P1. Mystics allow free shots at deepstriking or summoned models.

P2. Vanilla pods do not follow the rules for deepstriking or summoning.

C: Mystics don't get free shots at vanilla pods.

(I realize that there formerly existed an FAQ on GW's boards that addressed this, but it no longer exists)

Posted By mauleed on 08/22/2007 4:31 AM

Unjust rules or laws should always be broken.

"Such units remain in reserve and arrive by drop pod, even if the Mission being played does not normally allow Reserves or Deep Strike."

It isn't  mentioned again. The section never specifcally says "Drop pods Deep Strike." But why even mention whether or not the mission allows deep strike if deep strike weren't an issue?

I think the mystic certainly ought to be allowed to shoot em. I think we need to determine if the brief mention of deep strike above means that is what GW wants them to be considered.

ender502

Yeah, but Pete Haines is a douche so.....

ender502

If it says "X unit deep strikes. Flip a coin and belch the alphabet. Then place X wherever you want it on the table" ... then X deep strikes. 

Second, if the rules are identical and one is called deep strike and the other is called "purple belly lint" then purple belly lint does NOT deep strike.

The pod rules do mention deep strike in them as I quoted above. What is the purpose of the quote? Why mention deep strike if that is not what they are doing?

And don't flippantly answer "they made a istake" or "they're stupid." We don't know that. All we know is what they wrote.

ender502

Simple!

The drop pod assault rule and the deepstrike rule are similar enough that they didn't want them to be confused as the same thing. If they didn't have that clause in there, then in any mission where deepstrike was not allowed, opponents would be contending that you couldn't use the drop pod assault rule because "deepstrike" was not allowed.

Both Pete Haine's answer in the GW boards, and also the FAQs for the UK GTs.

Exactly.

We have no idea why they mentioned deepstrike in a tangient manner. But we do know they did not give pods the deepstrike rule....

....even if it would have saved them a bunch of work.

So the bottom line is this:

The RAW says they don't deepstrike. There is no ambiguity.

But regardless, some unsportsmanlike jerks will still zero people for following that rule.

Thats why I dont play in RTTs anymore sports = pitty points, club abuse and penalties for winning a game.

As to the forum, i suppose it could be YMDWK.  You make da wrong kall.

Quote: "The passengers may not move (other than to disembark) or assault in the turn they land."

It doesn't matter whether the pod deep striked or not. The rules specifically say you cannot assault out of the pod on the turn it arrived. Is that the reason people are debating this at all?

ender502

So, you know that was the rule, and both Pete Haines clarified it, and they also rules that they deep strike at the UKGT. Also, the latest codex’s have them deep striking.

So you know they really do deep strike, but because of the rule oversight, you are going to use that to benefit you.

I thought that you said that is there is some debate about a rule, that you should take the less favorable rule interpretation.

Simply because a rule is being debated is no reason not to play it as written if you're sure it's not ambiguous. After all, if we didn't follow unambiguous rules every time some idiot didn't understand them, no one would ever roll a die again.

And yes, perhaps it used to be a rule. But it used to be a rule I could assault from Rhinos. But it's not now. I only play by this edition's official and available rules. I'd love to see you jokers trying to explain to some new player that you get to shoot his pod because some guy that doesn't work for GW anymore said 18 months ago on a message board that no longer exists that you could.

This is going to hurt me. agreeing with Ed TWICE in a week. I will need a shower.

Remember this is a RAW debate, and by RAW Ed is actually correct. The rule doesn't appear in the Big Book. It isn't in the vanilla codex. You cannot use rules from another varient codex (even if Codex:marines of another color) or you might as well just mix and match units out of them all. Ergo, the rule doesn't apply to vanilla SM's. Stupid Yes, incorrect by RAW - no.

I am positive that it is not intended as such but again, imprecise rules cause this. GW will change it (usually with some smart arse comment attempting to hiding their poor English writing skills). I would allow it because I think it is wrong. Ed won't allow it, and he is not wrong to do so either.

anyone who says other wise isnt following the rules and is a "cheat" to use someone elses logic...if they dont arrive via deep strike rules then all of the arguements over wether you can assautl out of them becomes valid all over again

and for the post that said if you dont take designers intent your a cheat.. i would like to see you say that to my face.. id laugh you out of the tournement.. last time i checked designers intent wasnt valid for a stick of used bubble gum let alone anything else .. you need to drop that sorry excuse for lack of a defensible arguement

its pretty simple...

oh and by the way green bloater..  sure you can go ahead and play ultramarines when i play you make sure you have your army list and you pay 50 points for your drop pods and only use 5 or 10 man squads. i hope you meant something else, and not how stupid that sounded.

1) YDMC is for RAW discussions - if you are relying on a rule you quote it. What page does it say they arrive via deep strike is Ed's argument 

 2) "i" is a capital when used to describe yourself. Other grammar rules also help so you do not look like a slow . ESL is more than an acceptable reason seeing as many of us seem to struggle with EFL.

3) does your mother know you are out of bed and using the internet and chatting with men? I am typing naked. Unfortunately it is cold and it is not doing me justice.

****** Yes and No. The trouble is if some-one pulls this rule wording on you in the middle of a tournement, I mean how do you counter some-one in a tournement who is more factually right than you? Pull the moral argument?

" Remember this is a RAW debate "

Why have a debate at all if all we are going to consider is the RAW .. any monkey can read the RAW.

******Hate to say this but they cannot - that is why we all waste time replying here when we should be doing some painting.

This whole argument is silly. You could have had his discussion days and weeks following the SMC release. The facts are that they clarified it, and continued to follow that clarification through the BA and DA codex drop pod rules is enough for me.

******It is for me to. I total agree with you. I would allow it because I am 99.999% sure that is the intent.

The idea of having 2 sets of rules governing the exact same model is not something that I want to promote.  ( notice I said rules, not point costs..) It is clear to me that they realized the wording issues with the SMC codex and have revised it as intended.

It is a shame that GW has yet to publish a living document for universal special rules that is available and updated on a regular basis on the web. Have all the universal special rules listed such as Furious Charge, Deep Strike, Hit and Run etc..  and reference that this takes precedence over previously published material.  Until then I suggest that we all purchase 10 copies of the SMC codex causing GW to go reprint a revised copy ... course they won't tell us about the changes. Mauleed will find that out months later during a critical point in a tourney game that the wording has changed when some wet behind the ear youngster pulls out his hot off the press revised SMC and then we can debate with Mauleed his insistence to continue to play with his SMC ver 1.0.

*****Totally agree with this point as well.

1) We can all choose not to play mauleed in regular pickup games.

2) No tournament judge would ever rule that mystics cannot shoot vanilla drop pods but can shoot other drop pods.

Maulie may be a puppy kicking bastard but he does play by the rules. If he was shown the rules are different "currently" he would abide by them. He will also go with a judges opinion ina tourney whether he agreed or not. Frankly, he is the type to talk this out before hand... and probably still take the least favorable interpretation.

That being said.... ANyone expecting or requiring a rule that says "pods do not use deep strike" will be disappointed. There is none. There isn't one for rhinos either.

This is a permissive rules set. If the rules do not say you can do a thing then you can't do a thing. If someone thinks that pods come in via deep strike rules... fine. Show  a rule that says they do. If there isn't one, then you are up the creek.

Please provide a quote. I already provided the only instance where deep strike is mentioned in the pod rules. Perhaps, instead of arguing about RAW you can put your collective wits to figuring why deepstrike is mentioned.

ender502

That's right.  I'll take the douche designation every once in a while and play a really insane army.  If people ask why, at least I won't deny and try to make up an excuse for taking a tough list.  Plus, with 690 points in two characters, they better be able to do something spectacular.  Like crush your IW all by themselves.     

Oh and I do believe that mystics should allow the inquisitors unit to fire at drop pods/ units for vanilla marines.  From a RAW standpoint, no they could not.  However, there are a number for sources that others have mentioned that lead one to believe this is the way it should be played.