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.

I read a post earlier about BT's and someone mentioned a "BT trick". They stated that the BT drop pods don't have to disembark because it is not mentioned in the BT's most updated FAQ. All other drop pods mention in their description that the units inside must immediately disembark, and in the BT there is no mention of this particular rule.

Is this a huge oversight? Is this a BT unique special rule? Or are they looking way into RAW?

Would any tournament or friendly game allow this? I'm a huge advocate for BT and their special rules but this blew my mind when I read about it this morning. Considering I run a duo LRC and triple DP list, this open many, many doors.

Edit:
I thought the OP was pretty clear, as well as the voting criteria. As someone pointed out, there are three ways to answer. The first is the BT codex/faq is mistyped and should follow the same rules as the "drop pod assault" rule in the 6th BRB. The second is the BT codex/faq is written as intended and the BTs have an extremely unique set of rules and circumstances that allow the unit to remain embarked in a drop pod for as long as the want (similar to a Rhino, etc). The last is in fact a hybrid of the two: you understand that BT have a unique ruling (per RAW) and can see the evidence to back it up, however, you (personally) would never allow it. It goes against logic, regardless of what the rules read.

I hope that clears things up. Some people understood what I meant while others sat in utter bewilderment. I can only assume, for those that think I was treading in murky waters, I wanted RAW or HYWPI debate. It is in fact both. The evidence is 100% clear (in my opinion). It is clear in the FAQ that the BT pod (whether on purpose on not) is different than any other drop pod and doesn't have to disembark.

I started the poll to see how people have played it or would play it in the future. Hence the three options I presented. They have to disembark, they don't have to disembark, and they don't have to, but they should.

Cheers.

If we're talking RAW here, they may stay inside.

Read the FAQ. It's plain as day. I don't understand why this is hard to comprehend.

Black Templar don't have to disembark from their drop pods.

It has not been FAQed, so I'm not sure what you are alluding to Icculus?

 troa wrote:
It has not been FAQed, so I'm not sure what you are alluding to Icculus?

This is my point. They released a FAQ that updated the drop pod entry in the BT codex. They updated the inertial guidance system and the drop pod assault. They did not make the change to include the immediate disembarking. Which means it doesn't have it.

It is plain as day that the rule stays as written in the book. That section did not need to be changed.

You could go through and argue they misprinted point costs between marine codices because they are the same marines but cost different points, but its written in the codex so it stands.

Also the BT drop pod can only carry 10 marines, the vanilla can carry 12. Im not arguing we should be able to carry 12 because they didnt update that rule.

Dark Angels and Space Wolves have 10 capacity drop pods, too.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Dark Angels and Space Wolves have 10 capacity drop pods, too.

I don't see what those books have to do with the situation.

you brought up the capacity situation.

Well either way, lets get back on topic.

If my codex says that I MUST disembark, then I'll do it. They released a FAQ and didn't include that as an update, which means I wouldn't have to.

The only reason people are saying you must disembark is because it's in the other books. but each codex is a standalone.
So it's useless to compare one codex to another.

So I assume you don't assault from a BT Land Raider as the rule is not the same as the BRB?

I've never used a LR, let me check the differences.
While I'm looking it up. which differences are you referring to?

EDIT:

If you are talking about them being assault vehicles, that is covered in the errata.
www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2940040a_Black_Templars_v1.2_JANUARY13.pdf
check out where it says page 42

BT are not required to disembark from their DP upon landing.

Furthermore, other units then the one that bought the Drop Pod can embark into it later.

If I was a TO (and HIWPI) standard DP rules - must disembark, nobody can embark.

The BT codex does state that nobody can embark on it later. it just doesnt say that the units must disembark on the first turn.

 Icculus wrote:
The BT codex does state that nobody can embark on it later. it just doesnt say that the units must disembark on the first turn.

Page? I know on page 38, it says that once the passengers disembark they may not re-embark. But that has nothing to do with other units embarking.

"Once passengers have disembarked they may no re-embark"

Hmmm, this is a bit of an issue the way the wording is set up. But because it just says passengers, and not THE passengers, i think it means that no passengers may re-embark.

So you can not have any passengers re-embark. the first embarking would have been the initial passengers, but nobody my embark after that.

so if the wording was:

"Once THE passengers have disembarked they may no re-embark"

then I think it would be different. Because we go from talking about general passengers, of any nature, to the very specific passengers that came in with the pod.

You're stretching there.

As worded, it simply means that any passengers who leave the pod can't get back in. It doesn't stop another unit from climbing aboard, although when that new unit gets out, they would also be unable to re-embark.

Simply put, the BT pod rules are currently a mess, but it's yet another on the list of widely known rules issues that GW, for some inexplicable reason, hadn't bothered to fix.

^^^^ 46% of people didn't read the thread and don't own the Black Templars codex / couldn't be bothered to look at the FAQ.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
^^^^ 46% of people didn't read the thread and don't own the Black Templars codex / couldn't be bothered to look at the FAQ.

...or simply assume that the obvious oversight is, you know, an obvious oversight.

 Icculus wrote:
Read the FAQ. It's plain as day. I don't understand why this is hard to comprehend.

Black Templar don't have to disembark from their drop pods.

This. If it's not in their rules, you can't assume they have it. Call it cheese or whatever you want, you can't assume it was suppose to written in. Though I am sure it was a mistake in the first place...

Well if it is the case that drop pods can be embarked by other units you can lay down mid-field fortification for your footslogging units in mid-game.

Kind of funny actually. You could start the game with a dread in the backfield. drop-pod a crusader squad mid field. they stay for a turn, shoot. charge out next turn. Then you can have you dread move up and get in to the drop pod and stay put as a well-fortified turret.

Icculus wrote:Well if it is the case that drop pods can be embarked by other units you can lay down mid-field fortification for your footslogging units in mid-game.

Or you could... right up until you actually try it against a living opponent.


Regardless of what the rules currently say, this one just isn't going to fly in most games.

 insaniak wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
^^^^ 46% of people didn't read the thread and don't own the Black Templars codex / couldn't be bothered to look at the FAQ.

...or simply assume that the obvious oversight is, you know, an obvious oversight.

The poll didn't say it was HYWPI though, so you should assume it is a RAW poll. So you should not "assume" anything. As much as I agree with you, people should only choose the option they think is correct. If they think it shouldn't be allowed, but acknowledge the RAW, they should choose option 3. Choosing option 1 shows a misunderstanding of the RAW.

Yeah that's true because actually option 1 would affect the capacity wouldnt it? If all pods played the same they would all have the same carrying capacity.

So the 14 people that voted "Yes. All drop pods work the same regardless of army" must not have realized the implications of what it means for different armies to have different rulebooks.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
The poll didn't say it was HYWPI though, so you should assume it is a RAW poll.

The third option on the poll suggests otherwise... it makes option 1 and option 3 essentially the same.

So you should not "assume" anything. As much as I agree with you, people should only choose the option they think is correct.

If you believe that the FAQ entry is in error, then option 1 is 'correct'.

It's not strictly RAW right now, but ultimately the 'correct' interpretation of the rules of a game isn't RAW. It's how people choose to play the game... because the whole purpose of the rules is to play a game.

Based on previous discussions on this topic, the vast majority of players accept that the errata for the BT pod is just sloppily written, and wasn't actually meant to remove the requirement to disembark on landing. Pick whichever poll response you feel adequately sums that up, it ultimately makes no difference to whether or not people will allow it on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Icculus wrote:
Yeah that's true because actually option 1 would affect the capacity wouldnt it? If all pods played the same they would all have the same carrying capacity.

If they had the same carrying capacity, sure.

The problem here is that the poll is badly worded. It's not terribly clear if the OP is asking for RAW or HIWPI, and the issue isn't really whether all pods should have identical rules (because they don't, hence the different carrying capacity and weapon options) but whether or not BT pods should still have the requirement to disembark on landing, or if it was just removed accidentally.

 insaniak wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
The poll didn't say it was HYWPI though, so you should assume it is a RAW poll.

The third option on the poll suggests otherwise... it makes option 1 and option 3 essentially the same.

So you should not "assume" anything. As much as I agree with you, people should only choose the option they think is correct.

If you believe that the FAQ entry is in error, then option 1 is 'correct'.

It's not strictly RAW right now, but ultimately the 'correct' interpretation of the rules of a game isn't RAW. It's how people choose to play the game... because the whole purpose of the rules is to play a game.

Based on previous discussions on this topic, the vast majority of players accept that the errata for the BT pod is just sloppily written, and wasn't actually meant to remove the requirement to disembark on landing. Pick whichever poll response you feel adequately sums that up, it ultimately makes no difference to whether or not people will allow it on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Icculus wrote:
Yeah that's true because actually option 1 would affect the capacity wouldnt it? If all pods played the same they would all have the same carrying capacity.

If they had the same carrying capacity, sure.

The problem here is that the poll is badly worded. It's not terribly clear if the OP is asking for RAW or HIWPI, and the issue isn't really whether all pods should have identical rules (because they don't, hence the different carrying capacity and weapon options) but whether or not BT pods should still have the requirement to disembark on landing, or if it was just removed accidentally.

Well what these discussions do is give me some information to work with when I go to present my case in my local game. Don't argue a point unless you know all of the counters to it. Also I love these sort of discussions and I liked that everyone seemed very civil about this whole thing. So many times can internet discussions turn ugly.

I suppose I will talk with my gaming group and see what comes of it.

Thanks for the fun discussions!

I hope they add this for blood angels, might help a assault based army get a leg up in a shooty edition. I see no reason why someone would have to immediately get out of a drop pod, i could imagine space marines only opening some doors to get out providing them more cover, or waiting inside for other back up, or transport elsewhere.

It won't be 'added' to anyone else. BT needed to be updated because their codex is from 4th edition. It's the oldest current marine codex, and was a little behind on some rules.

And BA aren't a little behind? They got kicked in the nuts even harder than BT.

Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot.

That seems like a worthless idea.

Martel732 wrote:
And BA aren't a little behind? They got kicked in the nuts even harder than BT.

They're at least a 5th edition codex...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kinratha wrote:
Well drop pods don't have firing ports..so they sit in the pod for a turn and can't shoot. .

Open-topped...