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.

Do they score as troops when using this RoW?
Also, if I have a 2500 point list where all units are in drop pods do I auto lose when going second? I'm thinking I would have null deployed and wouldn't have any models on the table at the end of my opponents first turn.

 kaiservonhugal wrote:
Do they score as troops when using this RoW?

No. They never score per the Damned rule.

No you lose if there are no models at the end of your turn. I think.

You only lose if you have no models at the end of the game turn, not player turn.

Page 113 of the red book Legiones Astartes under Victory conditions says that "if at any point.... a side has no models present on the table, their opponent has won.

 kaiservonhugal wrote:
Page 113 of the red book Legiones Astartes under Victory conditions says that "if at any point.... a side has no models present on the table, their opponent has won.

Yup. Which is silly. Can't believe I missed that.

I was hoping this had been fixed.

 kaiservonhugal wrote:
Page 113 of the red book Legiones Astartes under Victory conditions says that "if at any point.... a side has no models present on the table, their opponent has won.

Therefore a drop assault list loses immediately. That sounds like a fun thing to abuse at tourneys.

My drop assault list has an allied detachment of 11 guys and a dread.

I was hoping this had been fixed.

Fixed? Why, is it broken? I figure the writers intended it if they deliberately added the rule.

Fixed? Why, is it broken? I figure the writers intended it if they deliberately added the rule.

Because the rules to allow an army to have a specific form of deployment actively hinder taking that form of deployment?

It's like writing the Armoured Breakthrough RoW then penalizing tanks in that RoW

 ScarletRose wrote:

Fixed? Why, is it broken? I figure the writers intended it if they deliberately added the rule.

Because the rules to allow an army to have a specific form of deployment actively hinder taking that form of deployment?

It's like writing the Armoured Breakthrough RoW then penalizing tanks in that RoW

The Armoured Breakthrough RoW does actively penalize tanks by forcing the player to take autocannons on their compulsory troops rather than the other Predator options.

And maybe they wanted to give people the option to deploy anything by Deep Strike / Outflank / Whatever without giving them the option to deploy everything in this manner.

It forces you to have something on the table. I'll go from 7 pods down to 5 and use the points to field a Damocles command tank, a deraedo dread and a lascannon predator.

Boo hoo, the Rites open up options while discouraging skew lists. Boo hoo hooo. Go back to 40K if FW's often wacky but sometimes surprisingly wise rules writing bothers you.

No need to respond like that. The lines between the two blur sometimes. Just being clear that this row requires some vehicles on the table in order to not auto-lose. It's not directly mentioned in the row that this is the case.

It is a problem. Space marines shouldn't have to have a few guys on the ground constantly. They're the angels of death.

HandofMars wrote:
Boo hoo, the Rites open up options while discouraging skew lists. Boo hoo hooo. Go back to 40K if FW's often wacky but sometimes surprisingly wise rules writing bothers you.

Seriously? Get out of here with that crap 'tude. This is not at all "surprisingly wise", it is absolutely short-sighted within the context of their own rules. This is a fluff issue as much as rules, because many armies are obviously meant to reflect a null deployed force dropping in with Pods and flyers. That doesn't skew anything, it is just a strategy and well within the confines of the fluff.

For everyone else, I emailed FW just to see what they would say. I know that isn't official, but I am curious to see their rationale.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

HandofMars wrote:
Boo hoo, the Rites open up options while discouraging skew lists. Boo hoo hooo. Go back to 40K if FW's often wacky but sometimes surprisingly wise rules writing bothers you.

Seriously? Get out of here with that crap 'tude. This is not at all "surprisingly wise", it is absolutely short-sighted within the context of their own rules. This is a fluff issue as much as rules, because many armies are obviously meant to reflect a null deployed force dropping in with Pods and flyers. That doesn't skew anything, it is just a strategy and well within the confines of the fluff.

For everyone else, I emailed FW just to see what they would say. I know that isn't official, but I am curious to see their rationale.

Actually, I like that rule. And I have that " 'tude" as well. Don't bring that 40K crap into 30K. There is no 30K fluff that says a Legion uses nothing but Drop Pods as a first strike weapon. It's ludicrous to think that any single Legion would limit itself to such tactics, or even consider such a tactic as a viable strategy when they have access to so many other assets and resources. See the HH Book I Betrayal and even Book II and III Massacre and Extermination. All the call outs for Drop Pods in the HH books mentions them as a second strike, Shock and Awe weapon used on an already established battlefield or in boarding actions on ships.

I'm sure you'll receive the very polite, and canned response of "Play the game the way you want!" from Forge World.

 Tamwulf wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

HandofMars wrote:
Boo hoo, the Rites open up options while discouraging skew lists. Boo hoo hooo. Go back to 40K if FW's often wacky but sometimes surprisingly wise rules writing bothers you.

Seriously? Get out of here with that crap 'tude. This is not at all "surprisingly wise", it is absolutely short-sighted within the context of their own rules. This is a fluff issue as much as rules, because many armies are obviously meant to reflect a null deployed force dropping in with Pods and flyers. That doesn't skew anything, it is just a strategy and well within the confines of the fluff.

For everyone else, I emailed FW just to see what they would say. I know that isn't official, but I am curious to see their rationale.

Actually, I like that rule. And I have that " 'tude" as well. Don't bring that 40K crap into 30K. There is no 30K fluff that says a Legion uses nothing but Drop Pods as a first strike weapon. It's ludicrous to think that any single Legion would limit itself to such tactics, or even consider such a tactic as a viable strategy when they have access to so many other assets and resources. See the HH Book I Betrayal and even Book II and III Massacre and Extermination. All the call outs for Drop Pods in the HH books mentions them as a second strike, Shock and Awe weapon used on an already established battlefield or in boarding actions on ships.

I'm sure you'll receive the very polite, and canned response of "Play the game the way you want!" from Forge World.

This isn't 40k crap and it extends beyond just Drop Pods, but seriously, what about the Rite of War "Orbital Assault" sounds like it should have boots on the ground first? Or how about that Day of Revelation, which encourages a Jump Infantry Deep Strike. Or the "Drop Assault Vanguard". Doesn't say "Drop Assault Second Wave", it is Vanguard. The idea that you have to have models on the table or lose is bad for fluff and bad for rules. Nothing about it is "40k in 30k" or whatever strawman you feel like touting. It is discouraging players from using an entirely viable strategy that is often fluffy as hell too. And I would argue Drop Pod armies are actually weaker in 30k, so crying about them being OP doesn't really hold up well.

And FW said they would pass it on to the rules team for the next FAQ. That is encouraging.

It's not bad for fluff, and it is good for rules. Null deploy is a type of skew, and is not allowed in 30K, along with a lot of other 40K-style skew. If you are this upset about not being able to do something you want, you either discuss it with your opponent, or realize this game is not for you.

They've posted the exact same rules for books 1-4, changed it briefly to the core 7th rule in book 5, and then promptly reversed course in book 6 and every red book. Good luck waiting on that FAQ, maybe in 2019 when all the Legions are complete they may address it again. They've been getting asked this question since Betrayal came out.

HandofMars wrote:
It's not bad for fluff, and it is good for rules. Null deploy is a type of skew, and is not allowed in 30K, along with a lot of other 40K-style skew. If you are this upset about not being able to do something you want, you either discuss it with your opponent, or realize this game is not for you.

They've posted the exact same rules for books 1-4, changed it briefly to the core 7th rule in book 5, and then promptly reversed course in book 6 and every red book. Good luck waiting on that FAQ, maybe in 2019 when all the Legions are complete they may address it again. They've been getting asked this question since Betrayal came out.

Why so salty? It is zero skew. Have you never played against these lists? They lack mobility usually or are glass cannons. Get real, there is no reason they shouldn't adhere to the standard 40k rules. It isn't even about "what I want" at this point either, it is about reflecting the intent of Rite of War rules and Legion fluff. That an Orbital Assault would require any models on the table is just dumb.

At the least, they should patch these up with rule exceptions, if not just go with the standard rulebook rules for it (end of game turn).

They don't adhere to standard 40K rules because standard 40K rules are a mess. If you want to play 40K, play 40K. Orbital assault lists need a ground anchor element, period.

HandofMars wrote:
They don't adhere to standard 40K rules because standard 40K rules are a mess. If you want to play 40K, play 40K. Orbital assault lists need a ground anchor element, period.

OH! Thank you, HandofMars. I didn't realize you were a GW/FW rep and had all the answers and were the authority on 30k/40k.

Pal, really? Ground anchor. How did they arrive? Drop Pod assault is like your standard means of first contact with the enemy as a Space Marine. First wave. Vanguard. You are so desperate to justify a poor rule, you are trying to bend fluff to fit.

Also, it does adhere to standard 40k rules for the most part. This is an expansion to it, so not sure why you are being such a jerk and elitist like somehow playing 40k is a strike against. Take your saltiness elsewhere.

No it isn't. Quit using your headcannon to dictate how the game is played.

Either play the game as written, or make a house rule with your friends. Don't go crying to equally clueless customer service reps at FW to try and change the game to suit your twisted sensibilities.

I am not bending fluff, fluff is irrelevant, fluff doesn't apply when talking about the rules as written. The rules are unambiguous. Get over it.

HandofMars wrote:
No it isn't. Quit using your headcannon to dictate how the game is played.

Either play the game as written, or make a house rule with your friends. Don't go crying to equally clueless customer service reps at FW to try and change the game to suit your twisted sensibilities.

I am not bending fluff, fluff is irrelevant, fluff doesn't apply when talking about the rules as written. The rules are unambiguous. Get over it.

You don't comprehend words well, do you? I am justifying it based on how I would like it to be and how the fluff supports that 100%. Did I say I wouldn't honor the rule? No. So quit making assumptions and being a general dill weed.

It isn't headcanon, either. Not when every bit of fluff points to it being right. Also, I am not going to the clueless customer service reps for rulings, I am going to them to bring the question to the design team so they can address it in their FAQ. Duh.

Blah blah blah, just a bunch of noise. You were told what the rule was, first you were in denial, then you were bargaining (emailing FW), then you were angry. You seem to be progressing through the stations of grief pretty rapidly, we are here to welcome you at the acceptance stage once you finally get here.

HandofMars wrote:
Blah blah blah, just a bunch of noise. You were told what the rule was, first you were in denial, then you were bargaining (emailing FW), then you were angry. You seem to be progressing through the stations of grief pretty rapidly, we are here to welcome you at the acceptance stage once you finally get here.

Bunch of noise indeed! Points directly to my immediate thought of you not not comprehending things well. Thanks for making that point so soundly for me.

You are a complete ass. Sad to know that even here on the oasis that is Dakka, your ilk find a way in.

And just so you know, a vast majority of players don't know that rule. Some of the veterans of 30k I know and play with didn't, so don't act all high and mighty.

And I went to FW because they should know the rule interacts poorly with their own Rites of War. Duh. They will clarify eventually if it was intentional or just an oversight. I hope for the latter, but will play it as written because I that is how it goes with gaming.

Good for you, so all that gnashing of teeth was for nothing, and you have come around.

Again, good luck on that clarification, it's been consistent for 5 black books and every red rulebook ever. Customer service reps' opinion means no more than some random guy on the internet who knows "30k veterans".

HandofMars wrote:
Good for you, so all that gnashing of teeth was for nothing, and you have come around.

Again, good luck on that clarification, it's been consistent for 5 black books and every red rulebook ever. Customer service reps' opinion means no more than some random guy on the internet who knows "30k veterans".

Did I post what the customer service guys said? No. Nor do I intend to. The only point in the whole email from them I cared about and mentioned was that it was passed to the rules team. That is it. Again, you don't really like to read and comprehend what is written, it seems. And given they do maintain the FAQ rather decently (for 30k), it may make it in there and hell, allegedly 8th is soon, so they will have to when that happens anyhow.

And I was hardly gnashing. Mostly trying to get you to actually read and understand. It has proven extremely taxing to get you to do such a simple thing.

And I "came around" the second I found the rule as someone had pointed it out before your sorry self even joined this thread. Yet again proving you really don't actually read what is here. Tragic.

Wow, I never actually knew it was different to 40k! Good to know though, mate of mine runs a pod list.