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.

Space Marine FAQ version 1.3 April 13

Q: Are Drop Pods and the units embarked upon them considered to be
entering play from Reserves when deploying using the Drop Pod Assault
special rule? (p69)
A: Yes. Aside from the exceptions specified by the Drop Pod
Assault special rule, these units are considered to be entering
play from Reserves as normal, meaning, for example, that
models benefitting from the Interceptor special rule may use
this to make Shooting attacks at a newly arrived Drop Pod or
the squad that has disembarked from it.

I cannot find this in any other armies FAQ. Does this apply to Space Marines only? Thought I would bring this up since I run both SM and SW.

Are you asking if this rule about drop pods only affects Codex: Space Marines?

No, it is for all drop pods even though it's only in the space marine codex.

And here is why - Drop pods are only a space marine vehicle. Look in the rule book, you will find no vehicles for any space marine chapters, only "Space Marines".

This also leads you to believe that space wolves are space marines (a chapter thereof, but space marines nonetheless), they just play by different rules. But I understand that saying that any chapter other than space marines are in fact space marines is blasphemy to some, for some stupid reason.

No, it applies to all armies, as this is already covered in the rules

A unit arriving from reserves (inside a drop pod) is still a unit arriving from reserves.

Well put. Thanks.

If I hadn't read the SM FAQ I wouldn't have seen the change.

Nos has it. It's an FAQ, so it's only clarifying something that is already a rule.
Had it been an amendment or errata, THEN it would only apply to that particular Codex.

 Super Ready wrote:
Nos has it. It's an FAQ, so it's only clarifying something that is already a rule.
Had it been an amendment or errata, THEN it would only apply to that particular Codex.

That assumes that FAQs never change rules, which is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
Nos has it. It's an FAQ, so it's only clarifying something that is already a rule.
Had it been an amendment or errata, THEN it would only apply to that particular Codex.

That assumes that FAQs never change rules, which is incorrect.

This FAQ does not change any rules. It merely clarifies rules (not that I feel it needed to be clarified, but clearly someone did). So, Super Ready is correct (in this specific case).

If its not in my codex, it's not applied to me. My wolf pods are safe!

 KGatch113 wrote:


If its not in my codex, it's not applied to me. My wolf pods are safe!

Huh? They are in reserve and enter play from reserve. The FAQ didn't change anything. It just clarified it for the chuckleheads out there.

Unless Space Wolf drop pods enter play by some way other than deep strike. Anything deep striking is entering from reserve. It's in the deep strike rules.

 KGatch113 wrote:


If its not in my codex, it's not applied to me. My wolf pods are safe!

So your models (GH, for example) in the pod did NOT arrive from reserve? Where on the field of play were they, and plase show how you had permission to embark the pods. They werent on the field of play? Then they were in reserves

We can of course simply apply the FAQ where ever it is needed. I think most anyone would accept that.

But that doesn't forgive GW bumbling this one. They usually put relevant FAQs in each of the codex faqs that are affected by it, and should have done so here aswell.

You dont even need to apply the FAQ, just the rules already in the rulebook cover this.

A unit arriving from reserves (inside a drop pod) is stilla unit arriving from reserves

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont even need to apply the FAQ, just the rules already in the rulebook cover this.

A unit arriving from reserves (inside a drop pod) is stilla unit arriving from reserves

Right, well, GW thought it needed a FAQ.
Are you implying they thought SM-players are slightly less intelligent than the other Chapter players?

Not at all, and I am amazed you can leap that far from what is a simple statement.

Rorschach9 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
Nos has it. It's an FAQ, so it's only clarifying something that is already a rule.
Had it been an amendment or errata, THEN it would only apply to that particular Codex.

That assumes that FAQs never change rules, which is incorrect.

This FAQ does not change any rules. It merely clarifies rules (not that I feel it needed to be clarified, but clearly someone did). So, Super Ready is correct (in this specific case).

You didn't play Space Marine Land Raiders last edition, did you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont even need to apply the FAQ, just the rules already in the rulebook cover this.

A unit arriving from reserves (inside a drop pod) is stilla unit arriving from reserves

Right, well, GW thought it needed a FAQ.
Are you implying they thought SM-players are slightly less intelligent than the other Chapter players?

The implication is not in the statement, but you're correct. SM players are, as a rule, stupid.

These are, after all, the same people who thought "Can fire 1 weapon more than would normally be allowed" doesn't apply in all sitatuions, just because.

There was no lack of clarity in the PotMS rule last edition, yet it was FAQed. q

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not at all, and I am amazed you can leap that far from what is a simple statement.

I had to make a leap because your statement otherwise seemed to serve no purpose at all. GW have decided to make a FAQ for it. Your opinion on whether or not that was needed is irrelevant.
So I hold to my first statement. There is no reason why they wouldn't put it in the FAQ for every relevant codex, as they have done with some other questions.

Either that, or they found it was only SM players that needed it because they are "a little behind" and you somehow divined that.

Maybe you used Scipio's logic to divine it. It isn't without merit, I'll admit.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:


The implication is not in the statement, but you're correct. SM players are, as a rule, stupid.

These are, after all, the same people who thought "Can fire 1 weapon more than would normally be allowed" doesn't apply in all sitatuions, just because.

There was no lack of clarity in the PotMS rule last edition, yet it was FAQed. q

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
Nos has it. It's an FAQ, so it's only clarifying something that is already a rule.
Had it been an amendment or errata, THEN it would only apply to that particular Codex.

That assumes that FAQs never change rules, which is incorrect.

This FAQ does not change any rules. It merely clarifies rules (not that I feel it needed to be clarified, but clearly someone did). So, Super Ready is correct (in this specific case).

You didn't play Space Marine Land Raiders last edition, did you?

What does that have to do with a FAQ about Drop Pods coming in from Reserves? Nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont even need to apply the FAQ, just the rules already in the rulebook cover this.

A unit arriving from reserves (inside a drop pod) is stilla unit arriving from reserves

Right, well, GW thought it needed a FAQ.
Are you implying they thought SM-players are slightly less intelligent than the other Chapter players?

The implication is not in the statement, but you're correct. SM players are, as a rule, stupid.

These are, after all, the same people who thought "Can fire 1 weapon more than would normally be allowed" doesn't apply in all sitatuions, just because.

There was no lack of clarity in the PotMS rule last edition, yet it was FAQed. q

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That assumes that FAQs never change rules, which is incorrect.

This FAQ does not change any rules. It merely clarifies rules (not that I feel it needed to be clarified, but clearly someone did). So, Super Ready is correct (in this specific case).

You didn't play Space Marine Land Raiders last edition, did you?

What does that have to do with a FAQ about Drop Pods coming in from Reserves? Nothing.

You Post:

The FAQ does not Change Rules.

I post:

Example Where the FAQ changes Rules

What does this have to do with demonstrably falsifiable statement about Drop Pods coming in from reserves?

Everything.

You are wrong.

Another example, by the way, was with Tau and their Suits getting two weapons. This may have been clarification, but it changed how people played the game.

 Purifier wrote:

I had to make a leap because your statement otherwise seemed to serve no purpose at all. GW have decided to make a FAQ for it. Your opinion on whether or not that was needed is irrelevant.
So I hold to my first statement. There is no reason why they wouldn't put it in the FAQ for every relevant codex, as they have done with some other questions.

Either that, or they found it was only SM players that needed it because they are "a little behind" and you somehow divined that.

His statement is valid. There is nothing in the FAQ to 'apply' as it is merely clarifying a rule. He made no mention of whether the FAQ was needed (I feel it wasn't, obviously some people did, ergo a FAQ was created to clarify the rule).

Why was it not in every relevant codex? Because GW works in strange fashion. Perhaps because Drop Pods are Space Marine vehicles and someone was not on the ball that morning. Perhaps they are still working on the other codex FAQ and Erattas and it will go in after. It's rather irrelevant. This particular FAQ does not make any change to the rules, so being in a particular codex or not does not change anything.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That assumes that FAQs never change rules, which is incorrect.

This FAQ does not change any rules. It merely clarifies rules (not that I feel it needed to be clarified, but clearly someone did). So, Super Ready is correct (in this specific case).

You didn't play Space Marine Land Raiders last edition, did you?

What does that have to do with a FAQ about Drop Pods coming in from Reserves? Nothing.

You Post:

The FAQ does not Change Rules.

I post:

Example Where the FAQ changes Rules

What does this have to do with demonstrably falsifiable statement about Drop Pods coming in from reserves?

Everything.

You are wrong.

Another example, by the way, was with Tau and their Suits getting two weapons. This may have been clarification, but it changed how people played the game.

I have not once mentioned other FAQ's, nor did I *ever* say FAQ's do NOT change rules, merely that this particular one does not. Something I already clarified actually. Where you get the impression I said so is beyond me. So, please, show me where I am wrong that THIS particular FAQ changes a rule? it does not.

This thread is about this one particular FAQ. Therefore your comment about another FAQ is irrelevant in this context. And no, I did not play SM Land Raiders in any edition. Quite irrelevant though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:


I personally believe that GW should simply put these queries in every FAQ. It'd make a lot less trouble for you and I.

Of course they should. But they should also spell check and proof read their rulebooks and work out very poorly worded, ambiguous statements prior to publishing. Mistakes are made. Missing a FAQ in a particular codex is unfortunate, but in this particular case, still does not change anything.

Okay, and I've just commited what you're describing.

I read Rigeld's comment and then yours, and worked off that. Thus, my interpretation caused me to read "FAQ does not change rules", without the qualifier This.

Rigeld made a general statement, and then you specied, so I concede that I've made a misinterpretation and for that I am sorry. I hope you can see how I misinterpreted what you'd said, however.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Okay, and I've just commited what you're describing.
I read Rigeld's comment and then yours, and worked off that. Thus, my interpretation caused me to read "FAQ does not change rules", without the qualifier This.

Rigeld made a general statement, and then you specied, so I concede that I've made a misinterpretation and for that I am sorry. I hope you can see how I misinterpreted what you'd said, however.

/tiphat. No hard feelings.