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.

BigGreen wrote:
This is madness. I understand most agument about RAW vs Rules as intended, But this I just dont understand. How could you posibly think that this isnt just an oversight? There are no presidents in the game..... There is no way that you can stay in the drop pod. I will comb through all the rules later and see if I can come up with anything... But still this is just crazy. This is one of those things that GW didnt FAQ because they figured no one would be dumb enough to argue it this way. I guess thats just GW thinking more of us then we really are... which is strange considering GW seems to hate their player base and think are all tards...

Thank God, I was starting to feel loanly...

Madness?!?! THIS IS SPARTA!

 insaniak wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I guess the ruling baffles me. If a FAQ WASNT released after 6th edition came out, I would agree that the drop pod should play just like a BA drop pod. But the fact is there WAS a FAQ. A lot of things were updated. The LR and LRC becoming an assault vehicle for example. They fixed that. If they chose not to fix this drop pod issue. There is nowhere in the codex or the FAQ that says I must disembark after deep striking. Therefore I treat this vehicle just like any other vehicle and can use it to maintain safety.

The issue that most people have with it is simply that it doesn't make any sense for one Chapter to be able to remain in their pods when everyone else can't without there being some sort of explanation provided as to why this would be the case.

That, coupled with the fact that the FAQ simply replaced the Drop Pod assault entry whole-sale, and so also inadvertently chopped out the reference to who can actually use it, leads people to believe that it was just a poorly thought out entry rather than a deliberate change.

If you can come up with a convincing reason that a Chapter renowned for impetuous assaults would plummet into battle in their drop pods and then hang around inside and have a cuppa and smoke before charging out into battle when everyone else who uses drop pods is piling out before the ramps hit the ground, you might change some minds...

I think this is the best response as to why it should not be allowed that they stay in.

And I am fairly new to this game and to black templar, but I have been playing board games and RPGs for years. I am usually the DM in the RPGs, and am usually the one to buy a new board game and decipher the rules and explain it to my group of friends. So I am not new to reading and understanding rules. So I suppose my argument stems from "each codex is its own rulebook and should be followed as such"

Whereas the counter argument stems in to the background of the 40k universe and how these space marine chapters use the same sort of equipment and that a drop pod is still a drop pod no matter what army uses it.

Now I really like this viewpoint because in this game it seems that with some people, if you can come up with great fluff to back it up, they will sometimes let it fly. So you are saying that if I can come up with a convincing reason (fluffwise, not rules wise) that this chapter would have a different strategy, then you may allow this rule to take affect. Thats awesome.

Before anybody may disembark from their drop pod, they must recite a litany to the emperor. A final prayer is said before they join the fray. This prater pumps them up enough to be able to exit the pod in a headlong charge at the enemy.

Alternative explanation. Black Templar favor drop pod tactics and use them quite a bit. They have rigged their drop pods to be more sturdy to provide a more tactical use. They found that drop pods are not always dropped in an exact location and have changed the doors to be opened on command instead of blowing off immediately. This change was made because of the many battles where a pod was dropped in a wrong position only to expose its contents to fortified gunlines before the marines could make a tactical response. Now they are able to land, scout their surroundings and link up with the ground force communications to join in a unified assault on the enemy. This change was heavily supported as a tactical advantage amongst the Black Templar who prefer to strike with vengeance at the enemy and this ensures that their strike will be felt where and when it hurts the most.

After all these are black templar, sure they have righteous zeal and are a bit fanatical about killing, (a bit?! could be an understatement) but they arent blood thirsty barbarians. They are still astartes. They still have tactics and can use strategy.

What I don't get is how it could possibly be "rules lawyering" to play like this. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to disembark, so you don't have to. That's not bending or breaking any rule(s). I understand that it's probably an oversight and that it's not intended yadda yadda, but it can't possibly be rules lawyering to follow the rules when the only thing that's speaking against it is that it's traditionally not done that way.

For example, arguing that models without eyes can't fire because they can't draw LoS is rules-lawyering because it breaks the game. Arguing that you don't have to disembark from a transport doesn't break the game at all. One is following the rules in absurdum, the other is just following the rules for every other transport vehicle.

TL;DR: It's not "rules-lawyering" just because you disagree with it.

EDIT: Fluff-wise Drop Pod Assaults are the preferred mode of attack for the Templars.

Oh, and I don't see where they chopped off the part about who can take the drop pod. That part is still in there and wasn't replaced by errata.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What I don't get is how it could possibly be "rules lawyering" to play like this. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to disembark, so you don't have to. That's not bending or breaking any rule(s). I understand that it's probably an oversight and that it's not intended yadda yadda, but it can't possibly be rules lawyering to follow the rules when the only thing that's speaking against it is that it's traditionally not done that way.

For example, arguing that models without eyes can't fire because they can't draw LoS is rules-lawyering because it breaks the game. Arguing that you don't have to disembark from a transport doesn't break the game at all. One is following the rules in absurdum, the other is just following the rules for every other transport vehicle.

TL;DR: It's not "rules-lawyering" just because you disagree with it.

"What I don't get is how it could possibly be "rules lawyering" to play like this. There is nothing in the rules that says you have to disembark, so you don't have to."

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

LOL, you are now lawyering about my lawyering your rule lawyering. this is EPIC



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spartak wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

LOL, you are now lawyering about my lawyering your rule lawyering. this is EPIC

I did read what you said. Just because the rules do not prohibit something does not automatically mean they allow it. And no they DO NOT say you can.

furthermore:

Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? No, because the rules specifically say you do not have to move all the models in a unit. P10
Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? No, the rules specifically state that a player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers P13
Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering No, maybe you have rapid fire wep and firing would preclude you from charging (just one example) P52

Spartak wrote:
Just because the rules do not prohibit something does not automatically mean they allow it. And no they DO NOT say you can.

Except the rules do say you can in this circumstance.

You are allowed to embark on your DT.

Nothing tells you that you must disembark upon landing.

Therefore you do not have to disembark upon landing.

100% RAW.

Have you read the whole thread? Sigh... I feel like we just went full circle here.

Spartak wrote:
Have you read the whole thread? Sigh... I feel like we just went full circle here.

Of course I have.

Your claim that "no they DO NOT say you can." is 100% false.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spartak wrote:
Have you read the whole thread? Sigh... I feel like we just went full circle here.

Of course I have.

Your claim that "no they DO NOT say you can." is 100% false.

The rules specificly say "thou shalt stay in the drop pod after it deploys if thine desires" ? No, they dont.

Is that in and of itself a reason to say you cant ? No, its also not a reason to say you can tho.

My whole point is that its clear to "reasonable" people that this loop hole is not intentional and trying to say it is, is rules lawyering.

Spartak wrote:
I agree, which is why I said what I did. I believe, and no offense intended, that the assertion being made about the BT drop pods is ridiculous. I just regret the way I said it. My problem with the discussion is not that it's happening, it's that the absurdity is not being pointed out for what it is. We all know the rules can be poorly written at times, but there is difference, I think, in discussing how a rule should be interpreted and deliberately trying to twist the rules using RAW as your excuse. There is undoubtedly a place for RAW/YMDC discussions, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

You do realise that I've pointed out several times over the course of this thread (including in my first post back on page one) that this is a situation where the most players readily acknowledge that the RAW is not what was intended?

You're tilting at windmills here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Icculus wrote:
Oh, and I don't see where they chopped off the part about who can take the drop pod. That part is still in there and wasn't replaced by errata.

The list of who can take a drop pod is in the 2nd paragraph of the Drop Pod Assault section. The errata in the FAQ replaces the entire Drop Pod Assault section.

So, really, the whole issue is moot, since currently nobody actually has the ability to take a drop pod in the Black Templar codex...

BigGreen wrote:
...There are no presidents in the game.....

But there is an Emperor.

 insaniak wrote:

Spartak wrote:
I agree, which is why I said what I did. I believe, and no offense intended, that the assertion being made about the BT drop pods is ridiculous. I just regret the way I said it. My problem with the discussion is not that it's happening, it's that the absurdity is not being pointed out for what it is. We all know the rules can be poorly written at times, but there is difference, I think, in discussing how a rule should be interpreted and deliberately trying to twist the rules using RAW as your excuse. There is undoubtedly a place for RAW/YMDC discussions, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

You do realise that I've pointed out several times over the course of this thread (including in my first post back on page one) that this is a situation where the most players readily acknowledge that the RAW is not what was intended?

You're tilting at windmills here.

Yes I realize you have pointed it out, you seem to be under the misapprehension that my argument is with you, it is not. There are several others who have been very adamant that the RAW is legitimate, I maintain it is not. Windmills? I see only giants.

 insaniak wrote:

The list of who can take a drop pod is in the 2nd paragraph of the Drop Pod Assault section. The errata in the FAQ replaces the entire Drop Pod Assault section.

So, really, the whole issue is moot, since currently nobody actually has the ability to take a drop pod in the Black Templar codex...

Not to be that guy, but read the FAQ. Seriously.

Spartak wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

LOL, you are now lawyering about my lawyering your rule lawyering. this is EPIC

Right, I think we're done here. If you don't agree you're lawyering.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The list of who can take a drop pod is in the 2nd paragraph of the Drop Pod Assault section. The errata in the FAQ replaces the entire Drop Pod Assault section.

So, really, the whole issue is moot, since currently nobody actually has the ability to take a drop pod in the Black Templar codex...

Not to be that guy, but read the FAQ. Seriously.

Spartak wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

LOL, you are now lawyering about my lawyering your rule lawyering. this is EPIC

Right, I think we're done here. If you don't agree you're lawyering.

I thought it was funny...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not to be that guy, but read the FAQ. Seriously.

In the interests of not being 'that guy', pointing out what you were talking about would have been a more useful response.

So yes, they appear to have edited some of the unit Transport entries to actually include the Drop Pod now. I had apparently forgotten that...Some of us don't have young people memories any more.

I voted 1 I agree with basically everything insaniac has said (except about no one being able to take a pod in the BT codex). This is another case of RaW breaking, this though is more of an oversight though than just poor RaW like the Ghostark or LoS through eyes...

As for the fluff justifications I think Insaniac was asking you to point to some fluff that supported the notion not just create it. We can all create fluff to justify anything. Is there any fluff about the BTs getting out of DPs in a different manner to other chapters? I'm guessing not.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I voted 1 I agree with basically everything insaniac has said (except about no one being able to take a pod in the BT codex). This is another case of RaW breaking, this though is more of an oversight though than just poor RaW like the Ghostark or LoS through eyes...

As for the fluff justifications I think Insaniac was asking you to point to some fluff that supported the notion not just create it. We can all create fluff to justify anything. Is there any fluff about the BTs getting out of DPs in a different manner to other chapters? I'm guessing not.

I don't think you understand. If you agree with Insaniak, then surely option 3 is the choice you want? Option 1 means you think the RAW says they can stay inside. Option 3 means you acknowledge that the RAW says they can, but you would not allow it.

No I think the rules are they can't stay inside. RaW they can, both 1 & 3 are basically the same thing. I presumed they were posted in an attempt to split the no vote so yes would have a stronger look so went with what I thought would be the more common No answer.

 FlingitNow wrote:
No I think the rules are they can't stay inside. RaW they can

That's a contradiction. You just said "I think the rules are they can't, but the rules say they can"
RAW = the rules
I don't understand why you make a distinction.

Tactical Genius - dont engage Fling on that topic, especially when Fling has been repeatedly told to stop using it.

Essentially Fling appears to think that "the rules" are NOT contained in the Rulebook, in the section entitled "THE RULES", but are instead a construct in the minds of the developers. As such, what they put down on paper may not be "the rules" as they intended them to be.

In essence it is a way of trying to argue RAI without actually stating so.

That's a contradiction. You just said "I think the rules are they can't, but the rules say they can"
RAW = the rules
I don't understand why you make a distinction

Because I don't think that RaW=RaI as you assert and many FAQs support this belief.

Nos is essentially correct I don't believe inanimate objects are capable of thought I instead believe that the GW design team created the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

That's a contradiction. You just said "I think the rules are they can't, but the rules say they can"
RAW = the rules
I don't understand why you make a distinction

Because I don't think that RaW=RaI as you assert and many FAQs support this belief.

Nos is essentially correct I don't believe inanimate objects are capable of thought I instead believe that the GW design team created the rules.

But the poll wasn't asking you for your opinion (unless you chose option 3). Options one and two are a vote on what the rules say. You cannot possibly claim to know what the designers intend, unless you are one, which I doubt.
I would also like to point out that I do not "assert" the RAW to equate to the RAI. If you want my opinion, I DO think it's an oversight. However, playing by what the rules say is not something which should be discouraged, unless it is something which breaks the game (see the ghost ark thread for details). So please, excuse me for playing by the rules.

I'ts an obvious oversight. What special rule or ability would allow them to stay in the drop-pod, beyond the rule writer's inconsistency? What is different about their drop-pods? What rule can be sited to show they CAN stay in the pod, when all other armies cannot and it is clearly stated they cannot?

Personally if an opponent tried to run this 'RAW', they'd be TFG for me :p.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spartak wrote:

BigGreen wrote:
This is madness. I understand most agument about RAW vs Rules as intended, But this I just dont understand. How could you posibly think that this isnt just an oversight? There are no presidents in the game..... There is no way that you can stay in the drop pod. I will comb through all the rules later and see if I can come up with anything... But still this is just crazy. This is one of those things that GW didnt FAQ because they figured no one would be dumb enough to argue it this way. I guess thats just GW thinking more of us then we really are... which is strange considering GW seems to hate their player base and think are all tards...

Thank God, I was starting to feel loanly...

Madness?!?! THIS IS SPARTA!

You're not alone! I also agree with the take above.

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.

My opinion is the rules for disembarking are currently the same for all standard drop pods across all codexes. Which is exactly what option 1 says. Hence I picked that option.

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.

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Spartak wrote:

That is the definition of "lawyering"... justifying you actions through manipulations of the rules. Saying "I can do this because it dosent say I cant" is lawyering... Lawyered!
well sort of, I dont think lawyering is a real word... but if it were a real word thats what its deffinition would be.

You didn't read what I said, did you? This isn't a matter of "it doesn't say that I can't", it's a matter of "it says that I can, and nothing prevents me from doing so". RAW, saying that I can't is "fluff-lawyering" (not that I disagree completely or anything, the situation is rather silly).

I'm allowed by the BRB to embark onto a Transport Vehicle. I'm also allowed to disembark. There's nothing forcing me to, so I don't have to. That's not lawyering, it's following the rules. If I had to jump through convoluted hoops in order to achieve the result it'd be lawyering, now it's just applying the rules straight out of the book. Or is not firing a Plasma Gun in a unit rules-lawyering? Is moving a unit but keeping the heavy weapon stationary rules-lawyering? Is not shooting at a unit you plan on assaulting rules-lawyering? If not, why is this?

It does not say that you can. There is no special rule granting BT an exception to the general rules and behaviours for a drop-pod. It's just sloppily written and didn't get updated correctly (this could also be seen as a 'lawyering' interpretation granted).

It's difficult because the BRB says that codexes take precedence. So you're fully within your rights to make the argument here, in theory. You'd piss a lot of people off in actual games though, because whilst both interpretations can be seen as correct, yours is based on a very specific lack of a singular piece of information, whilst ours is contained with a context of many other codexes and the rulebook itself.

I personally wouldn't have a stupid fight about it table-side or similiar, but it's a strange interpretation to take (and one taken entirely for game advantage, i.e. contrived).

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?

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?

Read the thread.

 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.