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.

 insaniak wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Pods do not meet this criteria as they were already placed in reserves; you did not attempt to deploy them..

So an impossible action isn't impossible if you don't attempt to do it?

The choice to place them in reserves was made for you. The text about being removed as casualties is not (in context) discussing units that were already placed in reserves (chosen or forced is irrelevant) but rather those you attempted to deploy at the deployment stage and could not.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I cited, the line about being unable to move after deployed is not talking about drop pods. They are talking about units that are immobile and able to be deployed normally. .

That might have been the intent, but the language used is all inclusive. It's not just talking about units that are deployed 'normally' because no such reference is made.

It is in the preceding sentences, taking context into account you find that Drop Pods are not included in the context as you can never choose not to deploy it so this graph does not pertain to them.

 insaniak wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Pods do not meet this criteria as they were already placed in reserves; you did not attempt to deploy them..

So an impossible action isn't impossible if you don't attempt to do it?

Fine, let's argue it then.

But that is not what the rule says. You cannot deploy a drop pod anywhere, you must place it in reserves. There is no rule saying anywhere that when you redeploy them via Drop pod assault or later that they would be destroyed. That is not how the rule reads as was pointed out by Rorschach9.

Can we just agree that a) it's a badly written rule, b) there's no chance the "Drop Pod is destroyed" interpretation is RAI, c) any interpretation depends on arguable definitions of "deploy" and "impossible" and context, and d) anyone who attempts this for reals deserves to be beaten with a metal Dreadnaught model? And move on?

 Marius Xerxes wrote:
Rules for reserves on page 135. Last two sentences of the paragraph with the heading of "Preparing Reserves"

"The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for battle."

Since Drop Pods are forced into reserves and therefore it is "impossible" to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for a battle, and they are immobile vehicles that cannot move, are they destroyed right after they land?

Lol, no! A drop pod is not immobilized, it's just treated as one because it's a transport device, with no wheels or treads that DROPS from the sky and lands.

Are you really going to play against a SM drop podder, tell him his drop pods are destroyed on impact because you can't figure out a couple of sentences in a book?

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 Marius Xerxes wrote:
Rules for reserves on page 135. Last two sentences of the paragraph with the heading of "Preparing Reserves"

"The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for battle."

Since Drop Pods are forced into reserves and therefore it is "impossible" to deploy them during the Deployment step of preparing for a battle, and they are immobile vehicles that cannot move, are they destroyed right after they land?

Lol, no! A drop pod is not immobilized, it's just treated as one because it's a transport device, with no wheels or treads that DROPS from the sky and lands.

Are you really going to play against a SM drop podder, tell him his drop pods are destroyed on impact because you can't figure out a couple of sentences in a book?

I play pod Marines, so obviously no, I'm not planning on saying another players pods are destroyed if I don't want my own destroyed. I also have no issue "figuring out" what those rules are meant to say. Nice attempt at an insult, though.

However, I wanted to discuss the possible RAW and not the RAI. I and others don't want be on the receiving end of someone else bringing this issue up and have no counter debate prepared. Not knowing what another store or events TO's may say, its good to be prepared rather then just threatening to quit a game because you (royal sense) have nothing intelligent to counter their interpretation with.

Last time I checked that's what this section of the forums are for.

Rorschach9 wrote:
(check, no problem - pods go into reserves automatically)

So, it's impossible to deploy them in the deployment phase, because they are forbidden to do so. check.

Rorschach9 wrote:

It is talking about a) units that cannot move after they have been deployed that were b) "impossible to deploy" and "must be placed in reserve" (as a result of not being able to be deployed). As you are placing Pods in reserve, not attempting to deploy them, they are not the units that are being discussed in context.

Unfortunately, the wording of the rules makes no reference to "attempting to deploy". Yes, we all know that there is no way that they intended to prevent an entire line of their models (drop pods) from being used in their games. We are merely pointing out that this rule, as written, would do just that.

It also helps speak to my belief that one cannot effectively play this game by using strict Rules as Written. If someone presses the issue, just refuse to play with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marius Xerxes wrote:


However, I wanted to discuss the possible RAW and not the RAI. I and others don't want be on the receiving end of someone else bringing this issue up and have no counter debate prepared. Not knowing what another store or events TO's may say, its good to be prepared rather then just threatening to quit a game because you (royal sense) have nothing intelligent to counter their interpretation with.

Last time I checked that's what this section of the forums are for.

Good show, sir!

I could just retune the entire drop pod rules. Those are advanced codex specific rules. Um, so follow those. They cover reserve to deployment. Color by numbers stuff.

I'm not sure why this is even an argument, the reserve rule very clearly says that models that cannot move after being deployed are destroyed, drop pods are deployed in reserve at which point they are not immobile. They don't become immobile until they enter play from reserve WELL AFTER DEPLOYMENT and as a result of an event.

You may as well argue that no vehicle can ever be put into reserve because at some point "after" being deployed they can suffer an immobilized result, because for drop pods it says "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result".

The reserve rule seems pretty clear that it needs to be immediately Immobilized after the deployment phase for it to apply.

 Idolator wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
(check, no problem - pods go into reserves automatically)

So, it's impossible to deploy them in the deployment phase, because they are forbidden to do so. check.

Rorschach9 wrote:

It is talking about a) units that cannot move after they have been deployed that were b) "impossible to deploy" and "must be placed in reserve" (as a result of not being able to be deployed). As you are placing Pods in reserve, not attempting to deploy them, they are not the units that are being discussed in context.

Unfortunately, the wording of the rules makes no reference to "attempting to deploy". Yes, we all know that there is no way that they intended to prevent an entire line of their models (drop pods) from being used in their games. We are merely pointing out that this rule, as written, would do just that.

Fortunately, when taken in full context, the rules do not tell us that the pods are destroyed when they are placed in reserve during the deployment phase. I've already explained as best I can why (which admittedly may be a poorly written explaination in itself), so I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

Kisada II wrote:
drop pods are deployed in reserve

Being placed into reserves is not deployment.

This isn't a drop pod specific response, but goes for pretty much every unit in the game.

Drop pods are not immobile until after they enter the game. The rule is referencing models that have no way to enter the game from reserve because they are immobile.

Kisada II wrote:
I'm not sure why this is even an argument, the reserve rule very clearly says that models that cannot move after being deployed are destroyed, drop pods are deployed in reserve at which point they are not immobile. They don't become immobile until they enter play from reserve WELL AFTER DEPLOYMENT and as a result of an event.

And why not take this further? I'll argue that it is autowin for me if I go first, as your units cannot move after being deployed .

Bal4eva wrote:
Drop pods are not immobile until after they enter the game. The rule is referencing models that have no way to enter the game from reserve because they are immobile.

The rule is specifically referencing models that can not move after being deployed. You just stated that drop pods fit that category...

Naw wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
I'm not sure why this is even an argument, the reserve rule very clearly says that models that cannot move after being deployed are destroyed, drop pods are deployed in reserve at which point they are not immobile. They don't become immobile until they enter play from reserve WELL AFTER DEPLOYMENT and as a result of an event.

And why not take this further? I'll argue that it is autowin for me if I go first, as your units cannot move after being deployed .

The Drop Pod rules also state that the unit inside immediately makes a move after disembarking, so the Drop Pod rules would overrule the normal restriction.

Crazyterran wrote:
The Drop Pod rules also state that the unit inside immediately makes a move after disembarking, so the Drop Pod rules would overrule the normal restriction.

Pretty sure the act of disembarking itself is their "move".

I really wonder about these trolls. Like....what do they expect, even if they're right?

"Hey guys look what I found by RAW"

"Wow, hey I guess you're right. Looks like space marines can't ever use drop pods anymore. Like, ever. Completely invalid."

"Ha-hah, that's right! Sweet, no more drop pod armies. I'm glad I completely removed them from the game - I hated the very idea of these fluffy lists, and removing options from peoples' codexes is totally cool. I also like making models have no point in buying them at all. I'm so happy with myself."

I mean... really? Or is it just to get the confirmation, then say "haha yeah that's really weird by RAW. Ok so let's ignore it and go back to having fun drop pod lists by RAI eh?"

So I mean... do you want to remove options from the game and invalidate some peoples' entire armies? Or do you just want to win an internet argument to puff out your chest?

 Spellbound wrote:
I really wonder about these trolls. Like....what do they expect, even if they're right?

"Hey guys look what I found by RAW"

"Wow, hey I guess you're right. Looks like space marines can't ever use drop pods anymore. Like, ever. Completely invalid."

"Ha-hah, that's right! Sweet, no more drop pod armies. I'm glad I completely removed them from the game - I hated the very idea of these fluffy lists, and removing options from peoples' codexes is totally cool. I also like making models have no point in buying them at all. I'm so happy with myself."

I mean... really? Or is it just to get the confirmation, then say "haha yeah that's really weird by RAW. Ok so let's ignore it and go back to having fun drop pod lists by RAI eh?"

So I mean... do you want to remove options from the game and invalidate some peoples' entire armies? Or do you just want to win an internet argument to puff out your chest?

I don't think anyone here is trying to troll or win a argument on the internet (is that even possible?). Though I can only truly speak for myself.

However, I have been to enough tournaments, both large and small, to know there is always someone who does try to use something like this to their advantage. And should they get a judge or TO in agreement because I have no reasonable counter beside "your a troll", I get ruled against and either pack up my models and go home (losing whatever money I paid to participate in the event) or I endure the bad call and try and play on. I figure best to start a reasonable debate with the community at large and learn better methods to debate then default to monetary loss.

We understand that, but this thread about invalidity of the drop pods is just silly. These threads quite often come from misunderstanding and I am sure the OP was not serious. Still, quite a many messages have been written.

Op is either a rule lawyer or a troll. He should probably be reported and banned.

Aw man... and I just made a drop pod list I wanted to try out...

 ionusx wrote:
Op is either a rule lawyer or a troll. He should probably be reported and banned.

His post was valid and followed the rules of the forum.

Calling someone a "Rules Lawyer" or "Troll" is not. It's name calling that will get someone banned.

This rule only comes into effect for a select few units.

Namely, sabre defence platforms or other gun platforms that cannot move and are placed in reserve.


Since the model cannot move, and it is in reserves, it is automatically destroyed.


This is probably done to prevent a sly commander from not deploying them in an effort to deny kill points to his enemy.

There we go! I don't play FW or the guard, so I was wondering why such a rule in the first place.

 Spellbound wrote:
I really wonder about these trolls. Like....what do they expect, even if they're right?

First off, the name calling is unnecessary.

Second, what people 'expect' when they post obvious unintentional flaws in the rules is that people will say 'Huh, look at that! That's a bit silly.' And then carry on playing their games.

And there's always the (admittedly rather slim) chance that if people keep pointing out the sloppy work in GW'a books, that they might decide to do something about it.



Again, its obvious that this wasn't supposed to apply to drop pods. As such, nobody in their right mind would actually try to apply it in game as anything other than a joke. Its just an amusing piece of sloppy rules writing.

insaniak wrote: Its just an amusing piece of sloppy rules writing.

I love pointing those out. Except this isn't one. Pods are vehicles. They aren't units that can't move. Without looking at it's codex abilities, it's a transport. Transports are units that can move. Upon entering play, it's treated as an immobilized vehicle. Last I check, if I have a BA land raider or a landspeeder deep strike and it's immobilized, I don't worry about that not being a valid unit to have reserved. Why not? Because it's was a valid unit that could move, it lost it's ability to move in the course of the game (which is what we are told to imagine happened to that drop pod). I feel a little bad for those silly morons at G'dub. When they actually cover their bases, we don't track and lolz at them for poor rule writing.

 Lobukia wrote:
Upon entering play, it's treated as an immobilized vehicle.

So it's, like, a unit that can't move after it has been deployed...?

 insaniak wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Upon entering play, it's treated as an immobilized vehicle.

So it's, like, a unit that can't move after it has been deployed...?

No it's told to be "treated like" that. And where to we find that? In an advanced rule. The advanced rule also tells us that this is a valid, in fact required, unit to put in reserve... that it is allowed to be brought into play and how, that it is to be "treated as" having "moved" at combat speed. You can't have it both ways. Either it's abilities "treat" it as something that not only can, but did move upon deployment. But has since lost that ability, or you don't look at abilities but unit type. Vehicle and transports both move

A) you look at ALL of it's ability, not just the immobilized, which tell us to consider it moved

B) don't look at any ability, just it's inherit unit type, which isn't a "building" or something that just can't move

C) read about advanced rules which allow is to do things base rules wouldn't

Pick any of the above.

But
D) take a part of an ability, claim it breaks the game, ignore C and then snicker at GW (who earns it other places)

Just doesn't seem in the keepings of YMDC.

thinking on this rule, I believe it was intended for buildings and fortifications. If you're running a horde and fill up your deployment zone before you place your buildings then you would have to put them into reserves and as they can't move after being deployed they'd be removed as casualties.

It wouldn't apply to drop pods as you choose not to deploy them, it was not impossible for you to deploy them.