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.

So now that we can borrow Drop Pods from Space Wolves can i now take a 10 man Salamander Terminator squad, Combat squad them into 2- 5 man squads and then deploy them in SW drop pods from there FA slot ?

seems like i can do that now..

Yes, as the combat squad rule allows you to have two CS units embarked in the same transport

well since a 10 man squad of termies cant fit in a Drop Pod. Can you take 10 termies, combat squad them prior to the drop and let the 2 combat squaded Termies use 2 pods from the SW fast attack slot ?

Yes, why couldn't you!? They're two units.

i figured they could Nos... just wasnt 100 %. actually makes me want to run my salamander termies now

Yep, current combat squad rules have you split them up after Warlord traits and before deployment, so they are already split before you put units into transports or into reserves.

Fun options.

Kind of a tag into to the original question. Can I put attack bikes in a space wolf drop pod? How about legion of the damned?

The drop pod follows the normal rules for what can embark as presented in the 'Transports' section of the rulebook (with specific certain exceptions listed in their rules).

So that's a yes to legion, no to bikes?

LotD is forced to enter via deep strike. They cannot be put inside Drop Pods because they wouldn't be arriving via deep stirke (the drop pod is, not the unit inside)

 Vector Strike wrote:
LotD is forced to enter via deep strike. They cannot be put inside Drop Pods because they wouldn't be arriving via deep stirke (the drop pod is, not the unit inside)

Though the rules for Deep Strike do imply that a unit arriving in a Deep Striking transport are themselves Deep Striking.

"In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one."

So either the unit inside is Deep Striking, or GW wrote a useless rule.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
LotD is forced to enter via deep strike. They cannot be put inside Drop Pods because they wouldn't be arriving via deep stirke (the drop pod is, not the unit inside)

Though the rules for Deep Strike do imply that a unit arriving in a Deep Striking transport are themselves Deep Striking.

"In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one."

So either the unit inside is Deep Striking, or GW wrote a useless rule.

My mistake, sorry.

So, if we put LotD inside a Drop Pod, does it re-roll its scatter?

 Vector Strike wrote:


My mistake, sorry.

So, if we put LotD inside a Drop Pod, does it re-roll its scatter?

No because the Drop pod is rolling for scatter not the embarked unit.

That raises this problem again:
If the Embarked Unit is Arriving by Deep-strike would they not be forced to follow the Rules for Arriving by Deep-Strike?

JinxDragon wrote:
That raises this problem again:
If the Embarked Unit is Arriving by Deep-strike would they not be forced to follow the Rules for Arriving by Deep-Strike?

Because they are embarked on a DSing Transport and you only roll once for reserves for the transport and its contents to arrive.

You miss the point, it was never when they where arriving... it is the how.

If they are Arriving via Deep Strike then they would have to follow the Rules governing how Units actually do so. This would include more then just rolling to see when it arrives but the rest of the sequence as well, from selecting a single Model to be the center of the formation and placing it on the Table where it intends to arrive, scattering it as per the instructions in Arriving from Deep Strike and then placing the rest of the Unit around this Model in the position described by the Deep Stroking Rules. That sequence is so far from what people have been doing with Units Embarked on Deep Striking Transports that I doubt anyone even seriously consider an argument where the Embarked Unit would have to follow the Sequence put forth instead of just 'Disembarking' from the Transport... which they could do without needing access to an Exception, as they did not Arrive via Deep Strike and hence could Disembark and move normally anyway....

After all the Rule center most to the problem is not one that states that the Embarked Unit is Arriving via Deep Strike, or even one that states they count as having Arrived after the fact, but one that designed to be an Exception to the 'can not move any further' Restriction placed on Deep Striking Units. This Exception was written for a situation that would only be possible if the Unit within the Transport was also arriving via Deep Striking, so people are making the logically assumption that the Unit inside of the Transport must also be Deep Striking. Yet that doesn't stop the underling problem with the Rule: Nothing has proven that a secondary Unit which started Embarked in a Deep Striking Unit has actually Deep Struck itself.

Particularly if the Unit inside doesn't have the Deep Strike Special Rule, making it really a question on how it is Arriving via Deep Strike at the same time....

Instead let us look at that Exception from a different angle:
I have a hypothetical Unit which has a 'Count as Deep Striking' Rule, one that which forces them to have been considered Deep Striking regardless how they arrive from Reserves, and it is arriving in a Drop-Pod
Does that Exception now have a specific situation it can be evoked within, one that does not require the default state to be 'Embarked Units Deep Strike along side their Transport?'

You cant have a single Model to be the center of the formation and placing it on the Table where it intends to arrive because the unit is embarked.

So either the game breaks.

Or you count them as arriving by DS but ignore the placement and scatter for the embarked unit.

Why rule out the conclusion that the Embarked Unit is not Arriving via Deep Strike?
It is an interpretation which does not require a House Rule of 'Ignore the Breaks created.'

That sentence, if it is the one that keeps coming to mind, was worded so poorly that I wouldn't feel comfortable using it as evidence for 'intent' let alone as Rule as Written support. It does not outright state that an Embarked Unit is arriving via Deep Strike at the same time as the Transport, but instead it simply grants permission for a Deep Striking unit to do something only Embarked Units are capable of doing. As it is an Exception clause, designed to over-turn a specific Restriction, I would even state that it is not involved in the situation unless it can be shown that the Restriction is also 'In Play.' Given that nothing has shown that the Embarked Unit is Deep Striking, the Restriction on movement does not Trigger so the Exception allowing Disembarking is irrelevant.

Think of it this way:
Do you come away with the conclusion that the sentence is informing us that all Embarked Units are 'Arriving via Deep Strike' and nothing more?
For I come to the conclusion that the Sentence exists to over-turning the 'can not move any further' Restriction.

Why rule out the conclusion that the Embarked Unit is not Arriving via Deep Strike?

Because:

 Happyjew wrote:
"In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a Deep Striking Transport vehicle if they are in one."

So either the unit inside is Deep Striking, or GW wrote a useless rule.

Which brings me back to the obvious problem:
That sentence does not state that the Embarked Unit is Deep Striking, only that Deep Striking Units have permission to Disembark should they need to do so.

It is an assumption that the Unit inside is Deep Striking based on this one sentence, one driven by logical and analog thinking but still an assumption. Simply because we can not fathom a situation which allows a Embarked Unit access to the Deep Strike Special Rule directly, we are assuming that all Embarked Units in a Deep Striking Transport must be Deep Striking at the same time as the Transport simply to create a situation which allows this Rule to have a purpose. We create this connection simply because it would be ridiculous for the Authors to pen a Rule that could never be evoked. This fails to acknowledge that there is actually nothing preventing a Rule from being Written that serves no purpose, it wouldn't be the last for Game Workshop as many 'reminders' or other Sentences exist that hold no purpose.

The most interesting thing about this assumption is that we are then required to ignore the fact the Embarked Unit has followed zero of the steps for Deep Striking, because that would create obvious breaks within the game.
As we are already required to completely ignoring all other Requirements and Restrictions that come with Arriving from Deep Striking, why then would we even need an Exception to over-turn this particular Restriction?

JinxDragon wrote:
Which brings me back to the obvious problem:
That sentence does not state that the Embarked Unit is Deep Striking, only that Deep Striking Units have permission to Disembark should they need to do so.

But that is the point.

Deep Striking Units have permission to Disembark should they need to do so.

The unit in the Pod must be DSing, or GW wrote a useless rule.

Where in the Rule does it state that the Embarked Unit is Deep Striking?
As the assumption has to do with the logical conclusion that this sentence must have a purpose, not including the possibility we are simply over-looking the purpose, your reiterating of the assumption has done nothing to prove the case. If the only support for the concept happens to be this single line and stating that Game Workshop will never write a useless Rule then we have a problem. This is Game Workshop after all, and if the question is put forth asking if this group is capable of writing a Rule which serves no purpose then the answer is going to be the obvious Yes. I don't often entertain such in a Rule as Written debate, it is a pointless revertible to the discussion at hand the vast majority of the times, but if put forth outright as a question then the answer is obvious and indisputable. That is why we are here after all, because the Rules are poorly written and it gives us something to argue over.

Besides, our simply being unable to envision a situation in which the Rule can be evoked doesn't make the Rule useless:
If a Unit out there has some sort of Rule which makes it Deep Strike even when Embarked it will be able to Disembark without issue.

Right now I have two possible conclusions, and maybe showing the problem I have will better explain it:
1) We can accept that all Embarked Units Deep Strike with their Transports
2) We can accept that the sentence over-turns a Restriction and nothing more

The first creates a context that makes sense for this one sentence, however that very context creates the problems that prevents me from accepting it outright. As the Embarked Unit clearly does not follow any of the Requirements or Restrictions that are put forth on a Unit Arriving via Deep Strike, it is really difficult to state that they have 'arrived via Deep Strike.' Given that these are non-optional Rules, the Arriving Unit would be forced to carry them out unless there was a specific Exception written for them, and given that we do not have instructions telling us how an Embarked Unit interacts with the Deep Strike Rules it is clear we do not have such an Exception. The answer to this problem that was provided is nothing more then 'Ignore the broken Rules completely,' which is not a suitable answer to a Rule question even if we where discussing a House Rule and not an official solution to the problem.

The second requires me to simply accept that the Authors created an Exception to a Restriction, a common practice, and then apply that Exception to nothing more then the Restriction in question. It really doesn't require me to justify for why the Author thought to include that sentence in the method it was included, it simply accepts that Rules are meant to be written in a certain format and to apply that format to all Rule evenly. That we will never be in a situation to Evoke the Exception in question is actually irrelevant, that is an issue for the Authors themselves, but one of the reasons that site's like this one exist. Should the simplest way for that to be understood boil down to 'the Authors penned a useless Rule,' then there is no reason for me not to agree with that so-simplified explanation because this is Game Workshop we are writing about....

Its an assumption backwards - that all units that disembark from aDS vehicle are also DS. Its not based on any rules that state as such