well respected regarding rules interpretations. But ridiculous tirades like this (and others elsewhere) have significantly tarnished that reputation. Is it because the EoT has closed or what?

Anyhow, Codex: SM p.21 "Space Marine Special Rules" is incredibly clear (especially for rules written by GW),  "Any Command squad, Veteran squad, Terminator squad, Dreadnought, Scout squad, Tactical squad or Devastator squad may be equipped with a drop pod (see the transport entry for details)." Not that this hasn't been said over and over.

And it's a pity that Dakka's reputation has been tarnished by time as well. It's nonsense arguments like these that have done so. Once again, it says that you use the BASIC VERSION OF THE TROOP TYPE. It's clear what the basic version of a troop type is. It is it's army list entry WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL RULES. 'Drop Pod Assault' is additional rules and therefore is not a part of the BASIC VERSION OF THE TROOP TYPE. If it were, then drop pods would be listed as one of the unit's transport options. It is not.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/28/2006 12:29 PM
 It's clear what the basic version of a troop type is. It is it's army list entry WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL RULES.

No, that's still your interpretation of what the basic version is. You have yet to provide any rules to back it up, or to explain why the DH and WH books never refer to the army list entry, but refer instead to the options available in the codex.

So yes, that's a nonsense argument alright.

And you've yet to prove that a rule that is not a part of the troop type's army list entry is a part of that troop type's basic version. It's not that hard to figure out that the basic version of something has absolutely no extras, so why don't you back up your claims that it does. Because the 'Drop Pod Assault' special rule is once again not a part of the troop type. It is not listed as an option in the troop type's army list entry.

Provide a rule to back up your nonsense arguments that you can do something that is questionable by the rules.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/28/2006 12:52 PM
And you've yet to prove that a rule that is not a part of the troop type's army list entry is a part of that troop type's basic version.

No, I've done that repeatedly, Ghaz. The =][= books tell you to take the basic version of the unit, and then go on to specify what that means: no variant Chapters, but any options available to the unit are allowed.

The Drop Pod is an option available to the unit. It's that simple.

You've simply decided that your way is right, and are refusing to let a lack of rules backing you up get in the way of making a point.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/28/2006 12:52 PM
It's not that hard to figure out that the basic version of something has absolutely no extras,

It's also not hard to figure out that removing a unit from the board is moving it... but that's equally unsupported by the rules.

I've provided the rules that back up my viewpoint on this. So, one final time, where are the rules that back up yours?

Rules, Ghaz. As in, actually printed in the book.

Except once again, where do you see that option listed in the unit entry? If it's not in the unit entry, then it is not a part of that basic unit.


No, the drop pod is not an option of the unit. It is an option given to the unit by a special rule that you can not take in an Inquisitorial army.


Seems to me like the pot is calling the kettle black. You are just as guilty because you are letting a lack of rules backing you up get in the way of making your point.


No, you have not provided rules that says that the 'basic version of a troop type' includes other rules.


Yes, I'm still waiting on you to provide something that says that a rule not in the troop type's entry is a part of it's basic version.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/28/2006 12:52 PM

And you've yet to prove that a rule that is not a part of the troop type's army list entry is a part of that troop type's basic version. It's not that hard to figure out that the basic version of something has absolutely no extras, so why don't you back up your claims that it does. Because the 'Drop Pod Assault' special rule is once again not a part of the troop type. It is not listed as an option in the troop type's army list entry.

Provide a rule to back up your nonsense arguments that you can do something that is questionable by the rules.

Bull crap and you damn well know it. We already did provide a rule. Try looking at page 21 of Codex Space Marine (or is it missing from your codex?). It's what I quoted the page before, others have quoted several times elsewhere in this thread and which you again and again ignore because it refutes your ridiculously asinine argument.

Again, since you seem to be intentionally ignoring this, As per page 21, Space Marine Special Rules, which includes ATSKNF, how SM Characters may be used, and (get this) how Drop Pods may be used by ANY Command, Veteran, Terminator, Scout, Tactical and Devastator squad, as well as Dreadnoughts.

There is your damn rule. The only person here with a nonsense argument is YOU.  

Posted By Ghaz on 12/28/2006 1:07 PM
Except once again, where do you see that option listed in the unit entry?

And also once again, where do the Inquisition books mention the unit entry?

That's what you keep coming back to. You are for some reason fixated on the unit entry alone, despite the fact that the rules make no such distinction between the unit entry and any other option, aside from those for variant Chapters.

You're making up rules that don't exist, and refusing to look at what's actually there. The Drop Pod is an option for the units listed on page 21. If it weren't an option, as you are for some reason claiming, they wouldn't ever be able to take it.

It's really that simple. An option is something that you can choose. Those units can choose to take a Drop Pod... it is therefore an option.

And the =][= books tell us that we can take any options available to the unit... we just can't take variant Chapters.

This nonsense you keep coming back to about the unit entry is simply NOT backed up by the rules as written. You're making it up out of thin air, based on a single phrase, rather than actually reading the rules as a whole.

But whatever. Until you decide you're ready to discuss the actual rules, rather than Codex: Ghaz's Delusions of Supremacy, I'm done.

Ghaz, would you similarly argue that Fleet of Foot does not apply to the "basic version" of Dark Eldar infantry units? It is not presented within the unit entries, either, but earlier in the book, much like Drop Pod rules are in the Space Marine codex.

And yet that is exactly what you're doing. You've yet to provide anything to support your claims that anything in the codex is the 'basic version of the troop type'. Your claims are NOT backed up by the rules as written either.


And if it were an option of the unit, then why isn't it listed in the unit entry? Because it is an option presented by the 'Drop Pod Assault' special rule. Unless you can take that special rule in an Inquisitorial army it is not an option.  By your claims, it is entirely legal to take traits and doctrines since they're an 'option' in the codex. So can I take traits and doctrines or not?


Strictly speaking, no it would not be since those rules are not present within the unit entry.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/28/2006 7:15 PM
Because it is an option presented by the 'Drop Pod Assault' special rule. Unless you can take that special rule in an Inquisitorial army it is not an option. 

Bull crap again. It is NOT a Drop Pod Assault special rule, but a SPACE MARINE SPECIAL RULE. Full stop. Per page 21, Codex: Space Marine, which is the page that gives all Space Marines the ATSKNF special rule, that also specifies the three ways Space Marine characters may be used, also explicitly states ANY of the units listed may be equipped with a drop pod. REPEAT: ANY OF THE UNITS LISTED MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH A DROP POD

Is page 21 missing from your codex or what? Do you continue to refuse to acknowledge it so you can continue with your juvenile rant? Or perhaps there is some sort of mental unbalance or deficiency preventing you from admitting you are wrong? There is absolutely no way it can be made any clearer yet you still insist on some fabricated nonsensical reasoning that has been refuted ten times to Sunday.

And you're the reason that Dakka has gone downhill, not me. It's attitudes like your 'because I say so' that is dragging this forum down. So far no one has provided a rule that has refuted my claims. If it was a basic version of the troop type then it would have been listed in the unit entry like Rhinos and Razorbacks. It does not matter in the least if it's with the 'Space Marine special rules' or not. It is not the basic version of the troop type. It is an addition to the unit entry through the army's special rules and not a part of the basic version of that unit. 

Maybe you're the one who should stop the juvenile ranting until you can explain why something that is not listed in the unit entry is considered a part of the basic version of the unit. It is clear that there is a very distinct reason why drop pods were not listed in with the other transport options.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/28/2006 8:10 PM
It's attitudes like your 'because I say so' that is dragging this forum down.

...


That's got to be the funniest thing I've read all week.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 12/28/2006 7:56 PM
 ANY OF THE UNITS LISTED MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH A DROP POD

  Sounds pretty conclusive to me.  "Any" without a qualifier means without exception, in my opinion.  I can see where Ghaz is coming from, but I don't agree with him.  I don't think that just because a rule is on a differant page, it doesn't count. 

  I believe that that drop pods were not listed in the individual unit entries because they are "opponent's permission only" in certain missions. 

I think we can agree that the rule is poorly written, yes? Both sides have an argument, one is stronger than the other, but we really SHOULD have a clear cut answer IN the codex.
Thanks a lot GW, this is why I havent bought anything in 3 years


In short, direct not your anger upon each other, but upon games workshop, for the bait and switch that is a GW rulebook.

Posted By Ghaz on 12/28/2006 8:10 PM
And you're the reason that Dakka has gone downhill, not me. It's attitudes like your 'because I say so' that is dragging this forum down.

Whoah!

Walk away from the keyboard...right now!



Pointing fingers at people for an imaginary result is not anyones fault but Malfred!

Now go punch Mauleed in the scrotum and makes friends with each other. Thats an order!

Make friends with Mauleed's scrotum and punch each other.

Make Mauleed's scrotum punch your friends.

Golly gee kids, simmer down!
Just kidding, keep up the good work.
Ghazizwrongandmauleedsscrotumpunchedmybrother.

I thought this was resolved on page 3! What the heck are we doing here?

From what I understand the problem is this :

Inducted drop pods cannot carry marines in them because the unit entry in codex space marines doesn't list them. It is listed in the space marine special rules section along with the rule about ATSKNF, the rule explaining how you're supposed to sloppily pour paint all over the half-built minis, and the rule about how player's show up to a game with no actual knowledge of how the rules work.

The answer? Simple! NEVER induct space marines into your army! Those jarheads just make a mess of the place anyways and they will probably just get drunk on the carrier before they make planet fall. Your army will probably suffer more deaths while onboard the carrier from the space marines who are sore losers at Halo or after being treated to a 'babality' in Mortal Kombat than they ever will in battle. Trust me, it's more trouble than it's worth!

This thread has run its course. The arguments have been stated and the personal remarks need to stop. Individual readers can draw their own conclusions from the arguments presented.

Ghaz and Insaniak were both toeing the line up until page five, when Ghaz crossed it with his “Use some common sense for a change instead of trying to blame GW because they didn't give you a dictionary of terms twice the size of the rulebook as an excuse to do whatever you want.”, which is a fairly blatant ad hominem attack. Ghaz, while you’re not the only guilty party here, in the opinion of this moderator, you started it. This is a warning.

Fulheadofhair descended to the same level on page 6, and Insaniak, having made a couple of posts in which he tried to keep from getting personal, fell victim to the temptation as well. That’s about where it all went downhill, with various others also transgressing. You all know who you are.

Try to be nicer, folks. YMTC is the home of spirited debate, but ad hominem attacks and personal insults don’t belong.