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.

DOOMONYOU wrote:
Black templar codex:

Page 22. under space marine special rules

Drop pod assault

right column, second paragraph down:

"Once the drop pod has landed the hatches are blown and all passengers must disembark. The passengers may not move (ecept to disembark) or assault in the turn they arrive"

Case closed?

BT FAQ wrote:Page 22 – Drop Pod Assault.
Replace this entry with the following rules:
“Drop Pod Assault: Drop Pods must enter play using the Deep
Strike rules. At the beginning of your first turn, choose half of
your Drop Pods (rounding up) to make a ‘Drop Pod Assault’.
Units making a Drop Pod Assault arrive on their controlling
player’s first turn. The arrival of the remaining Drop Pods is
rolled for as normal. A unit that Deep Strikes via Drop Pod
cannot charge in the turn it arrives.

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the
battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered
an Immobilised damage result that cannot be repaired in any
way.

Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of
impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe) then
reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order
to avoid the obstacle. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the
edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike Mishap as
per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.”

So no, the rules from the rulebook have been replaced and the sentence you quoted doesn't exist anymore.

Tactical let's not derail the thread. The forum is for discussing the rules using the rulebook and codexes as evidence. This does not mean you are limited to discussing the most literal interpretation of the written language or that if you are not discussing the most literal interpretation you are automatically discussing HYWPI...

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

I thought YMDC should always be considered RAW unless stated otherwise? And in this case there is only one RAW answer. Any claims to the contrary had better back it up with a page number.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes.

Citation needed.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

What the rule "seems to be" should have no bearing in non-HYWPI arguments. While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is the RAW does not.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

Please explain, here or PM, how exactly I seem "confused". I know how language works, and I know how made the rules. But who made the rules has no bearing on how to interpret them. They could have been made by juvenile aliens from Titan for all I care. The point is the rules say what they say, not what you think they're supposed to say.

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

 Tehjonny wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

I thought YMDC should always be considered RAW unless stated otherwise? And in this case there is only one RAW answer. Any claims to the contrary had better back it up with a page number.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes.

Citation needed.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

What the rule "seems to be" should have no bearing in non-HYWPI arguments. While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is the RAW does not.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

Please explain, here or PM, how exactly I seem "confused". I know how language works, and I know how made the rules. But who made the rules has no bearing on how to interpret them. They could have been made by juvenile aliens from Titan for all I care. The point is the rules say what they say, not what you think they're supposed to say.

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

Well generally when you play a game you must follow the rules given. Are you saying that a Black Templars player requires books other than his own codex and the BRB to play? Where does the codex tell me to reference other books? It doesn't, so I use the rules presented in the codex.

 Tehjonny wrote:
So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'?

Since every codex that can has the Drop Pod Assault rules spelled out in their codex, no - there's no "General Rules" for a drop pod assault.

Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

The BT FAQ, Errata section where it replaces the rules on page 22.

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

They do have different rules. That's trivial to demonstrate.
But yes, I think GW made a mistake and left a sentence out.

So people are looking for it to say somewhere in the rulebook that Black Templar dont have to get out of their drop pod.

The thing is drop pods are dedicated transports. They are open topped vehicles and are immovable and have the deep strike rule. If I follow all of the rules for a vehicle, I don't have to disembark. It's the same as if it were a deep striking rhino that was immovable. I could stay inside.

The reason people think you HAVE to disembark is because of drop pods from other space marine chapters. But each book is it's own codex, with it's own rules.

I could say that I should not have to pay so much for space marine bikes because they are cheaper in another space marine codex, they just forgot to update that in the FAQ. That is speculation. I'm speculating what RAI would have been.

The same is true for this drop pod situation. You are speculating that they "forgot" to change it.

If I were to rules lawyer this, your case would not hold up in court without expert testimony from GW admitting an error. In which case they could be liable for damages and mental anguish.


On another note, this all may be for nothing as the new space marine codex will probably have new black templar rules in it and change everything in a couple months, haha.

 Icculus wrote:
The same is true for this drop pod situation. You are speculating that they "forgot" to change it.

If I were to rules lawyer this, your case would not hold up in court.

Yes, it's speculation. It's supported by the fluff for a Drop Pod and that there's nothing supporting marines just saying inside, in addition to the precedent set by literally every other drop pod codex.

The rules are clear. Just like the rules are crystal clear that Wraith units cannot ever fire a weapon or assault.

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

An easy counter if someone did use this would be to surround their drop pod with infantry.

The drop pods bolter cant see because the doors are shut and the pod doesn't have any fire points per the Codex stating it doesn't.

If they can't disembark then they are stuck in their all game, can't score = win for opponent

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Of course the poll was asking for opinion. I don't see RaW mentioned other than in the 3rd option. Even if the first two are on raw it is still your opinion on RAW. In this case RAW seems clear enough to get a general agreement on it but don't assume there is only ever 1 RaW answer.

I thought YMDC should always be considered RAW unless stated otherwise? And in this case there is only one RAW answer. Any claims to the contrary had better back it up with a page number.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes.

Citation needed.

You are free to disagree with me on that opinion. But the rule seems to me to be just an editing error that I'm sure will get when BTs are updated which I recon will be soon.

What the rule "seems to be" should have no bearing in non-HYWPI arguments. While I agree with you, the fact of the matter is the RAW does not.

I'm not discouraging you from playing how you believe the rules to work. But let's not derail this thread if you wish to discuss further the purpose of language or who created the rules to 40k please pm me as you seem quite confused on both.

Please explain, here or PM, how exactly I seem "confused". I know how language works, and I know how made the rules. But who made the rules has no bearing on how to interpret them. They could have been made by juvenile aliens from Titan for all I care. The point is the rules say what they say, not what you think they're supposed to say.

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

Well generally when you play a game you must follow the rules given. Are you saying that a Black Templars player requires books other than his own codex and the BRB to play? Where does the codex tell me to reference other books? It doesn't, so I use the rules presented in the codex.

You mean the rules as presented in a poorly written errata. Fair enough, don't expect many of your opponents to accept your argument is all I would say. It's painfully obvious it's an error on GK's part and nothing more, and that you're gaming for advantage.

DOOMONYOU wrote:
An easy counter if someone did use this would be to surround their drop pod with infantry.

The drop pods bolter cant see because the doors are shut and the pod doesn't have any fire points per the Codex stating it doesn't.

If they can't disembark then they are stuck in their all game, can't score = win for opponent

I dont know how often this has been stated in this thread but......the drop pod is open-topped


EDIT:

Gaming for advantage? We are playing Black Templar. You call that gaming for advantage?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

The rules for 'Drop Pod Assault'.

I'm not in a position to cite currently. I don't need to cite at the end of the day. You're taking the absence of words to mean the opposite of the absence. It's stupid.

No-where in the rulebook does it say I cannot pickup my models and throw them at my opponent at the conclusion of any given assault phase. As such I can. Do you see how stupid that method of interpretation is? If it isn't said, it isn't said.

No-where does it say they have special rules in regards to drop-pod disembarkation. So they don't. You would need a special rule defining your ability to stay in the pod, rather than taking the absence of words as an implied special rule.

 Tehjonny wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

The rules for 'Drop Pod Assault'.

I'm not in a position to cite currently. I don't need to cite at the end of the day. You're taking the absence of words to mean the opposite of the absence. It's stupid.

No-where in the rulebook does it say I cannot pickup my models and throw them at my opponent at the conclusion of any given assault phase. As such I can. Do you see how stupid that method of interpretation is? If it isn't said, it isn't said.

No-where does it say they have special rules in regards to drop-pod disembarkation. So they don't. You would need a special rule defining your ability to stay in the pod, rather than taking the absence of words as an implied special rule.

That's not the argument. The rule for drop pods are just like any other vehicle!

People think you have to disembark because there is a sentence in other books that says "you must disembark." Without that sentence they are treated as any other vehicle.

This discussion comes down to this.

If you are playing RAW, BT can stay in the drop pod.

If you are playing speculation, and assume a mistake is made, then you could argue that it was an oversight and an agreement could be made to ignore this ruling and play Rules As Speculated. I am hesitant to say intended because we don't know the true intentions.

DOOMONYOU wrote:
The drop pods bolter cant see because the doors are shut and the pod doesn't have any fire points per the Codex stating it doesn't.

You should re-read the rules for Open Topped.

The drop pod bolters would not be able to fire, but everyone inside can fire.

 Tehjonny wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

The rules for 'Drop Pod Assault'.

Which are located where? Oh, in the BT codex. The one that has been errataed. The one that says absolutely nothing about disembarking.

How is it open topped if the doors are shut?

If someone actually tried to play it that the Templars could stay on board and then shoot their guns through the doors that are closed...well those kind of people just aren't worth playing against. They're the same type of people that exploit glitches in video games.

Because the Drop Pod rules say it's open topped?

And why do the doors have to stay shut?

Well here's another thing. The doors could still be open, and they could still be embarked on it.

So the drop pod lands, doors open and then....the templars sit in their seats for a while?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

So the rules say you need to make a 'drop pod assault'...you just think that for BT a 'drop pod assault' doesn't follow the rules every other codex follows for 'drop pod assault'? Where does it CLEARLY SAY (not the absence of words, but the actual presence or words, usually required for reading...) that BT have special rules that mean they operate drop pods differently?

They don't have any. Hence the general interpretation - GK made a boo-boo.

40k is a permissive ruleset. I'm told by the general Transport Rules that I'm allowed to embark upon a transport vehicle and that I'm allowed to disembark, as well as when I'm allowed to do so. What rule, as a Black Templars player, overrides this and tells me that I have to disembark from my Drop Pod? Page and paragraph, please.

The rules for 'Drop Pod Assault'.

Which are located where? Oh, in the BT codex. The one that has been errataed. The one that says absolutely nothing about disembarking.

So a game that defines the embarkation and disembarkation procedures for both vehicles generally, with some specific additions (all of which are clearly defined), doesn't bother to define the rules for disembarking for a specific armies drop pod.

It also does not define why the pod is any different (e.g., it doesn't, the pod is the same). You have 2 choices. 1) You go on general precedence and the accepted and defined disembarkation RULES for drop-pods, as repeated in several books Or 2) you take the absence of a specific mention in 1 book (as opposed to several that contradict that 1 book...) to mean they don't have to disembark?

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm not going to carry on arguing about it. This is going to make you look a complete tool in games, and that's that.

 shamikebab wrote:
So the drop pod lands, doors open and then....the templars sit in their seats for a while?

Well they shoot their guns and pick their target. Why pile out of cover to get shot at?

 Icculus wrote:
So people are looking for it to say somewhere in the rulebook that Black Templar dont have to get out of their drop pod.

The thing is drop pods are dedicated transports. They are open topped vehicles and are immovable and have the deep strike rule. If I follow all of the rules for a vehicle, I don't have to disembark. It's the same as if it were a deep striking rhino that was immovable. I could stay inside.

The reason people think you HAVE to disembark is because of drop pods from other space marine chapters. But each book is it's own codex, with it's own rules.

I could say that I should not have to pay so much for space marine bikes because they are cheaper in another space marine codex, they just forgot to update that in the FAQ. That is speculation. I'm speculating what RAI would have been.

The same is true for this drop pod situation. You are speculating that they "forgot" to change it.

If I were to rules lawyer this, your case would not hold up in court without expert testimony from GW admitting an error. In which case they could be liable for damages and mental anguish.


On another note, this all may be for nothing as the new space marine codex will probably have new black templar rules in it and change everything in a couple months, haha.

In court you'd simply show that all the other codexes have the SAME 'drop pod assault' rules, and that these form a precedence, and taken as a whole are a greater body of evidence then a singular contradiction. That wouldn't be difficult to argue.

 Icculus wrote:

 shamikebab wrote:
So the drop pod lands, doors open and then....the templars sit in their seats for a while?

Well they shoot their guns and pick their target. Why pile out of cover to get shot at?

because sitting stationary in an immobile vehicle that is open to fire from 360 degrees isn't much cover

 Icculus wrote:

 shamikebab wrote:
So the drop pod lands, doors open and then....the templars sit in their seats for a while?

Well they shoot their guns and pick their target. Why pile out of cover to get shot at?

How would you be getting 'cover'? You'd be inside a vehicle, and so could not be shot at until you disembarked. Aka having your cake and eating it. I'm guessing you'd still take the open-topped rules as standard and so the whole squad can shoot out of their pod-rhino?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey, I've also realised it doesn't say you can't un-deep strike and then re-deepstrike next turn. I guess that means you can?

 Tehjonny wrote:
So a game that defines the embarkation and disembarkation procedures for both vehicles generally, with some specific additions (all of which are clearly defined), doesn't bother to define the rules for disembarking for a specific armies drop pod.

It also does not define why the pod is any different (e.g., it doesn't, the pod is the same). You have 2 choices. 1) You go on general precedence and the accepted and defined disembarkation RULES for drop-pods, as repeated in several books Or 2) you take the absence of a specific mention in 1 book (as opposed to several that contradict that 1 book...) to mean they don't have to disembark?

Vehicles speeds are given and defined. Every Rhino in every Marine book is the same, right?
So why do the Blood Angels get Fast and the others don't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tehjonny wrote:
Hey, I've also realised it doesn't say you can't un-deep strike and then re-deepstrike next turn. I guess that means you can?

That's nothing like what's being discussed and you know it. Don't bother trying to straw man.

rigeld2 wrote:

So why do the Blood Angels get Fast and the others don't?

Because they discovered an STC which they didn't share with the rest of the Imperium?

 shamikebab wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So why do the Blood Angels get Fast and the others don't?

Because they discovered an STC which they didn't share with the rest of the Imperium?

Nope, sorry - no other book allows Rhinos to be fast so that sets a precedent that no Rhino can be fast.


See the issue with trying to apply "precedent"?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:
So a game that defines the embarkation and disembarkation procedures for both vehicles generally, with some specific additions (all of which are clearly defined), doesn't bother to define the rules for disembarking for a specific armies drop pod.

It also does not define why the pod is any different (e.g., it doesn't, the pod is the same). You have 2 choices. 1) You go on general precedence and the accepted and defined disembarkation RULES for drop-pods, as repeated in several books Or 2) you take the absence of a specific mention in 1 book (as opposed to several that contradict that 1 book...) to mean they don't have to disembark?

Vehicles speeds are given and defined. Every Rhino in every Marine book is the same, right?
So why do the Blood Angels get Fast and the others don't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tehjonny wrote:
Hey, I've also realised it doesn't say you can't un-deep strike and then re-deepstrike next turn. I guess that means you can?

That's nothing like what's being discussed and you know it. Don't bother trying to straw man.

On a similar note, why does the Vanilla Drop Pod have 12 capacity? CLEARLY there's precedent in other books...

And for the record, BT Drop Pods don't cost the same as others, so they're different anyway.

Except that book has a clear explanation for why. What's the reason for Templars being treated differently for drop pods?

And just so we're clear, this is a theoretical discussion, we can't know what the writers intend. At the moment it is 100% clear that the rule is Templars don't have to disembark. However IMO it is 99% clear that this is a mistake on GW's part rather than actual intent and anyone who tried to use it in a battle would be guilty of rules lawyering.