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 Lowinor on 02/14/2007 1:41 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 02/14/2007 1:28 PM

Yeah they pop open automatically and the troops are forced to disembark when they arrive. Travelling faster than 12" is the only thing that does not allow a transport to disembark its infantry. But again, because forced disembarkation makes the unknown distance moved by the drop pod irrelevant, it has no affect on allowing the troops to assault.

Hence being open topped only disallows disembarkation after distances it travelled being greater than 12". It doesnt disallow the troops to assault once they disembark.

I am just playing devils advocate here, as I still think being able to do this is crap, but the people for this side of the argument atleast have some ground to stand on.

Total agreement here.

Man, will you just pick a side?  Stop hopping the fence man, stand your ground.  I feel like I'm the only one holding the fort here Custer.

Honkey Bro, dont ever change.

Picking a side is pointless. Picking sides leads to arguments and arguments lead to hurt feelings. Hurt feelings lead to Care Bears. Please for the love of yourselves and everyone on this board don't resort to this type of behavior!

Now, just let me break it down for a moment here. I'm going to play Devil's Adjective myself and actually say that drop pods CAN allow their troops to disembark, but probably shouldn't. Oh, I could find a rule to support this argument and quote it, but that wouldn't be nearly as fun.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 02/14/2007 1:48 PM
Picking a side is pointless. Picking sides leads to arguments and arguments lead to hurt feelings. Hurt feelings lead to Care Bears. Please for the love of yourselves and everyone on this board don't resort to this type of behavior!

Now, just let me break it down for a moment here. I'm going to play Devil's Adjective myself and actually say that drop pods CAN allow their troops to disembark, but probably shouldn't. Oh, I could find a rule to support this argument and quote it, but that wouldn't be nearly as fun.

Glave, you are such a hippopatamousicrite.

It floors me to think people actually believe it was GW intent to allow units to assault the turn they arrive. 

You're floored!? Imagine the two Marine players left who still play Dark Angels. Now imagine the younger brother of one of them that will actually attempt to use drop pods with them. That poor kid is in for a pie in the face man.

That's why I am asking for a small donation to the Dark Angels without Drop Pods fund (DAWDPF). With just a small monthly payment you can help countless ones of people play this game in impoverished nationes like Detroit, Seattle, and Michigan. Please, act now.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 02/14/2007 1:50 PM
It floors me to think people actually believe it was GW intent to allow units to assault the turn they arrive. 

Ummm I believe one of the assasins can assault the turn they arrive >.>  hmmmm how stupid of them to intend on writing that . . hmmmmm those jerks. . . . . it floors me to read the rules .. . . .

Posted By IntoTheRain on 02/14/2007 1:50 PM
It floors me to think people actually believe it was GW intent to allow units to assault the turn they arrive. 

Given that it's from the same rules studio that produced Siren, daemon summoning, and the Assault Cannon, do you really believe that the response from the author is vastly more likely to be

"Well, duh, they count as using Deep Strike because the pod does"

as opposed to

"Well, duh, they don't count as using Deep Strike, the pod does, but they don't"?

I would like to assume the former, but in all seriousness, I'm not sure.  I mean, they did give them all Bolt Pistols, after all.

Posted By Lowinor on 02/14/2007 1:55 PM

Posted By IntoTheRain on 02/14/2007 1:50 PM
It floors me to think people actually believe it was GW intent to allow units to assault the turn they arrive. 

Given that it's from the same rules studio that produced Siren, daemon summoning, and the Assault Cannon, do you really believe that the response from the author is vastly more likely to be

"Well, duh, they count as using Deep Strike because the pod does"

as opposed to

"Well, duh, they don't count as using Deep Strike, the pod does, but they don't"?

I would like to assume the former, but in all seriousness, I'm not sure.  I mean, they did give them all Bolt Pistols, after all.

Yes, and for those of us who were around in version 0.5, a bolt pistol signafies that the owning player can change the rules any way they want.  I would quote that rule book for the sake of presidents for this case, but the original was never written down.  It was passed on from elderly to young around campfires.

True, cant forget about the BP's they have and cant use because they are carrying a rapid fire weapon....



BP's are the new hawtnezz... lol

These RaW are just as bad as the groping for the use of assaulting the turn they deepstrike in. As arguable as this is, at least there is a cause for argument, not based on intent.

But I am sure most people would play that you could still assault the turn you made a single shot from a boltpistol while carrying a bolter.

Posted By Hellfury on 02/14/2007 1:59 PM
True, cant forget about the BP's they have and cant use because they are carrying a rapid fire weapon....



BP's are the new hawtnezz... lol

These RaW are just as bad as the groping for the use of assaulting the turn they deepstrike in. As arguable as this is, at least there is a cause for argument, not based on intent.

But I am sure most people would play that you could still assault the turn you made a single shot from a boltpistol while carrying a bolter.

Not me.

HonkeyBro you are interrupting the flow here.

- Greenie

Honkey Bro is a strict RAW player. He won't allow Terminators any armor, he allows mortars to fire at embarked passengers, and he absolutely insists that players don't wear long pants.

Hey now, arguing that the rules are badly written is my shtick, back off

That is, after all, all I'm saying...

Psst whatever. I have been demonstrating stupidity on these boards for a long long long, long long long long, long time, since like idk Tuesday

Tuesday of november 17th 1937?

Posted By Lowinor on 02/14/2007 1:37 PM

Posted By Mannahnin on 02/14/2007 1:12 PM

Skyth, they arrive on the table via Deep Strike.  Check out the Reserve rules (p84-85), whee they discuss a unit and its transport, and it is explicitly stated that units may walk onto the table or come on in their transport.  Per the passage "passengers do not have to arrive mounted in the transport", it is clear that units coming onto the table in a transport ARE arriving on the table within it.

You're claiming that "arriving via a transport that Deep Strikes" is the same as "arriving via Deep Strike".  You're also claiming that parts of the Deep Strike special rule apply to units that don't have that special rule*.

Fundamentally, there is a set of rules that govern how transport movement affects movement/assault options for troops in those transports.  Deep Striking is not covered by these rules.  I assert that claiming that Deep Strike "filters down" to the troops is unsupported by the rules as written.  I'm not suggesting that anyone plays it this way.

Following that line of argumentation, were I, playing Chaos, to summon daemons off of a Chosen squad that used Deep Strike to land, they could not assault on the turn they were summoned, because they "arrived via Deep Strike".


* Yes, the next result is that it works differently for a termy squad with the Deep Strike special rule working totally differently.  No, it doesn't make any sense.  No, I'm not telling anyone to play it that way.

Lowinor, we are agreed that transport movement normally has a specific set of effects on embarked troops.   However, these rules are contingent upon the distance moved by the transport.    A Deep Striking transport has no defined movement distance, and thus those rules are functionally inapplicable.

Premise 1: The Deep Strike rules specify that troops arriving on the table via Deep Strike may not move or assault on the turn they arrive.  (p84)

Premise 2: The Deep Strike restriction on movement is specifically overridden by the Drop Pod rules' explicit instruction that the unit must disembark. 

Premise 3: The Reserve rules (p84-85) make clear with the statement "arrive mounted in the transport" that a unit coming onto the table from reserves in a transport is arriving on the table, regardless of whether they disembark or not. 

Conclusion 1: A unit of troops arriving on the table in a Drop Pod is arriving on the table via Deep Strike.

Conclusion 2: A unit of troops arriving on the table in a Drop Pod is still bound by the restrictions on not moving (other than to disembark) or assaulting, as those restrictions are not explicitly overridden in the Drop Pod rules.

 

Note to Honkeybro: Your sig is very amusing the first time.  But it is excessively long.  Please cut it down to a paragraph. 

That seems to have silenced Honkeybro.

- Greenie

Mannahnin, while I like your approach, I have to disagree - your second "premise" is actually a "conclusion" - it assumes that the troops are deep striking, which is actually what we are trying to ascertain. As such, it's only circular - it assumes the conclusion, and then supports the conclusion. What's the name of that logical fallacy again? I don't remember.

a better Premise to insert in its place is that "There is a specific rule that requires troops in a drop pod to disembark".

Unfortunately, that doesn't prove that the embarked troops are entering by deep strike, only that the embarked troops must disembark.

If anything, the point that troops in a droppod must disembark is evidence against them deepstriking, as deepstriking troops may not move at all. however, that is a very thin support.

Another point which must be raised is that deepstriking land Speeders are assumed to have moved more than twelve inches, per the FAQ. Therefore, the disembarkation rule could equally apply to break that rule (no disembarkation if transport moved over twelve inches) and have nothing to do with deepstrike at all.

Now, your premise three indicates that a unit in a transport comes in from reserves at the time its transport does, even if that unit is inside the transport and not on the table. This does not equate to a premise that the unit enters play in the same mode as its transport - note the earlier discussion here about walking a unit on from the table edge and deepstriking its pod, when that unit and pd comes available from reserves. Thus, that premise three does not support the proposition that embarked unit is also deepstriking, though it is inferential evidence slightly supporting that conclusion.

Thus, given the above, I don't see that we can find either of your conclusions.

Antonin - are you serious?

- Greenie

Nah, he's just joking. The real question is are YOU serious?

Mannahnin: While I agree with most of your points I have to disagree with the following: "Note to Honkeybro: Your sig is very amusing the first time." That sig was never amusing. Even when I origionally posted it baby kittens everywhere cried.

lol at this thread.

Can Honkey Bro go back on vacation now?

I tried to book Honkey Bro for my friend's going away party, but alas he was on vacation. Puppies died in droves. Later I found out that I was SUPPOSED to book a DONKEY SHOW. As donkey shows are illegal, I'm glad I misunderstood.

I'm pretty sure booking Honkey Bro is no more legal and probably a lot more depraved than a Donkey Show. Even like the one in Clerks 2. Such is the Power of the Dew. Mountain Dew.

Honkeybro is a politically incorrect name, as it offends half orcs.

- Greenie

Posted By Antonin on 02/15/2007 11:50 AM
Mannahnin, while I like your approach, I have to disagree - your second "premise" is actually a "conclusion" - it assumes that the troops are deep striking, which is actually what we are trying to ascertain. As such, it's only circular - it assumes the conclusion, and then supports the conclusion. What's the name of that logical fallacy again? I don't remember.

a better Premise to insert in its place is that "There is a specific rule that requires troops in a drop pod to disembark".

Unfortunately, that doesn't prove that the embarked troops are entering by deep strike, only that the embarked troops must disembark.

The argument works fine on the other two premises.  That premise was really in there as a counter to the earlier argument that they couldn't be Deep Striking because they're allowed to disembark (a form of movement).   The fact that there is a specific statement allowing and requiring the disembark also seems indicative to me that the rule is written with the assumption that the unit is considered to be Deep Striking, thus necessitating an explicit allowance to disembark, which would not otherwise be permitted.

  

Posted By Antonin on 02/15/2007 11:50 AM

Now, your premise three indicates that a unit in a transport comes in from reserves at the time its transport does, even if that unit is inside the transport and not on the table. This does not equate to a premise that the unit enters play in the same mode as its transport - note the earlier discussion here about walking a unit on from the table edge and deepstriking its pod, when that unit and pd comes available from reserves. Thus, that premise three does not support the proposition that embarked unit is also deepstriking, though it is inferential evidence slightly supporting that conclusion.

Thus, given the above, I don't see that we can find either of your conclusions.

The Reserve rules, if you look at them, make implicitly clear that a unit arriving on the table in a transport IS considered to be "arriving on the table", even before it disembarks.  If so, then the squad most certainly IS arriving via Deep Strike, and my argument flows from there.   It's obviously not arriving on the table via any other means.

 

Posted By Lordhat on 02/16/2007 3:12 AM
I tried to book Honkey Bro for my friend's going away party, but alas he was on vacation. Puppies died in droves. Later I found out that I was SUPPOSED to book a DONKEY SHOW. As donkey shows are illegal, I'm glad I misunderstood.

That's funny.  I tried to book Honkey Bro on assault charges, but I only ended up with a donkey show.  He's a slippery one.

...no really.  He's slippery.

Mannahnin - I would have agreed with you more before that whole silly Tau Pathfinder bit got resolved in favor of having deployment rules apply differently to the transport from the rest of the squad. While I agree with you that I would prefer to play it that the squad inside "counts as" deep striking, I just really can't say, under the rules, that they are.

That is the problem with implicit rules - they should not exist in a system which actually has tournaments, where a bunch of unfamiliar people will suddenly be playing against each other. It's just not acceptable. They are fine in local games, but I would like to build an army that I can, if I want, take to a tournament and not find suddenly illegal. There are far too many rules which we are forced to assume.

So, you ask how the unit is arriving on the table? By disembarkation. how its transport arrived is, by the rules, completely unrelated to the unit itself - there simply is no rule specifically on the unit itself (except for disembarkation).

While we are on it, is there any rule saying how fast Pods count as having traveled during their deepstrike?

also, I would like to point out how incredibly easy it would have been for the rules writers to make this point moot - had they stated: "the pod and its passengers deep strike" or something along those lines, this would not be an issue. They did not, sadly.

Antonin- Many rules in the game are implicitly given based on the combination of two explicit rules.

I maintain that the Reserve rule phrasing does establish that a unit in a transport arrives on the table in the transport (and thus via the same means). I believe that your concept that a unit "arrives on the table" via disembarkation is also not stated explicitly, and has even less support in the rules.

The Tau Pathfinder ruling does not bear, because it's talking about how a unit and its transport may deploy/enter the table, not about what happens when they do enter together.