Guiltysparc Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Do dedicated transports count towards unit type limitations imposed by rites of war? I am thinking specifically about world eaters berzerker assault not allowing more talks/flyers than infantry units. If you give the tac squads rhinos then can you take other tanks/fleets or is the RoW limit already reached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesh Kadesh Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 som' bitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangbanger Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Don't forget for our r.o.w that characters count as infantry units too (apothecary, preators, even Angron) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 Oh, that is useful knowledgeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangbanger Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Yeah I used to think the same as you originally until Flint pointed it out. You will find you are usually good to go for the r.o.w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 So my original tacs in rhinos worth Khârn/vets/gahlan in a dread claw works, though I think I might still like the spartan version I posted in the tactica thread better...hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangbanger Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Yeah your Crimson path list is fine as you have more infantry than tanks and flyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 the problem with the crimson path list is the drop pods since they are immobile, pending FW response to my email, but rules as written the dreadpods my levis are in are a no go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangbanger Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Yeah I see that. Not sure how it will play out as they are only imobile after they come in, not at the start of the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unseen Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I thought drop pods weren't immobile vehicles on their profile, their deep striking vehicles that suffer an immobilized result as soon as they hit the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 they have the immobile USR sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangbanger Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 The have a rule but they are not imobile. Â For example, on their profile they are unit type: vehicle (open topped, transport) Â A tarantula gun battery is unit type: artillery (immobile) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 ah...well that is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Drop pods land and are counted as immobilised vehicles when landed. They aren't 'immobile' they are immobilised vehicles. Check the wording and uses out. Drop pods are fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 Hmmm, I thought they had the immobile USR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkimaskMohawk Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 If you look through the 7th ed rule book "Immobile" doesn't show up as a rule or sub-type of vehicle. This means that any language that talks about "Immobile Vehicles" isn't referring to a specific sub-type like "Flying Monstrous Creatures" would, but rather any Vehicle that has Immobile in its entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 Nope read the drop pod rules. The wording is pretty clear. 'Is counted as an immobilised vehicle' I really can't explain it any clearer than that..but il try one last time. Â Drop pod lands, cannot move and counts as if you rolled a '1' whilst moving through terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkimaskMohawk Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 The rule that does what you describe is, literally, called "Immobile". There is no cub-class of unit type called Immobile in the brb. You cannot find the rule "Immobile" in the brb. If you go through LACAL they have 2 cases of an Immobile special rule. The one for Legion and Dreadnought Drop Pods, and the one that's applied to Tarantulas, which is called "Immobile (Artillery Type)". However, in both cases they are special rules.  Now when a ROW talks about no Immobile units you either apply it as: "no units that have a form of the Immobile special rule" which would mean no pods or tarantulas  OR  You can apply it as "no units that have the Immobile special rule", in which case tarantulas would get the pass as their special rule is technically different, but pods would still be axed.  TLDR: Any "immobile" is one of two special rules made up by forgeworld, not a unit type and a similar special rule. No Immobile means no unit with an Immobile special rule.  PS: pods dont suffer the results of failed dangerous tests when they come in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangbanger Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 It's a strange rule to have for that right of war as all it does is prevent dreadnought drop pods and tarantulas. I don't really see how either one of these benefits from the r.o.w and needs to be disallowed. Â Strange forge world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 No they don't take a dangerous terrain test. Read the drop pod assault rules and tell me that it doesn't say 'It cannot move and counts in all respects as a vehicle that's suffered an immobilised result' Take it as you like but RAI to me that says it's a vehicle that suffers an immobilised result. Not the same as artillery  Check the word bearers tactica this has already been discussed it seems:  Flint13, on 19 Feb 2016 - 11:36 AM, said: Drop pods don't start as immobile units. They obviously have to deploy and become immobile after their deployment.  The Rite prohibits Immobile units like Tarantula batteries, it doesn't prohibit a vehicle becoming immobilized, which is why FW didn't "think" to include drop pods when they were putting those rites together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 7, 2016 Author Share Posted March 7, 2016 This is a good discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkimaskMohawk Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Repeat after me. There is no such thing as an Immobile unit in the main rules; vehicles have suffered an Immobilized result or haven't  Now that we've established this for the third time we can continue.  Forgeworld made up two versions of the Immobile rule in LACAL.  Anything that references Immobile is referring to one and/or both of those rules  Tarantuals and Drop Pods are both Immobile units; they are both units with the Immobile special rule.    Flint13, on 19 Feb 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:Drop pods don't start as immobile units. They obviously have to deploy and become immobile after their deployment.  This is wrong. Clearly Drop Pods are Immobile units due to being a unit with the Immobile special rule. They become Immobilized after they enter play but that is due to the Immobile special rule.  This is a good discussion.   Its not. A discussion is when there's merit to both sides points and there's a good back and forth. What we have here is one side trying to explain how a rule mechanically works and the other copy pasting their previous replies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guiltysparc Posted March 7, 2016 Author Share Posted March 7, 2016 Good is a subjective adjective. A good discussion for me is one where I learn something,which I have, so on that point at least, you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkimaskMohawk Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 meant that it wasn't a discussion, glad you found it informative tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.