|
Post by skyth on Apr 24, 2007 8:02:52 GMT -5
Since the DA codex officially has thier drop pods deepstriking, it seems really rules-lawyerly to insist that codex marine drop pods are immune to mystics.
But how to handle it is up in the air, so for the FAQ I'm making, I'll leave it to y'all to vote on.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Apr 26, 2007 16:59:37 GMT -5
You going to have to explain this a little better, some dont use drop pods or mystics and some dont have the dark angels codex.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Apr 26, 2007 17:35:21 GMT -5
Okay then...If an inquisitor has mystics in his retinue, he is allowed to shoot at anything that deepstrikes or is summoned within a random distance.
Dark Angels drop pods specify that they deepstrike in, thus triggering the mystic's ability. This clarifies that (Unless you're exploiting a rules loophole) mystics also work on Codex drop pods. As the unit inside the drop pod arrived by deepstriking (Jervis's words) they cannot assault.
On the GW forums before it was removed, there was a stickied post from the designers with rules clarifications. The one for mystics vs drop pods says that if they're in range, you can choose to shoot at either, not both of, the unit that came in the pod or the pod itself. The YakFAQ and the Adepticon FAQ went this way.
In the UKGT FAQ it stated that mystics allow a shot at the pod before disembarkation.
Another view (That I haven't seen supported anywhere) is that since both deepstrike, both could trigger a shot.
However, nothing 'officially' says how to hand the situation.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Apr 26, 2007 17:51:59 GMT -5
How about this....
-Removed FAQ do not aplly from now on, OK? ( If not, I have a copy of the old Tyranid FAQ that says I can instakill creatures inside synapose range, you wouldn't want me to use that again would you?)
-Removed stickies notes for the designers again do not apply since they were removed.
-UK FAQs don't apply, only US FAQs, you see we had this war a few hundred years ago that threw out the British and made this a seperate country...
-Option 1 - How about waiting for an official clarification since Jervis promised updated FAQs at Adepticon?
-Option 2- Post on DakkaDakka and see what Captian Ellios has to say on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Apr 26, 2007 19:01:03 GMT -5
Oh, I know none of the things I listed are official. Neither is the FAQ I'm writing.
However, considering that we've been promised FAQs many times, I'm looking for what to put in the FAQ I'm writing.
So how about something constructive for a change?
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Apr 26, 2007 19:46:11 GMT -5
Your order is ready, would you like fries with that???
Here we go, to quote the GeeDub FAQ:
"Mystics allow you to take a free shot at each summoned pack of Daemons or unit that Deep Strikes within 4D6" of the Inquisitor."
So were is the problem? Take a shot at the drop pod or take a shot at the marines exiting the drop pod, hell, take a shot at each if you like, but no where does it say take a shot at the drop pod before it lands. Does it say take a shot at the Daemons when they are in the warp before they materialize from summoning? I think the answer is "No". I don't see the big issue. To me, it looks like you are trying to exploit a rule. I see where you are going, yes , it would be nice to destroy the drop pods on the way down and entangle the occupants as well as kill some of them but the rules do not support this. Again, maybe it's just my simple mind but I don't see the implied ambigoity or the problem. BTW, sarcasm is a second language that I speak quite fluently. I am just having fun with you, don't take anything personally.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Apr 26, 2007 19:59:16 GMT -5
Don't assume I'm trying to exploit the rule. I personally favor the choose which one to shoot approach, but I can see a reason for any of the above interpretations. However, I was asked to explain the relevant options.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Apr 26, 2007 20:34:12 GMT -5
Just to elaborate, when a rule like this comes into question I tend to look for a reason that someone is having a hard time understanding it. Is it that te rule is ambiguos and unclear, or does is the person trying to have it read something that it doesn't or impy something for a tactical advantage. Most rules are very clear if you read them in context. Sometimes throug oversight, not every cicumstance is addressed in the rule set. This is where the problem comes in. There are a small group of players who seek to exploit the gaps in the rules. They tend to construct gimmick armies that exploit these rules. In my opinion, this is not in the spirit of the game or does it come anywhere close to fair play. If someone wishes to exploit loopholes and technicalities, I would suggest a career as a defense attorney. This is a recreational game meant to provide a means of fun and entertainment for individuals who enjoy wargaming and painting. No where was it designed to be a source of arguement and rules exploitation. This type of gaming is never fun, and in my free time I like having fun. If I wanted added stress and conflict in my life, I would take on a secong job. I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to exploit this rule in your interpretation, however it usually is the case when some player brings a rule to attention them viamently argues for their own interpretation. Play the game so it is fun and fair, for the most part that is my take when it comes to situations like this.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Apr 26, 2007 20:46:49 GMT -5
I think because of new codex you should be able to shot at drop pod or unit with it (if you have line of sight to the unit). just my opinion.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Apr 26, 2007 21:02:02 GMT -5
That would imply that it lands first. Which I would agree with. So take your shots at a landed Drop pod.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Apr 26, 2007 21:02:12 GMT -5
Actually, I never try to 'exploit' a rule. I just like playing by them for the most part. Of course, posted designer intent (Like the forum FAQ) are rules to me.
Plus, alot of things are perfectly clear in the rules that people don't seem to want to play by...
Psycannons popping turboboosting bikes Psycannons ignoring cover saves Autarachs on jetbikes fleeting Dark Angles firing thier pistol but still not being able to assault because they're carrying a rapid fire weapon. etc etc etc
What makes the game unfun is playing with different (doesn't matter who's 'right') rules interpretations and finding this out in the middle of a game. Especially if they're extermely obvious to you (For instance, it's extremely obvious to me that Autarachs on a Jetbike can fleet...). Sometimes it's extremely obvious to both people, but they differ on which way it works, and they made thier plans/moves based on that belief. Both people would believe that the other person is 'exploiting' the rules to gain an advantage.
That's why I get tired of the constant accusations of 'rules lawyering' or 'exploiting' or even 'cheese'. Makes me wonder why I even play the game.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Lord Snorville on Apr 26, 2007 23:07:48 GMT -5
Dark Angles firing their pistol but still not being able to assault because they're carrying a rapid fire weapon. did you even read the rule book? shooting a pistol once and carrying a rapid fire weapon would never stop you from charging. oh wait... we're trying to exploit the rule on page 29 and say that it takes precedence over the rule on page 36
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Apr 27, 2007 1:03:40 GMT -5
Why would you psycannons ignore cover saves? They only ignore invulnerable save. As far as I know only flamers and a few other rare guns actually ignore cover.
They are 2 diffrent saves are they not? Thats what I always thought and played by. I will have to look this up when Im not at work and have a book handy.
Generally we play as close as RAW as we can. There are a few odd rule combos/wierd situations where it may not be apparent. These most of the time common sense is used or a discussion/debate.
-Psycannons vs turbo boosting bikes I think is FaQ-ed -Fleeting on a jet bike...think about it a little. Doesnt that sound really stupid? The dude zooms up....jumps off his bike and carrys it d6 inches and then jumps back on. (Fleet of FOOT not of bike) I think the Sycracuse boys have this one talked about already on thier boards...what was it...YABBA DABBA DOOOO!!!
Anyways, not to start another rules debate (or maybe it was) but thats a little fyi.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Apr 27, 2007 4:19:21 GMT -5
I'm not trying to start a rules debate. I was using those as examples of clear rules that some people don't like playing by.
Basically, it comes down to 'If you don't play with my interpretation, you're a bad person that's trying to twist the rules'.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Lord Snorville on Apr 27, 2007 13:41:42 GMT -5
I'm not trying to start a rules debate. Uhh... you made a poll and posted it in the rules and tactics section... wtf did you expect? a birthday party?
|
|