Lucius Pattern Drop Pod and Bjorn Fellhand Dreadnaught

[Valerian]

Dreadnoughts riding in Rhinos, you sure about that?  I definitely do not recall an edition that one could do that.  My RT rules are getting a little rusty, though.

[Warhead01]

Maybe I am looking at it the wrong way. I mean something like a squad in a transport vehicle that explodes stand the chance of being wounded and having to role saves. Mean while the dred just stands their. with no possibility of being destroyed or crippled as well. If I ws planning to drop pod bunker, I would use the optimal build for the dred use 2 of them and drop right where I could manage to do the most damage. basicly giving the dreds a freebie. Just land right in front of them who cares. even if they assault and destroy the drop pod the dred remains unaffected.  I think even though that's what I would do with them, it may not be as intended. And that would be my issue with it. If their was any actual risk involved it might balance it out. 

[Vlk]

These are great news! I would love to have a Lucius pattern DP which actually DOES something for the 65 points. 

[Sohail187]

Ok so you got me thinking now with the doors opening not opening. I am trying to find something to read about this in the books but i am struggling. So lets say i want to abuse this a bit for example. I drop a pod and i want me guy to disembark on 1 side of it, can i leave the oposite side closed so the other guy cannot see my units through the open doors. If i left one side closed, it a complete block! :D

[Gentlemanloser]

You should check the numerous threads in the OR forum about Drop Pod doors.

 

Either you count the doors as part of the Hull (and the can block LoS, but effect DS footptint, disembarkation/assault/melta ranges), or they are decorative elements that have zero effect in game.

 

Now, if you class them as Hull, you could get into all sorts of issues with your opponent.  Not limited to glueing them shut being modelling for an advantage (which should also be noted is no longer a rule/restriction in the BRB...).

 

The path of least resistence, the one that has the least impact in game, is to count the doors as decorative elements, that have zero impact in game.

 

Anything else opens a spiralling can of worms.

[Sohail187]

I would rather count it as a hull and have half the doors closed if it going to save my dropped units benig shot. Good thing i magnetized all my doors so i can choose which to open and shut :D

[Gentlemanloser]

Just as long as you roll for DS scatter with the open doors down, so it has an increased chance to Mishap.

 

And you allow Melta/Assault ranges to be measured to the tip of the open doors.

[Sohail187]

yep! i think that makes a hell of a difference in my favour. I usually drop 3 pods in the first turn. I could do a fricking congo line of pods as long as they land close to each other and block a % of his army off from one another and create massive line of sight issues to my dropped units.

[Sohail187]

O i just read *doors are blown open* so u cannot keep them closed. I think that will only apply for the lucious

(EDIT) it doesnt say doors are blown in the space wolve codex just space marine.!

[MaveriK]

The Massacre book have dreadnought drop pods with "assault vehicle" listed in the special rules allowing the dreadnought to assault the same turn as it disembarks. But you can't assault on the same turn the drop pod arrives... LOL

[Gentlemanloser]

Here's the next question.

 

Where does a FW book relate to the page 7 distinction for rules conflicts?  It's not a Codex.  It's not the BRB.

 

Can anything in a FW book overrule a rule conflict with the BRB?

[Thunderhawk3015]

I would say that the FW book would classify as a codex as it has army backstory and force org/army list same as a "normal" codex with added features unique to forge world. 

[Vlk]

The Massacre book have dreadnought drop pods with "assault vehicle" listed in the special rules allowing the dreadnought to assault the same turn as it disembarks. But you can't assault on the same turn the drop pod arrives... LOL

 

Yeah, that´s the point of most of this debate. It´s the same with Lucius pattern Drop Pod; nothing forces you to disembark on the turn the pod arrives so you can just wait for a turn, hidden in the protective shell of the pod, and then disembark and assault on the following turn. Seems quite useful to me without being gamebreaking in any way.

[Quillen]

Wasn't there a rule if your ride( rhino/LandRaider/Drop Pod ) gets killed and you do not have the space to disembark your unit is destroyed. Which would mean they close to melee and nuke the ride and Bjorn is toast as there will be models within range of his base even if you placed him where the pod was. Or did they ruin that too. I am so glade I have not bought the last rule book and I am so glad I have only bought a few models since these morons at GW ruined the gaming stores and deals I enjoyed. F GW.

 

[Vlk]

Wasn't there a rule if your ride( rhino/LandRaider/Drop Pod ) gets killed and you do not have the space to disembark your unit is destroyed. Which would mean they close to melee and nuke the ride and Bjorn is toast as there will be models within range of his base even if you placed him where the pod was. Or did they ruin that too. I am so glade I have not bought the last rule book and I am so glad I have only bought a few models since these morons at GW ruined the gaming stores and deals I enjoyed. F GW.

 

Have you ever seen Lucius Drop Pod? That thing has a frikkin huge footprint. I don´t think it would be a problem to place the dreadnought an inch from all enemy units even if the Pod was completely surrounded before beying destroyed. 

 

Don´t panic, dear friend.

[Valerian]

I am so glade I have not bought the last rule book and I am so glad I have only bought a few models since these morons at GW ruined the gaming stores and deals I enjoyed. F GW.

You should get the new rule book, if you ever plan on playing again, at least. 6e is by far the best, most well thought out version of the base rules ever, by far (IMNSHO). The problems that exist in 6e are mostly resident in the codices, not the base rules.

 

V

[Gentlemanloser]

I disagree Val.

 

Wounding, LoS, Saves and Challenges all slow the game down massively.

 

The base rules have weighted Shooting to be *far* more effective than Assault.

 

While there are issue with the Codexes themselves (which is mainly unit balance, hello Helldrakes), the base ruleset has become sluggish.

[Valerian]

Agree that some base rules slow down the game (Challenges and Look Out, Sir rolls, for example), but I still submit that they're good rules; they bring some fun components to the game that didn't exist before. Also agree that Shooting has taken preeminence over Assaults, but that isn't a huge deal to me, and certainly doesn't ruin the game.

[Gentlemanloser]

It did for my WWP playing Deldar mate.

 

He stopped playing all together when GW ripped the heart out of his army with the release of 6th.

 

Edit: Also forgot Fliers from the list.

 

Fliers have ruined the game as they just isn't enough Anti Air available.

[Valerian]

Agreed on some of those Xenos armies with highly assault-oriented builds; the 6e change really hurt them, but armies like DE and Nids are yet to see their 6e codices yet, so they might be just fine in the end.

 

Disagree with Flyers ruining it in 6e, as again, the problems with those are in the dexes, not the base rules. For example, our lack of anti-air options is inherent in our 5 year old 5e dex; likewise, the problem of the Helldrake is related to overreach in the CSM dex. Neither are issues with Flyers in the basic rule set.

[Gentlemanloser]

:)

 

It's not really a Codex issue, that's just a Symptom.

 

The base rules have made Fliers too durable (Snap Fire, AV, Hull Points, Jink Saves), with the only releif in the base rules given as Skyfire and Interceptor.

 

Yet in the base tulew these weren't applied.

 

For example, as base, Missile Launchers (of any type) could have been given Skyfire.  Unit types could have been given Interceptor.

 

Yet the answer was ignoring in the base rules, and left for Codexes to pick up.

 

Which hasn't been done properly either.  Sadly.

[Grey Mage]

Here's the next question.

 

Where does a FW book relate to the page 7 distinction for rules conflicts?  It's not a Codex.  It's not the BRB.

 

Can anything in a FW book overrule a rule conflict with the BRB?

Its a codex.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm not sure about that GM...

[Grey Mage]

I'm not sure about that GM...

I am. Its a unit entry, to be used as it were in your codex if you allow the expansion- wich is the core rules earlier in the same book. Codex overrides core rules, expansion overrides other core rules like they were advanced rules, works out well in the end.

[Gentlemanloser]

Expansions aren't mentioned in the BRB at all.  While the RAI should be that they override the BRB, the RAW doesn't support that, as it fails to address them.

 

Death from the Skies, for example, isn't a Codex.  Therefore non of the rules in it should be able to override any of the BRB rules, should conflicts arise.

 

Page 7 needs to be updated to include FAQs (Does a BRB FAQ override a Codex - not a Codex FAQ,  but a printed Codex rule), Expansions and Suplements.

 

I still don't think you can call any FW book a 'codex' though.