Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since this is still a cause of debate Ill try to provide the platform here.

Personally I find there is no ambiguity in the RAW, when you examine them closely as follows:

Marine Codex: "Such units remain in reserves and arrive via drop pod, even if the Mission being played does not normaly allow Reserves or Deep Strike"

Or in short: Missions that dont allow Deep Strike, make an exception for drop pods.

By lack of another meaningfull interpretation this exclusivly reads as: Drop pods use Deep Strike to enter play, and can do so even in missions that normally do not allow Deep Strike.

Or in short: Drop pods use Deep Strike.


I hope this helps to settle the Mystics question. (So Mystics can shoot at deepstriking pods.)

I find your argument, or rather your rambling, as you neglected to include an argument, devoid of logic.

If the rule said "you may use drop pods even in missions where infiltration isn't allowed", would you be arguing that drop pods infiltrate? That's the argument you're making right now.

Anyway, two premises and a conclusion. If you can't put them in that form and have it make sense, obviously you're mistaken.

Mauleed, you could exaggerate your example:

If the rule said "you may use drop pods even in missions where cooking normally isn't allowed", would you be arguing that drop pods cook?

Like you point out things dont make sense anymore when you freely exchange Deep Strike within the given rules text. This underlines that Deep Strike isnt mentioned by accident, but to explain that drop pods do deepstrike.

Raider,

What you have presented is *not* a reasonable argument. It is based upon a fallacy; that being because the Drop Pod rules mention that they are used even when Deep Strike is not allowed, therefore the Drop Pod rules are the same thing as the Deep Strike rules. That is a logical fallacy, and it holds no water.


It is the same thing as saying: "Cats may be walked in the park even when dogs are not allowed. Therefore, Cats are Dogs."


Please read the thread stickied at the top of this forum to find more information on logical fallacies.

I have read an article about logical fallacies, linked by Mauleed, a while ago (cool thing btw.).

Linking two unconnected things (like cats and dogs) and assuming that they are the same, or have the same attributes (like Deep Strike) would be a logical fallacy.

My argument is different though. The description of drop pods and the following description of Missions are connected by context and more importantly by the word "normally". The rules say: "... even if the Mission being played does not normally allow Reserves or Deep Strike."

What could this tell us, besides that Drop Pods use Deep Strike with certain adjustments (like availability in certain Missions)?

Read page 21 about Drop Pod Assault.

"Such units are kept in reserve and arrive by DROP POD"

Then it goes on to say the "even if the mission being played does not allow reserves or deepstrike"

The rule never actually states it uses "deepstrike" it says it uses "drop pod". i.e it does not arrive by "deepstrike" it arrives by "drop pod".

Next paragraph tells you how units using drop pods arrive using "drop pods". It is NOT deepstrike as the scatter works differently for the "drop pod" than it does for "deepstrike".

That a bit clearer?

Raider wrote:
What could this tell us, besides that Drop Pods use Deep Strike with certain adjustments (like availability in certain Missions)?

It can tell us any number of things. It can tell us that the writers might have been afraid that people would confuse the Drop Pod rules for Deep Strike rules and think they wouldn't be allowed in missions where Deep Strike wasn't used; so they made sure to be extra clear: Drop Pods can be used in missions where Deep Strike isn't allowed.

I'm sure others can come up with their own opinions on why GW wrote that sentence.

One thing everyone should agree on: The Drop Pod rules are NEVER refered to as the same thing as Deep Striking, and the sentence you posted does not provide any logical support to refute that fact.

DaIronGob, you miss the all important "normally" in your first quote of the rules. Thats the crucial part, which can be only read in one way: Drop Pods use Deep Strike (with certain adjustments, one of them being scattering). For reasons see above.



Yakface: The word "normally" does not fit with your interpretation and I doubt that anyone can come up with another way to read it. If someone could, my argument would indeed be destroyed.

No raider you are missing the point that Drop Pods do not use the Deep Strike rules.

If they did then they would be destroyed if they landed on impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model.

Drop pods are able to adjust to be able to land without hitting another unit or impassable terrain.

P1; Drop Pods can be used in missions that do not allow Deepstrike or Reserves.

P2; Drop Pods stay in reserve.

P3; Drop Pods arrive using the specific Drop Pod rules found on Page 21 of the SM codex. They do NOT use the Deep Strike rules in the Main Rulebook.

C1; Drop Pods do not use the Deep Strike rules and therefore are not counting as Deep Striking in regards to Mystics.

DaIronGob: From the RAW Drop Pod rules are Deep Strike rules with certrain adjustments.

To present an analogy: A dog with a collar is still a dog.

Raider: for a clear example of Deep Strike rules with certain adjustments, see the Monolith.

Just because the mechanism of arrival is similar to Deep Strike, it does not mean that the two are identical. Another example: Demonic Summoning is NOT deep strike, even though the demons stay in Reserves until a roll is made, and their landing area deviates 2d6".

Posted By Raider on 03/22/2006 9:15 AM

To present an analogy: A dog with a collar is still a dog.


Yes, but a cat that looks and acts like a dog is not a dog.
Or more precisely, a "dog with a collar" is not a "dog without a collar", it is a "dog with a collar".

An even better example:

The human and great ape gemones are 96% similar. That does not mean that they are the same animal.

Drop Pods are an independent and unique method of deployment.

No Raider, they are not.

You have yet to provide any logical argument that shows the Drop Rules are the same thing as Deep Striking.

All you've done is posted an argument based on a fallacy, which is naturally false.

The sooner you understand this, the sooner you can attempt to reformulate your argument. I suggest using premises and a conclusion.

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Janthkin on 03/22/2006 9:24 AM<br>Raider: for a clear example of Deep Strike rules with certain adjustments, see the Monolith.

Just because the mechanism of arrival is similar to Deep Strike, it does not mean that the two are identical. Another example: Demonic Summoning is NOT deep strike, even though the demons stay in Reserves until a roll is made, and their landing area deviates 2d6".</div><br><br>

Janthkin - You are correct. Daemon summoning is not deepstriking. Deepstriking is not mentioned in the daemon summoning rules at all. However, it is mentioned in the drop pod rules. Therefore, the scenario you mention is not comparable and is not relevant.

Ill try with premise and conclusion.


Premises:
1. "Such units remain in reserves and arrive via drop pod, even if the Mission being played does not normally allow Reserves or Deep Strike." only makes sense in one way: Drop Pods use Deep Strike with certain adjustments (like availability in certain Missions).

2. If this part of the rules can only be read in one way and the rest of the rules dont explicitly say different, there is no longer ambiguity.

Conclusion:
Drop Pods use Deep Strike with certain adjustments.

Premise 1 is not a premise. It is an (invalid) conclusion.


Again, your argument hinges on a fallacy here. Do you not comprehend that? Why do you think the word "normally" changes that fact?

Someone pass the rusty spoon please.

There's no nice way to say "your argument is idiotic", or rather I don't know a nice way to say it.

From the arguments that I have been seeing - it basically comes down to the point of "why is deepstriking even mentioned in the drop pod rule?" If you follow Mauleed, Yak's and others logic, the deep striking rule doesn't apply.

However, if you look at Janthkin's example - another method for entering play similar to deepstriking is via daemon summoning. Daemon summoning doesn't mention anything about deepstriking because it is a mechanism that is not related to deepstriking, but yet it has some similar mechanics. If deepstriking does not apply to the drop pods, then there was no need for GW to even mention it in the SM codex.

But - Deepstriking was mentioned in the drop pods section for some reason. The rules designers obviously thought this was important and GW has typically done this in the past because there is some relation or use of that rule with the unit that it is mentioned under. I can't think of another rule that leaves some ambiguity as an example. But I will check on my 5-hour ride to Chicago tomorrow.

However, until then - Yak/Mauleed - why was deepstriking even mentioned in the drop pod rules when according to your argument it doesn't apply. GW didn't mention it with other rules with similar methods of entry (ie: daemon summoning) because it was not necessary. So why would they go and break from the norm now?

Who cares why it was mentioned. That's not relevant. As Yak said, perhaps they mentioned it because they wanted to be clear that it isn't deep strike.

Regardless, no verbage in there says it follows ANY deep strike rules at all.

Well, the question at hand is not if the argumant is idiotic (as in brought up by an idiot). The question is if its right or wrong (by being based on fallacity for example.)


Yakface: What about Premise 1 is invalid?

Probably to prevent people from assuming that if you cannot use Reserves or Deep Strike in the mission, then you cannot use Drop Pods.

Your premise 1 is not a premise at all. It is the conclusion of an unsupported argument.

Raider, what I mean is your argument is so bad I doubt continuing do discuss it with you will do more than simply advance the progress of my hair going gray.

Yak's explained in very clear terms why you are so obviously wrong. If you don't get that, what's to be said? You can't teach calculus to a monkey.

To be clear, the argument Raider is proposing is exactly this:


I can shoot you when you enter the store through the front door (Mystic rule).

You can enter the store through the front door (Deepstriking rules).
You can enter the store through the back door (Drop Pod rules).

You can enter the store through the back door even when you cannot normally enter through the front door (Drop Pod rules).

Therefore, I can shoot you when you enter through the back door (Raider's conclusion).


Obviously this is very, very wrong.

Yakface the analogy should be like that:

I can shoot you when you come through the front door (Deep Strike)

I can still shoot you when you come throgh the front door using a hammer (Deep Strike with that extra oumph! called Drop Pods.)


I find that your approach with premise and conclusion is a good one. It is now up to you to point out what about premise 1 is wrong, or accept that the given explanation is correct.

Everybody else is invited to disprove my premises as well of course.

Quote"Posted By mauleed on 03/22/2006 10:01 AM
Who cares why it was mentioned. That's not relevant. As Yak said, perhaps they mentioned it because they wanted to be clear that it isn't deep strike."

That is an assumption not a fact. However, Yak's quote has very poor reasoning behind it since it does not hold true for any other rules examples that I can think of in all of WH40K.

I would agree that based on other rules listed such as terminators deepstriking, then yes the drop pod rules are not technically deepstriking.

However, the mention of deepstriking in the rule set for drop pods, the historical tendancy for GW to mention rules when they are used and the context at which it is used in the rule definitely puts this into question. I believe Pete Haines mentioned on the GW forums an appropriate way to handle the situation even though you may not call that "official". This also puts the situation into further question.

Honestly, if people want to go back and forth, I would say 4+ for the game. Otherwise, have a general ruling that is consistent for your club or tournament.

Raider:

A premise is a basic fact that is true. These premises are used to support a conclusion.


Your premise 1, *is* a conslusion: because the word "normally" is used in the sentence, entering play using the Drop Pod rules means the same thing as entering play using the Deep Strike rules.

This is not a fact. This is not a premise. This is a conclusion that is not supported by any premises.


And just to let you know, you aren't going to be able to support this conclusion with any premises, because your conclusion is ultimately based on a fallacy (whether you realize it or not).

I would recommend to just use 2 Mystic's, you would then get your drop pod shots as it does not mention deepstrike when you have 2 Mystics.

Except for the fact that given yakface and mauleeds view the reference to deep strike is unnecessary. If Drop pods do not use deep strike then why explicitly state regardless of reserves and deep strike? Drop Pods uses the reserve rule so it's clear that the sentence means if reserves are not being used drop pods can still use reserve. Given Yakface and Mauleed view there is zero reason to include deep strike in that statement at all because drop pods don't use deep strike rules. So whether deep strike rules are in play means zilch. The only way inclusion of deep strike in that statement matters is if drop pods count as deep strike. Either way it?s a mess.

It might be they mistakenly referenced deep strike. To which someone can say well they mistakenly left out a clearer reference counting as deep striking. It?s just another case of shoddy rules writing.

We haven?t had a GW FAQ in over a year. The only thing we have gotten is a Q&A from Pete Haines shortly after the Space Marine codex was released. That Q&A is clear and is from the author of the Space Marine Codex. Faced with the fact that people play it both ways. Conventions like Adepticon are forced to clarify it one way or another. That?s not making up rules Mauleed and either way we rule on it someone will be coming to Adepticon having done it the other way. The fact is Adepticon will bring in over 500 GW gamers this weekend all that play some aspects of this game differently. It?s our responsibility to clarify known problematic areas and make those clarifications available ahead of time. That's all we can do .. and I wish I had more time to spend with some elaborate modal logic argument but .. in the interest of making Adepticon the best it can be .. my time is better spent on getting ready for the weekend.

Argue away which way the rules as written are presented. It is not clear.

As it stands I?ll play it as deep strike and if at a later date it is Faq?d the other way.. I?ll support enforcement of the standard mission rule as Mystics are one of the few checks to Drop Pods.

Unfortunately for you, I won't let you shoot my drop pods with your mystics. And if forced to would zero your sports.