Is a gk squad capable of using a de raider

[quetus72]

this question came up in my play group and im jst looking for clairification, the question stems from an apocalypse game?

[Gir]

this question came up in my play group and im jst looking for clairification, the question stems from an apocalypse game?

Technically yes, which is why my group uses the house rule that you can only ride in a transport from your own army.

[The Twilight Fade]

Apoc is open to some silly army combinations, we've had nid warriors in land raiders, carnifexs in ork skullhammers there is no restriction against it but just clear it with your opponent and give them the same sort of flexibility.

You are there to have fun afterall :)

[quetus72]

i dont like it personally i think it takes away from the game

[The Twilight Fade]

Which is why I said clear it with your opponent first, if you both have access to these silly combinations then where's the harm.

Also Apoc requires lots of house rules to "fix" some of the more broken entries so you can always disallow it. I don't treat apoc competitively but I can see how certain combinations would be game breaking

[Denzark]

I've always thought that Apoc should ignore FOC restrictions, but not allow illegal options for your army.

[The Twilight Fade]

The options aren't necessarily illegal since apoc generally involves 2 or more armies then the rules can intertwine.

It's true that you couldn't buy a dedicated transport for another players army but you could buy one for your troops, leave it empty and then let them steal it turn one :)

[Tynskel]

Apoc questions should not be asked on an Internet forum. They should be asked to your gaming group and GM. Apoc is a significant divergence from the main rulebook such that every answer you will get is essentially unsupported or contradicting in rules.

[sangrail777]

Ok, I'll say it. Page 198 of Apoc Rule book. Top right corner second paragraph. Says transports can carry other armies troops. (Hows that for unsupported:p)

You say that you don't like it. So I assume this wasn't your army and partner doing this. In that case my advice to you is simple. You are not the only one playing and while you have built the 40k universe up in your mind a certain way. You group as a whole apparently has another view. Both ideas are really ok. But I for one don't think you should force your opponents to play your way (expecially when the rules support thier way), just so you can feel better about the way you think of the 40k universe.
Just my 2 cents.
But you should talk it over with your group. But don't forget page 198 of Apoc Rule book. Top right corner second paragraph. Says transports can carry other armies troops. :D
Play for fun.

[Tynskel]

That citation is irreverent.
What you forget is that the GM and all the players have to agree to play that way. Obviously, there are fun combinations... and then there are just straight up abuse of combinations.

This is why the internet is no place for Apoc rules. The internet is not playing a non-standard game. The internet only has the standard rules system to work with.

[Archon Charybdis]

That citation is irreverent.

It seemed perfectly serious to me.

[Tynskel]

It seemed perfectly serious to me.

However, your GM could just say no. That's why it is irreverent.


Apoc is completely different from your normal game.

In fact, I have had Apoc games where the GM just removed units, strategems, and specific rules. Oh, and made new rules, too.

[Archon Charybdis]

That's assuming people have GMs in their Apocalypse games--outside of GW store run events I don't know that I've ever seen anyone use a GM. Also, my point was the word you're looking for is irrelevant.

[zenjah]

I would think the written rules of a game are almost always relevant to a discussion of, um, the rules of a game. Even for a game where house rules are the norm.

That said, the rules of apocalypse could indeed be said to be "irreverent."

:D

[chromedog]

Irreverent and irrelevant are two different words that mean two different things.

40k is on the whole, irreverent. Showing a lack of respect for various aspects of history and cultures. It's also British and deeply rooted in the 80s British mindset (which is rather irreverent on the whole.)

Planetstrike was irrelevant.

Apoc doubly so.

[Tynskel]

haha, you caught me!