Dedicated transports and RoW FoC limitations

[Theredknight]

We were discussing..I didn't copy and paste MY replies at least..

 

I suppose you can take it as RAW, or RAI.

It has 'immobile' in the stat line. However, it mentions that how it's counted. Suggesting to me that originally it wasn't immobilised. (You can say the same for tarantulas I suppose, hurtling through the sky isn't technically immobile)

 

Why do tarantulas and drop pods appear to have different immobilised explanations? tarantulas have cannot move after deployment, and drop pods have what I mentioned earlier. Why not just put both the same?

 

Sometimes fw seem to put things like this in and you have to read between the lines. As asking them doesn't solicit a great reply. (I decided to wing them an email anyway)

 

Take ec maru skara, your not allowed any 'heavy' units, but doesn't go on to tell you any description of what a 'heavy' unit is!!

 

It comes down to this.

 

Ask your opponent / group before you play the game itself. I personally would have no problem with someone using drop pods in the way mentioned above. As others in my group feel the same.

Your group may be different and decide for whatever reason that they don't like it..

[SkimaskMohawk]

Being Immobilized or not has no meaning on whether a unit has the Immobile rule. The first is a damage result, the second is a special rule. The reason the effects of the tarantula's rule differs from the pod's is....one is an artillery unit and one is a vehicle.

 

As for your example of the Maru Skara. Heavy, in fact, is a real rule; its a sub-class of vehicles. Go look it up in the main rulebook past transports if you don't believe me.

 

But speaking of the Maru Skara, another thing it mentions is no units with the Immobile special rule. To follow this, you go through the book and see what units have the special rule, resulting in drop pods (and possibly tarantulas). You certainly don't go through the rule and say it wasn't Immobilized to start with so its fine, because the rule never mentions "vehicles who've suffered Immobilized results", just the Immobile special rule. Which, by this point, I hope everyone realizes are two different things.

 

If something restricts Immobile units then the RAI is no Immobile units. If something restricts Tanks then the RAI is no Tanks.

 

The ask your opponent thing is pretty much a trope of B&C at this point and its getting old. 

[Crablezworth]

 

The ask your opponent thing is pretty much a trope of B&C at this point and its getting old. 

 

Yeah, when one is seeking objective truth, telling them to go with a flip of the coin is pretty useless. 

[Guiltysparc]

Ya, its also not terribly useful when building a tourny/event list...though i suppose you could ask the TO ahead of time.

[Terminus]

Problem is, there is no objective truth, because FW don't know what they are writing down. The Serrated Sun rite seems like pretty clear evidence that they were not considering pods as immobile units, despite them having the immobile rule.  There's also that whole "no slow and purposeful" rite restriction that used to make all the sense in the world, but now that Cataphractii no longer have this rule, it's literally meaningless.  So now all of those rites that couldn't have Cataphractii before can be full of them, even though it doesn't make sense?  To go back to the drop pods, is it really the intent that a "Drop Assault" formation doesn't include drop pods?

 

You can't play this game with the rules as written, because the written rules are inconsistent garbage. 30K can only be played as common sense and narrative dictates. If you don't like the "ask your opponent" approach, ask your TO.  If you want a concrete, unequivocal ruleset, you're playing the wrong company's games in the first place.

[SkimaskMohawk]

It's more important to know how a rule mechanically works and then decide how to proceed afterwards rather than say never follow the raw when it leads to disadvantages

[Terminus]

Okay, well mechanically you are incorrect.  Immobile is both a unit sub-type and a special rule, both invented by Forge World. For lack of clarity, they used to be synonymous, but the Serrated Sun rite establishes a clear and unequivocal precedent that it is indeed NOT so.

 

The rites in question restrict you from taking the unit sub-type, not units with that special rule.  It says "no Immobile units", not "no units with the Immobile special rule". There is a distinct difference between the two.

[Hesh Kadesh]

No, there isn't, and no it is not.

[Terminus]

Ah yes, very cogent argument there, sir.

 

The Immobile rule is presented as a sub-type of unit.  Unit Type: Artillery (Immobile), much like Vehicle (transport, open-topped), or any other unit in the book.  It is also presented a separate special rule that is present only on certain drop pods.  The rites restrictions make a distinction when they deny a specific unit type or when they deny units with a specific special rule.  Liberation Force says "may not take units with the Immobile special rule".  Serrated Sun says "may not take Immobile units".

 

With these very concrete examples, you can no longer make the argument that by "immobile units" they mean both units with the immobile sub-type and units with a special rule immobile, especially when one of the perks of Serrated Sun is drop pods that have the immobile special rule. If it stated "May take drop pods (even though these units have the immobile special rule)", you would be able to argue that they are still using the unit type and the special rule interchangeably.

 

But they don't. And you can't.

 

Yes, there is no such sub-type in the core rulebook, yes there is vagueness (but honestly we still have people arguying whether jump infantry is infantry, so I guess they can never be clear enough), but we have concrete examples that contradict your viewpoint and support the viewpoint that a drop pod is not an "immobile unit".  As someone who routinely rages against FW's rules writing, I would think you would know by now to read between the lines a little.  Technically Consuls are still Centurions, but the Word Bearer traits imply they are not. At no point is that spelled out, yet we somehow managed to logically figure it out.

 

And as much as this may make Skimask angry, if you really disagree that strongly, ask your TO.  Our South Texas community has a good 50+ regular players, and we've somehow never have to engage in such debates, because reading between the lines is mandatory with any GW product.

[Hesh Kadesh]

Ah. 'you're not arguing, ergo I'm right'.

 

Come on, I thought you were better than that. Try again. It is unclear because FW don't know what the :cuss they are doing.

 

Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt when they do not deserve it. Considering the £30 i pay for the rules section of the book, I feel it is rather disgusting that they are still able to have apologists for their rules and multiple levels of editing avoidance. Pressing F7 on a word document is not editing and the quality control of the IP they lawyer so hard to protect is constantly degraded by its inavility to write cogent rules that literally require opening the page of the most recent rulebook to check.

 

Nomenclature errors are simple and rather unforgiveable, if basic. It is human error. Considering the likes of people like me, yourself, Ski, Flint, Slips and others who aren't jumping to mind right now who have picked up these errors within days/hours of having the books if not before due to leaks, it begs to wonder what sort of checking proceedure there is to ensure the rules are internally consistent; i'm not even talking balance issues here (Scoria etc), but giving a vehicle an ability which it can get a bonus on if it has a higher wounds value, but making surenthat the ruleset isn't using 2 Edition old Psychic Powers, or making rules errors that could either ban Dreadnoughts, or Tarantulas in a drop pod assault based list, even when said Tarantulas can pick up Deep Strike are outright ridiculous.

 

In essence, you aren't wrong, but neither are you right, and insinuating that we're being obtuse, blind, ignorant or wrong is something that is uncalled for, and something that you should seriously consider aiming elsewhere.

[Terminus]

It's more like, "I am making an argument, you are making noise, ergo my statements have more substance."

 

Yes, we all know FW sucks at writing rules, and yes, it's inexcusable, but you either deal with it or don't.  I've collected all the various hints they've scatted into a what I hope is a cogent argument.  Your retort so far has been "nope, lalalalalaa, it's not spelled out, lalalala, I don't care, FW sux", so you are free to infer whatever insults you wish. I'm just trying to shed light in the darkness, you don't have to go towards it.

 

[- And yes, you're right, since the Tarantulas technically don't have the special rule Immobile (the IA tarantulas have the unit type AND the rule), you can technically totally move them and include them in that Raven Guard rite that only blocks units with that rule. - edit: in an attempt to reach common ground, I went too far! :D for space marine tarantulas, being an immobile unit sub-type grants them an immobile rule).  Part of the problem of a ruleset that has barely changed in over 20 years is that many players and the rules-writers just assume stuff based on past editions.  I am guilty of that on occasion as well, where I assume a rule that was present in a previous edition remains in the new one. WYSIWYG doesn't exist anymore, for example, yet we pretty much all still abide by it.

[SkimaskMohawk]

It's true that Immobile(artillery) is a sub type when you look at tarantulas. But it's also true that it's a special rule listed in LACAL. If we have to start making interpretations on what exactly no immobile means the simplest interpretation is no units with the specific Immobile rule as the wording matches up. A more broad interpretation would be to include both. Saying Immobile can be taken but Immobile(artillery) can't when a rule says no Immobile units is the hardest of the three, to the extent that the reasons become contrived. It's very clear in the word bearers case that pods are intended, as they're mentioned a lot; the solution is to change the wording of the Row to say Immobile(artillery).

[Terminus]

The way you're wording it suggests that there is Immobile (Drop Pod type) as well, and that is simply not the case, and only plays into my argument that there is a big difference when talking about immobile units (the only type we've seen is Artillery Type), and units with the immobile special rule (of which there are two versions in the Legiones book alone).

On the one side, we have UNIT TYPE: Artillery (Immobile), and there is a rule specific to that type that you are referring to.

Immobile (Artillery Type)

An Immobile Artillery piece cannot be moved after it has been deployed except by the use of a specialised vehicle, and ignores any effect which forces it to move. This only affects the platform - not any crew who are subject to all normal Artillery rules. When called upon to fall back, the crew must leave their guns behind and fall back; the platforms are then removed as casualties.

Note that an Immobile unit may still have Scout or Deep Strike special rules as these reflect redeployment or deployment during battle, rather than game movement. Only if it has the Deep Strike special rule may an Immobile unit be held in reserve.

So note that this rule establishes the existence of an immobile unit type, in this case artillery. Mechanicum tarrantulas have the same rule, and yes, they can deep strike.

On the other side, we have the drop pod, which has a very specific unit type that has absolutely nothing to do with artillery of any sort. It does have its own special rule.

Immobile - Once it has been deployed a Drop Pod cannot move, and counts as a vehicle that has suffered an irreparable Immobilised result

Note again, this rule is specific to the drop pod, and the drop pod alone, and makes no definition of unit type. In fact, you couldn't apply this Immobile rule to the artillery, because they have a T/W profile so how could they count as vehicles?

So now I hope we've established that there is an immobile unit type, and then there are units with an immobile special rule, and these aren't mutually inclusive scenarios.

We also have from book 6, that introduces two different wordings:

An army making use of this Rite of War may not take a Fortifications Detachment or any units with the Immobile or Slow and purposeful special rules.

The army may not include any Immobile units.

The first wording is very specific that it includes any unit that has the Immobile special rule, of which we have established there are two types. Both the Drop Pod and Artillery (Immobile) have their own version of the immobile rule, and thus are not eligible. The second wording specifies Immobile units, and actually lets you take more drop pods than you normally could, which should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that a pod is not an Immobile unit, and is in fact exactly what its profile states. UNIT TYPE: Vehicle (open-topped, transport).

Another rite in the book actually uses the second wording, and that's the Drop Assault Vanguard. I guess they wouldn't utilize drop pods either. This one is more of a fluff argument, but by this point I hope I've hammered all the nails I need to into the rules argument.

Originally I had pictures of all the rules and had it looking all fancy, but they ended up too big and it would probably get me in trouble anyway.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Well since you edited your post.

I'll ask you this, where are the rules for the unit type Artillery (Immobile)? Not in the brb. Not in LACAL. You have a phrase with no definition under unit types.

The only defined things of Immobile are special rules; the one for Drop Pods and the one that no unit has of Immobile (Artillery Type). The special rule Immobile (Artillery Type) talks about Immobile units, but nowhere does it say unit type or specify that it is talking about Artillery with the (Immobile) clause.

If we apply what we learned from say, the Night Lord thread on Infiltrate, we've learned that they refer to units affected by special rules in a variety of ways (e.g. units of Infiltrators, Outflanking units). Just because the word "unit" is in the sentence does not automatically make it mean "unit type".

"Immobile unit" is fairly ambiguous as to what it refers to, be it the non-defined sub type, the Immobile special rule or the Immobile (Artillery Type) special rule. No ROWs say "may not include any Artillery (Immobile) units ".

The real problem any arguments singling out the artillery variation as the one true immobile is that there is a very real lack of defined terms and specificity that let you make any absolute declaration. Any ambiguity used to say Immobile units refers to one can be used for the other, except it's much more supported by the Immobile rules that actually exist and match the wording (Immobile vs Artillery [immobile]).

I am very glad that your argument is on a much higher level than "but they're only Immobilized after they enter play so they're not Immobile"

[Terminus]

In the beginning of the general Legiones Astartes rules, there is the rule Immobile (Artillery Type).  Under the unit section for tarantulas, their unit type is Artillery (Immobile). 2+2 = ?

 

I'm glad you're enjoying the level of my argument, but what remains of yours seems to be sliding into a desire for legalese and ultra-precise use of terms.  The argument I've presented should be more than enough for any TO, you are not trying to pass an IRS audit or compose an airtight prenup. 

 

Yes, laser-precision with rules would be very nice, but them's the ropes with GW, if you want laser-precise terminology, there's always Warmachine.  I mean, what's the point of all those rites that restrict Slow and Purposeful, when the FAQ removes that?  Should we go through the books and replace every instance of Slow and Purposeful with whatever that new rule in the FAQ is, so all those rites are working as intended?  Or do we get a nice little rules loophole now?  Are you going to be the guy to abuse that loophole?  Is the new redbook subject to the FAQ, since it takes away implacable advance from certain units, right after it gave it to them a month ago with the FAQ?  Like I said before, we need to read between the lines, and yes, if you can't reach an agreement, you just may have to fall back to the horrid task of talking to your opponent.

[Flint13]

Ok, we all know why this one is done now.

 

Take a breather.