C:SM drop pods

[mughi3]

None of the vehicles in the new codex have crew. Crew do not exist in the 5th edition rules.

............Crew are inconsequential.

remind me of that when i take a glance 1 or 2 that affect the crew

;)

 

The rules don't say EXPLICITLY that you need a Crew to shoot - you mearly use the BS of the vehicle (that is mentioned of being derived from the crew).

 

I see circles-it doesn't say i need a crew to shoot, but the shooting is done by the crew.

:)

 

"The rules are a framework to create an enjoyable game. Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players - not just the victor - have a good time." BRB - The Most Important Rule. Although GW organizes tournaments, WH40k is not meant as a competitive game system. Heck, it started as a lark by guys who glued guns to their WFB elves and orks (not to mentions lizardmen!).

Look we all pretty much know GW came up with the "have fun" rule to make up for the fact they cannot write decent rules to save their arse.

 

However 40K started is irrelevant, what it is is a wargame which by it's very nature is competitive just like any other sport or racing etc.... people can still have fun in a competitive game but it doesn't change the fact it is competitive.

 

If it wasn't a competitive game we wouldn't have army lists let alone trying to make them "effective" GW would tell us exactly what our army would look like and nobody would win in the end.

[Gothical]

The amount of crew defined in the background is irrelevant to the rules. If you are insistent on that, then I would insist that you replace your models after they fire 3000 Heavy Bolter rounds, as that's written in the background too, and I doubt you have a fully-modelled (with correct number of crew) re-arming station for your Tanks. Crew Numbers are the same box as the number of crew (going by Imperial Armour Vol 2, which has more detailed information on the Marine vehicles). If you wish to stick so adamantly to this notion that the Crew matter, then fine. As long as you have clearly modelled the correct number of crew in the vehicle, otherwise it isn't WYSIWYG - remembering that the Rhinos etc have windows to see the drivers, or you shouldn't be fielding the vehicle :lol: [that was tongue-in-cheek btw]

 

Crew were written out between 3rd and 4th Editions. In 3rd you could get (or the Guard anyway, don't know if it applied to Marines) Crew Escape Mechanisms allowing the crew to get away, and saving you some Victory Points should they live-out the game. However, GW decided to leave this be.

 

remind me of that when i take a glance 1 or 2 that affect the crew

 

Yes, but aside from Shaken/Stunned the crew have no effect in the rules. Shaken and Stunned are only written as they are (as in referencing the damage to disturbing the crew) to give some background justification for the vehicle to have it's effects limited by enemy fire. If it confuses you less, call it "computer temporarily dislodged" and "accidental reboot from shrapnel hitting the power switch" - makes no difference and the in-game effect is still in place.

 

As such, even without a crew, a Drop Pod is also susceptible to Shaken/Stunned results from damage - with no PotMS it wouldn't be able to fire it's Storm Bolter in such a circumstance either.

 

I see circles-it doesn't say i need a crew to shoot, but the shooting is done by the crew

 

The background justification (whether in brackets, a seperate paragraph or an entire seperate part of the book is irrelevant) is that the shooting is done by the crew.

 

The rules is that any vehicle with a BS can shoot. No requirement for it to have a crew (otherwise Platforms [eathshaker, Hydra etc] and Tarantulas would never be able to fire either). That is what the rules say. Vehicles with a BS can shoot. Drop Pods have a BS. Drop Pods can shoot despite not having a crew, as the crew has no effect on shooting in the actual rules themselves (bar damage results)

 

 

The distinction between rules and background justification is very important, and means there are no circles. This isn't sloppy rules-writing on GWs part, it is a comprehension error, or rather a confusion of background and rules.

[Brother Gothard]

The rules is that any vehicle with a BS can shoot. No requirement for it to have a crew (otherwise Platforms [eathshaker, Hydra etc] and Tarantulas would never be able to fire either). That is what the rules say. Vehicles with a BS can shoot. Drop Pods have a BS. Drop Pods can shoot despite not having a crew, as the crew has no effect on shooting in the actual rules themselves (bar damage results)

 

 

The distinction between rules and background justification is very important, and means there are no circles. This isn't sloppy rules-writing on GWs part, it is a comprehension error, or rather a confusion of background and rules.

Aaaand, /thread. For the love of the Emperor, end the silliness!

[ArmouredWing]

Mughi3 is right - it might seem obvious that the Pod should be able to shoot, but according to RAW, no crewman = no weapon firing. The Master of the Ravenwing on jetbike already came a cropper on this one. Of course it seems like he ought to be able to fire both weapons, but he can't.

 

As for difficult terrain... I'm not sure...

 

A little intrigued but can you specify the rule that actually says this? I mean, if you're going to refer to RAW then you've also got to refer to the relevent ruling as well haven't you?

 

I'd have to say it's as simple as the drop pod has got a ranged weapon and a BS value and for me that says regardless of how it does it, it can fire. After all, and I may be mistaken 'cause I haven't got my codex to hand, but where it states 'crew' I thought it just stated who the crew were rather than the exact crewing levels.

[Gothical]

The Master of the Ravenwing can't fire both weapons as Bikes (and Jetbikes) can only fire 1 weapon per Rider. Storm Bolter and Plasma Cannons are 2 weapons, he can fire one per turn, as it's only him flying the bike. In his Speeder he follows normal Fast Vehicle rules (where he can fire both if moving slow enough).

 

 

It's a completely different discussion, as 1) He's not a vehicle, he's a Special Character on Jetbike and 2) the issue comes from the Bike rules, not the Vehicle rules.

[Warprat]

I think they did not want to classify the Drop Pod as a fast vehicle, because they did not want people getting confused, thinking it could possibly move during the game.

 

Common sense wise, a Drop Pod is the epitome of a "fast vehicle" The fluff on page 69 of the SM codex desribes the velocity of approach as so fast that there is no way to intercept, etc...

 

Yet, all Deep Striking vehicles including the Drop Pod are counted as moving at cruising speed, even though skimmers and such can normally move at flat out speed as well. Clearly, vehicles falling to the ground do so in a controlled manner. And this is described in thier fluff.

 

A fast vehicle moving at cruising speed can fire one weapon, and all defensive weapons. While it may appear to be an oversite in the rules, that Drop Pods are not classified as immobilized fast skimmers, I think this is intentional by GW to prevent other confusions that might result from RAW discussions. Like an immobilized Drop Pod floating in place or some other non-sense...

 

The fluff behind Drop Pods is that they land with a shock effect, troops immediately emerging and pods firing in support. To do otherwise than support this is to go against the spirit of the rules. "The Most Important Rule!" on page 2 of the Rule Book adresses that sort of situation perfectly.

 

Warprat ;)

[WarpSpawn]

Warprat, I think you are leaning far too much towards fluff in a rules debate. I also think that in suggesting that, if we do not follow your fluff based house rule, we are not having fun, is a bit out of line.

 

As long as a situation is covered by RAW (and this most certainly is), RAW is the default way to play, the one that everyone knows where they stand with. You want to house rule it, fine, you do that. Just don't expect everyone else to and don't think any less of those that would rather play it by the rules printed in that book we all spent so much money aquiring. Personally, I think making it up as we go along and throwing out the rulebook is also in breach of "the most important rule" as wasting money is not fun.

 

RAW clearly says it is not a fast vehicle, it arrives at cruising speed and therefore cannot fire. There is no room for interpretation on this point.

 

So it does not behave exactly as fluff suggests, big deal! Add it to the list, it'll have plenty of company.

 

Edit: Oh, and your suggestion they did not call it fast to avoid confusion is flawed. What part of "immobilised" do you think people will have a problem with?

[Arschbombe]

I'm going to point out that Rhino hulls also have side doors, and that it could be conceiveable to model these as fully open such that a person can see through their Rhino from one side to the other. With True LOS why wouldn't that squads heavy weapon bearer be able to deploy on one side and snipe armour through the aligned holes against the otherside behind a barracade to restrict return fire. Ignoring that this would be unmitagated cheeze.

 

Yes, that it cheese, but it's also an extreme situation that a player must seek out and create with significant effort. The basic rhino kit does not create that kind of problem. The drop pod kit does.

 

My basis for manipulation comes from the majority of the rest of my GW tank kits and the normal ability to turn their turrets, aim the sponsons, and open and close the hatches.

 

But those mobile kit pieces have no real game function. The rules clearly state that weapons are given the benefit of full firing arcs even when glued in place. So to me the drop pod kit with doors glued closed still gets treated like an open-topped vehicle, and will not completely block LOS because the doors are blown out upon landing. Still there are some interesting situations that can come about with these doors if only because they are so big.

 

For example, the rules state that a drop pod cannot land within 1" of an enemy model. When you place the drop pod at the required 1" distance, the unit inside cannot disembark on the side that faces the enemy because they cannot disembark within 1" of the enemy. So they are disembarking on the sides away from the enemy. But what about the door or doors that face the enemy? Do they stay up and block LOS because the unit is not disembarking on that side? There is no mechanism for drop pod doors to damage units when they are blown off. I can't see models being moved like in tank shock to allow the doors to open or even moved back into position once the doors are down.

 

 

On this basis I also think that the Drop Pod as it is is a very poorly implemented kit from a game mechanics perspective.

 

Indeed.

 

RAW clearly says it is not a fast vehicle, it arrives at cruising speed and therefore cannot fire. There is no room for interpretation on this point.

 

I propose a new acronym. RAPW: Rules As Poorly Written.

 

The previous SM codex clearly stated that pods had POTMS and could fire upon landing. The new codex does not. Is that an omission or a conscious design decision on GW's part? I suspect it is the former, but you never can tell.

[WarpSpawn]

Well a lot of things changed in the new codex. Change does not automatically equate to poor writing. It also does not in itself give us reason to believe the writers made a mistake.

 

Yes, there are a few issues with how the pod works in a game, due to things like doors opening but whether it shoots when it lands is not one of those issues in my oh so humle opinion.

[Warprat]

What part of "immobilised" do you think people will have a problem with?

 

Well, based on some of the comments in this thread, anything is possible...

[Praeger]

Ok, im closing this topic down for a bit.

 

If anyone REALLY wants me to reopen it then please PM me with a VERY good reason and I will consider it.