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, I enjoy miniwargaming's channel. I realize that many don't like them, and think they get a lot of rules wrong. Personally, I feel as if they make a good effort to stay legal, and improve, and I think that matt and dave especially do, generally, a very good job.

That being said, there's a new tactic I've seen them use which really sounds wrong to me. They're deep striking dreadnoughts in drop pods, hiding the dreads in the drop pod, and charging out of it the next turn. It is both an assault and open-topped transport vehicle, so this would be legal, except for the fact that drop pods have a special rule that requires occupants to disembark as soon as the pods land.

I called this out on a video, and MWG responded with this:

"Normal Drop Pod Assault rules say you must disembark, but the Dreadnought Drop Pod has its own rule that allows you to not disembark. It's even an Assault Vehicle (although being Open Topped does that as well) so it can charge when it disembarks, if it does not disembark when it first comes in."

Is there a difference between dread drop pods and normal ones? I only have access to a 6th ed SM codex, and I can't seem to find one. Between the older codex and not being a SM expert, I admit I could be wrong, but this definitely 'feels' incorrect to me, for what that's worth.

So, can a dreadnought stay in a drop pod until he's ready to charge out of it? That sounds awfully suspicious to me, but again, I've been wrong before.

There is only 1 kind of GW Drop Pod, and it does not allow any unit to stay embarked. That didn't change with any 7th ed release.

However, I am fairly certain there is a Forge World Dreadnaught Drop Pod that has the very rule they are talking about. The model only has 3 doors instead of 5.

I googled online and there's apparently a "Lucius Pattern Drop Pod" for Dreadnoughts that have the Assault Vehicle rule. I have no clue what it is or where it's rules are, nor what it's exact rules say.

 Galef wrote:
There is only 1 kind of GW Drop Pod, and it does not allow any unit to stay embarked. That didn't change with any 7th ed release.

However, I am fairly certain there is a Forge World Dreadnaught Drop Pod that has the very rule they are talking about. The model only has 3 doors instead of 5.

I did notice that the drop pod in the video did have 3 large doors, which was odd. So, I guess it's kosher if they're using the FW drop pod? Is it the same points cost, any restrictions on use by chapters? Or can everyone just say their drop pod is a FW drop pod and it's legal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, looked into it a bit more, and this is indeed legal, but only which the FW drop pod, which he was, admittedly, using.

The more you know!

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Galef wrote:
There is only 1 kind of GW Drop Pod, and it does not allow any unit to stay embarked. That didn't change with any 7th ed release.

However, I am fairly certain there is a Forge World Dreadnaught Drop Pod that has the very rule they are talking about. The model only has 3 doors instead of 5.

I did notice that the drop pod in the video did have 3 large doors, which was odd. So, I guess it's kosher if they're using the FW drop pod? Is it the same points cost, any restrictions on use by chapters? Or can everyone just say their drop pod is a FW drop pod and it's legal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, looked into it a bit more, and this is indeed legal, but only which the FW drop pod, which he was, admittedly, using.

The more you know!

Yeah, the FW drop pod should use the FW rules (obviously). Why anyone would spend so much money on just a drop pod is beyond me though. Never seen someone using it before.

I've seen it used and it's pretty good for a CC Dread, since it basically gives you an extra 3 HPs of protection before the Dread comes out and charges. I couldn't tell you the specific rules thought.
It's safe to say that you should use the FW model to represent it, since the GW model doesn't even look like it can hold a Dread in the first place.

 Galef wrote:
. . . since the GW model doesn't even look like it can hold a Dread in the first place.

Yeah, none of the transport models look like they could transport anywhere close to their stated carrying capacity. I mean someone has to be sitting on a lap in that Rhino, don't they?

 EnTyme wrote:

 Galef wrote:
. . . since the GW model doesn't even look like it can hold a Dread in the first place.

Yeah, none of the transport models look like they could transport anywhere close to their stated carrying capacity. I mean someone has to be sitting on a lap in that Rhino, don't they?

LMAO, that's good stuff. I know what you mean, but at least with other transports that more of a scale issue. Drop Pods actually look like they can carry 10 marines, including seat for each. But what makes carrying a Dread look suspect is that doors don't look wide enough to let a Dread out. The Pod itself look like it can carry a Dread, but turns into a Dread cage on the ground.

The Lucius Pattern can actually hold a Dread AND release it

The most recent publication of the Lucius drop pod is in IA 2 2nd ed.

It has a variant of the drop pod assault rule that does not require disembarkation(but does require full opening of the doors).

But then you have the confusing bits for the retrothruster reentry rules where the pod has shrouded and so does the dread if it remains on any part of the structure of the model(including the doors), so it is unclear if they are implying that when the doors open the dread is a valid target(since friendly models are impassable terrain, therefore you could not disembark and remain on the structure).

It is a more expensive pod points-wise and lacks the storm bolter(so no gun at all), but does have that "shrouded on the turn it arrives" rule. Both drop pod assault and assault vehicle rules also reiterate that your dread cannot charge after disembarkation the turn the pod arrives(making retrothrusters that much more confusing).

I have a friend who uses these a lot. You can even re-embark back into the pod later in the game if you want (normal pods disallow this).
I saw this used to great effect with a BA fragnaught, who used it to get the extra range needed to toast a unit holding an objective.

Of note that it is more expensive (+15) than a normal Drop Pod. IA2 Second edition is legit - and dont forget the Burning Retros special rule that gives it shrouded (which also effects any shot passing through it), on the turn that it arrives (and that works against Interceptors as well)

Ive seen lots of people use normal Drop Pods as the FW Dreadnought drop pods, because they are just simply better.

BA love them, with their Assault Death Company Dreads and Furioso Dreads Podding in T1, hiding out in the Pod until Turn 2 where they can then charge out.

(Yet another FW rule that is simply better than the GW counterpart.)

also once it opens as long as you are on the door petals you are still shrouded.

Plus there is a 20 point upgrade that eliminates scatter.

zedsdead wrote:
also once it opens as long as you are on the door petals you are still shrouded

Which would be great if there was some rule to make them not impassable terrain.

Load the Dread up right and opponents will make the drop pod difficult terrain for you.

At which point it is no longer a drop pod; it becomes a wreck, so the burning retros rule no longer functions.

Both grant 5+ Cover Saves, only one is Impassible Terrain.

Only if in cover behind. Standing in difficult terrain that does not obscure 25% does not grant a cover save.

Pretty sure you get to choose which side of the pod your Dread comes out.

 Gingerwerewolf wrote:
Ive seen lots of people use normal Drop Pods as the FW Dreadnought drop pods, because they are just simply better.

This is not legal and should not be allowed. The FW dread pod is significantly larger than the normal pod, which is a LOS/model footprint issue (especially given how many marine players use their empty pods to manipulate movement/LOS). This should be treated the same as someone saying "I'm going to use this Rhino model as a Land Raider".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gingerwerewolf wrote:
Ive seen lots of people use normal Drop Pods as the FW Dreadnought drop pods, because they are just simply better.

This is not legal and should not be allowed. The FW dread pod is significantly larger than the normal pod, which is a LOS/model footprint issue (especially given how many marine players use their empty pods to manipulate movement/LOS). This should be treated the same as someone saying "I'm going to use this Rhino model as a Land Raider".

That all depends on how you feel about proxy/counts-as models. You're completely within your right to tell some "no" to using anything other than the official model, but that doesn't mean everyone will feel the same way. Personally, I wouldn't mind so long as my opponent eventually purchased the correct model of scratch built a customer version.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

zedsdead wrote:
also once it opens as long as you are on the door petals you are still shrouded

Which would be great if there was some rule to make them not impassable terrain.

under the "Draft" unofficial rule sure..have fun. Don't use them yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gingerwerewolf wrote:
Ive seen lots of people use normal Drop Pods as the FW Dreadnought drop pods, because they are just simply better.

This is not legal and should not be allowed. The FW dread pod is significantly larger than the normal pod, which is a LOS/model footprint issue (especially given how many marine players use their empty pods to manipulate movement/LOS). This should be treated the same as someone saying "I'm going to use this Rhino model as a Land Raider".

That all depends on how you feel about proxy/counts-as models. You're completely within your right to tell some "no" to using anything other than the official model, but that doesn't mean everyone will feel the same way. Personally, I wouldn't mind so long as my opponent eventually purchased the correct model of scratch built a customer version.

Im not a rules stikler per-se but I have 6 of the FW pods that I spent big bucks on. Would I allow it in a "friendly" ..sure. Test it out...give er a go. But in a Tournament or a serious game ? I would expect a player to have the legit model or a decent modeled proxy for it that also was approximately the same size. I don't care for players trying to use Forge World rules on GW models that are neither FW models or at least decent attempts at being something more than that model even if that means taking a standard GW model and doing a Mod to it.

But simply slapping down a Drop Pod and claiming its a FW Dread Pod (outside of a test/friendly game) to me is a big no-no.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gingerwerewolf wrote:
Ive seen lots of people use normal Drop Pods as the FW Dreadnought drop pods, because they are just simply better.

This is not legal and should not be allowed. The FW dread pod is significantly larger than the normal pod, which is a LOS/model footprint issue (especially given how many marine players use their empty pods to manipulate movement/LOS). This should be treated the same as someone saying "I'm going to use this Rhino model as a Land Raider".

I wouldn't have an issue with it myself.

The game is already super steeped into pay to win to begin with and using a drop pod as another kind of drop pod isn't that much of a stretch and if you want to go by the GW draft it benefits you as an opponent because you have a (somewhat) smaller LOS and area denial model to deal with.


But then again I am super relaxed about these kinds of things. As long as it looks good and they pay the points for it I don't care. *shrugs*

Not to get off subject but can you assault out of 'normal' gw drop-pods because they're open-topped? Have I just always missed this?

Yes, because you cannot assault the turn you arrive via deepstrike(which the unit that gets out of the pod does).

The Lucien pattern pod even restates that basic principle while granting an allowance to assault after disembarkation(which again, is already allowed via open-topped).

you could, if you could stay embarked in them

The turn you arrive from reserve by deepstrike you have TWO items preventing you from assaulting.

Oh but for normal GW drop-pods, no, you cannot assault when you land...

What would be nice is that if they are using those pods they specifically say they are special pods that are not in normal SM codexes.