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.

This question came up in a recent thread. Since I am a big fan of capitulating to the majority opinion on the rules, even when you are certain everyone is playing it wrong, I would like to see if I am in the minority with my opinion, or not. Since the other threads that have discussed this have lacked any numerical system to show the community opinion, I am starting this thread simply for the purpose of gathering said numerical data.

Here is the question: If you deploy a Drop Pod with the doors fixed in a closed position, are you within you rights to disembark your troops AND claim that the closed pod completely blocks LOS to units firing from the other side? In other words, can a small enough squad use a landed pod as total cover? Or is it instead always open, regardless of how you've modeled it, and thus eligible to be shot through? (While providing a cover save of course, because this would be the very definition of "shooting through a unit." )

Arguments FOR the Drop Pod completely blocking LOS:
1. The game uses TLOS. If the doors are closed, then you cannot truly see anything on the other sight. QED.
2. Furthermore, the instructions clearly show the doors being modeled without glue, which means it isn't even MFA to have them shut.
3. The rules never state that there is a requirement for the doors to be open.

Arguments for the Drop Pod ALWAYS being open:
1. The vehicle is designated open-topped, which represents it being exposed (via the open doors) to enemy fire. How can it be open-topped without being open?
2. The doors have to be open for the models to get out, right?
3. The description for the vehicle clearly indicate that the doors are blown off when the pod lands, providing a clear intent for the doors to be in the down position.

If you feel that there is an additional valid argument either FOR or AGAINST, please do NOT post it here. There is already a thread for that over here. If you would like it added to THIS thread, please PM me and I will edit this initial post.

Please, feel free to post how YOU personally play it, though! I would like to keep rules arguments confined to other threads, but if you have seen this cause unexpected problems, feel free to relate the relative anecdote as well.

LOS is LOS. So if the pod is deployed closed, then it blocks LOS as any other vehicle would. This has no effect on disembarking, but does technically stop the weapon inside the pod from firing... although given how many people I have run up against with non-GW pods, I'm fine with allowing it to shoot anyway.

For the people that have said it does not block LOS RAW. Can they see through other Metal Boxes too?

The doors are supposed to be blown open when the drop pod hits fluff-wise. But I've seen doors glued closed, for all it really matters if you have all the harnesses and the center console inside the droppod you can't see a unit of Space marines on the other side anyways. Now if your disembarking a dreadnought and trying to get LOS completely blocked i would call that modeling for advantage.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
For the people that have said it does not block LOS RAW.

Strawman. Nobody's claiming they don't block LoS. The claim is instead that the open doors are not optional.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Can they see through other Metal Boxes too?

I can when they're the same unit.

 General_Chaos wrote:
The doors are supposed to be blown open when the drop pod hits fluff-wise.

The side-doors of a Land Raider are supposed to open (fluffwise) and a Rhino is supposed to hold 10 Space Marines (fluffwise).
Why do you bring up fluff in a rules discussion?

How I Play It:

If my opponent has glued their doors shut then it blocks LOS and they don't get to shoot with the gun on the inside. Nor do they get to shoot through it if their marines are on one side and my guys are on another.

I will, however, go ahead and allow them to disembark. But that disembark move is measured from the hull; not from where the doors *would be* if they were actually opened. This is no different than allowing them to disembark from a rhino or landraider with those doors glued shut.

I play a game that has buildings, trees, rocks, hills and models that look like what they should and I use true line of sight. I don't "pretend" the model is taller or shorter than it physically is. If the model is laying down, then that's how tall it is. Nor do I pretend the trees are shorter than they are; yes, that came up in a game a few weeks ago. If the tree is 18" tall, then it is 18" tall and blocks LOS accordingly.

Point is if someone wants to glue their doors shut, then I'm okay with that. The disadvantages in doing (loss of weapon, shorter disembark distance) outweigh the advantage gained by dropping LOS blocking cover anywhere they want.

clively wrote:
I will, however, go ahead and allow them to disembark. But that disembark move is measured from the hull; not from where the doors *would be* if they were actually opened.

That's how it's generally played if the doors are open as well, due to the massive problems that are created if you count the open doors as part of the hull...

There is a rule for this that says you can roll a dice to solve the argument, but before you do I would argue that if the doors aren't open the unit inside dies (no access points to deploy from if the top isnt open) that way 50% chance he gets his way and 50% chance he gets screwed. Although we all know it should be deployed open....

Kisada II wrote:
...I would argue that if the doors aren't open the unit inside dies (no access points to deploy from if the top isnt open)

Do you require rhinos to also have their doors open for troops to disembark?

'If you deploy a Drop Pod with the doors fixed in a closed position, are you within you rights to disembark your troops AND claim that the closed pod completely blocks LOS to units firing from the other side? "

RAW yes.

Not sure why there are so many incorrect poll answers. A lot of people must play it incorrectly.

I have been toying with this thought a few times throughout the day and have not posted till now because I am unsure on it myself. Reading through the rule a few times has not given me a clear mindset on what side I should be on. However, I will raise the question that is buzzing in my skull so others can judge it's merit.

Is the doors being opened purely fluff like some people claim?

The requirement of the doors being open is not written in the description part of the drop pod entry, where such fluff normally is found, but in the rule section. The section it is found in, labeled Transport, is very much an 'exception to the normal rule' style thing. It goes ahead to outlines what additional limitations are put on the drop pod that do not exist on normal transports. This is where it gets really interesting, the part which states the doors are open can be found in the first half of a sentence. That sentence contains what is clearly rules; in this case telling you that you must disembark the models.

Can half of a sentence be decried as fluff when the paragraph, and rest of the sentence, clearly talks about rules?

As for the rhinos and other such models, they are irrelevant to this debate as we are talking about drop-pods but I will bite:

These vehicles don't start with the doors in a state that can be open. You would have to modify them in order to make such possible, so it is up to you if you want to put the extra effort in making it 'functional.' There is grounds to argue the door debate can be ignored for these vehicles, as they come in a state that prevents you from opening said doors.

To try and suggest drop pods can ignore the 'door open/closed' debate simply because another vehicle does is a bait and switch.

The Drop pod model comes with the doors capable of being opened. I can understand why some people glue them shut so they don't get damaged, so they don't open while being transported or a few other very understandable reasons put forth that have nothing to do with rules. However, if you chose to glue this door shut, accept the fact you have modified the model and at least discuss it with your opponent, or tournament organizers, letting them have the final say in the LOS debate.

Also accept this little fact: No-one should get an advantage over their opponent simply because they constricted or modified a model in a way that allows them to exploit any of the rules.

JinxDragon wrote:
Can half of a sentence be decried as fluff when the paragraph, and rest of the sentence, clearly talks about rules?

When the first half of the sentence is written as fluff, and the latter half contains the actual rule, yes, of course it can.


That's beside the point here, though, since the question isn't 'Is it legal to leave the doors up?'... It's 'If you do have the doors up, do they block LOS?'

These vehicles don't start with the doors in a state that can be open. You would have to modify them in order to make such possible, so it is up to you if you want to put the extra effort in making it 'functional.'

The rear ramp on a rhino and the assault ramp on a land raider are both capable of opening and closing if you don't glue them in place.

Also accept this little fact: No-one should get an advantage over their opponent simply because they constricted or modified a model in a way that allows them to exploit any of the rules.

So what about if you deploy your pod with the doors closed, and your opponent is the one who benefits from the extra LOS blocking terrain, due to your own models not being able to see past the pod?

Yay... this thread again...

The doors should count as being open even if they are not on the model. Otherwise I will call you on disembarking, LOS on the weapon, etc.

The way I play it and have yet to have an opponent have a problem with is even on the pods where I glued the doors shut, LOS and cover etc is treated as if the doors were open. Seems to leave everyone happy.

By RAW, doors shut would block LOS, and prevent the gun inside from firing, and if you want to argue that there's a way the model 'is supposed to be' then you'd think GW might put in a word or two about it.

 insaniak wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
...I would argue that if the doors aren't open the unit inside dies (no access points to deploy from if the top isnt open)

Do you require rhinos to also have their doors open for troops to disembark?

Rhinos are not open topped

Drop pods are basically a one way expendable delivery vehicle where the doors blow open and the pod is done moving

Personally I dont care so much, I think it is an area that GW should clear up simply because it causes a lot of arguments.

Bookwrack wrote:The way I play it and have yet to have an opponent have a problem with is even on the pods where I glued the doors shut, LOS and cover etc is treated as if the doors were open.

How do you determine what can be seen through the pod?

Not trying to be argumentative here, I'm genuinely curious.

You know, I just saw something somewhere that said you ignore Drop Pod doors in regards to LoS and 1" minimum distance from the pod but I don't remember where it was and what it was about..

 Miri wrote:
You know, I just saw something somewhere that said you ignore Drop Pod doors in regards to LoS and 1" minimum distance from the pod but I don't remember where it was and what it was about..

No you didn't. At least, nothing official.

Listen, some people have found it easier to glue the doors shut. Is it just as bad to not put them on at all? That would make it an incomplete model.

Worry less about conniving your way into winning rules arguments at the table and try a little harder to just play the &$*$*$#( game and have fun!

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Yay... this thread again...

The doors should count as being open even if they are not on the model. Otherwise I will call you on disembarking, LOS on the weapon, etc.

How do you mean?

Call your opponent on disembarking?

If he measures from the hull, any point on the hull, as the rules dictate what is there to call him on?

P.S. how do 57 people (at the time of this post) not understand the rules?

They answered "No, it cannot be used to completely block LOS." which is clearly not the case as the rules go on True Line of Sight. If a model or terrain blocks Line of Sight, then it blocks Line of Sight.

This is just a tiresome thread to resurrect.

Solo can you please answer my question. Thank you.

Can you watch your tone?

I was merely bringing up alternative pointless arguments for those who would whine about closed doors on a drop pod. Too many people are too concerned about rules lawyering than playing the damn game.

Who gets to decide what is fluff and what is not?

I would say, if it is capable of influencing the outcome of the game then it needs to be taken more seriously then 'ooh, it is fluff, ignore it.'

The sentence could be detailing a order of events, in which case it is completely rule based and can't be ignored.
Or the sentence could just be a creative way to get to the 'squad must disembark' part of the sentence, in which case the lead up can be ignored.

It does seem that many people come away with a different conclusion of the rules based on reading that one sentence, so many people do not consider it fluff. Personally I could easily swing both ways. It really is easy to argue that it is fluff as not, because while it describes an action that takes place does it lacks certain key words that I would expect to see. However, this would not be the first time I have encountered such a problem when it comes to rules written by Games Workshop. Without further clarification from games workshop, I don't think either of us has the ability to say for certain.

One thing is certain, it is a key element to the debate: If it is illegal to leave the doors up, then you are forbidden from leaving them up. If they are not up to start with, then the LOS blocking element is moot. If it is legal to leave the door up, then you are required by the rules to accept the LOS blocking. The debate doesn't revolve around 'can I see through the doors,' as the answer to that is very clear and no one can reasonably argue against it. The key variable is if it is legal to leave the doors close, that is the part which changes the whole outcome.

We can't simply phrase the debate in such a way that ignores all the variables bar the ones that give a pre-desired outcome without it being dishonest.

It should be ridiculous that something as common sense as this should be so argued over. This isn't a job, it's a game. Lots of people need to get a grip.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Can you watch your tone?

Now I am confused, is this a serious question?

If so how did you take any "Tone" out of a non verbal communication medium?

I was merely bringing up alternative pointless arguments for those who would whine about closed doors on a drop pod. Too many people are too concerned about rules lawyering than playing the damn game.

I just want to know what you mean when you say "call you on disembarking" What does that entail?

JinxDragon wrote:
Who gets to decide what is fluff and what is not?

Whether or not that part of the rules is fluff has no bearing on this thread.

Again, the issue at hand is whether our not a pod with the doors closed blocks LOS, not whether it is legal to have the doors closed.

If you want to limit the focus of this thread to 'does solid doors on a drop pod block line of sight' then why are we even bothering. Taken with such overbearing restrictions there is nothing to debate as it is very clear as to what the answer is. I would say it is even stupid for people to try and put forth a reasonable argument in such a restrictive environment, one clearly designed to produce the desired outcome.

So here it is, within the unreasonable restrictions you are putting forth the answer will always be.... yes.

However last I looked the question was 'Can a Drop Pod be deployed with the doors closed to both completely block line of sight and allow the crew to disembark?'

There is a key set of words there which can not be ignored: Can a drop pod be deployed with the doors closed.... This means is it we need to address if it is legal to have the drop pods doors closed on the table to begin with. To figure this out we need to focus on more rules then Line of Sight, as those specific rules fail to tell us if the model deployment is legal. To address the legality of such a move we need to look at all rules that portray to the situation and ensure that the placement of this model complies to every single one.

If it does not, then the deployment itself is not legal and the answer is clearly no for the first part of the question.

If it does comply with all the rules, then the answer is clearly yes for the first part of the question.

Now this is why i don't like two part questions. The second part of the question is legal regardless to the positioning of the doors. Even though it doesn't make logical sense, Games Workshop does that a lot, the closed position of the doors does not stop a unit from disembarking. This is more apparent as the transport type of a drop pod is 'open' which means you do not even need access points to disembark from.

 insaniak wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Who gets to decide what is fluff and what is not?

Whether or not that part of the rules is fluff has no bearing on this thread.

Again, the issue at hand is whether our not a pod with the doors closed blocks LOS, not whether it is legal to have the doors closed.

I appreciate you taking the time to try and keep the thread on track, Insaniak. However, I think the two concepts you're talking about go hand in hand. I think the intent is clearly for the doors to be played in the down position at all times. (I think the oft quoted sentence that sparked the 'you got fluff in my rules/you got rules in my fluff' argument definitely shows that there is an intent for it to work that way, as well as pretty much every image we see of drop pods in action.) However, as a pods player, I can definitely understand leaving the doors up EVEN IF your model is modular. (Mine go up and down, but it's a pain to do, so in friendly games I just leave them up to save time.) So in the interests of compassion towards someone else's desire to keep their models from being damaged (those doors get scratched very easily) as well as expedient gameplay, I think it's perfectly acceptable to leave the doors up, but I think you need to still count them as being down.

I'll agree that it isn't absolutely, 100% rules as written, say, but I'm mildly surprised people would ever play it any other way. There are plenty of examples in this game of when we (as the community) do not play something 100% raw, in the interests of good sportsmanship. The rules call that inspired this thread (the new Black Templar FAQ omits the requirement for Marines to exit the pod, for those who didn't know ) is another prime example. I would never try and claim that you are actually supposed to be able to stay in the pod. Nor would I claim, as another example, that Flying Monstrous Creatures don't get the Relentless or Smash rules. In the interests of acting like human beings to one another, we willingly make concessions in a game like this. I think that shooting through drop pods, even ones with fixed doors, is an example of a situation where we should be making such a concession.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
It should be ridiculous that something as common sense as this should be so argued over. This isn't a job, it's a game. Lots of people need to get a grip.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Can you watch your tone?

Now I am confused, is this a serious question?

If so how did you take any "Tone" out of a non verbal communication medium?

I was merely bringing up alternative pointless arguments for those who would whine about closed doors on a drop pod. Too many people are too concerned about rules lawyering than playing the damn game.

I just want to know what you mean when you say "call you on disembarking" What does that entail?

Okay, Deathreaper, Solofalcon, I think we've crossed the line from discussion to personal argument. Your back-and-forth in this thread has stopped being productive and become combative. I'm going to ask you to please stop. If you feel the need to continue your personal argument, then please PM one another and settle it. However, please don't continue it in this thread, it's not the place for it. I know we can all act like reasonable adults, and I appreciate your cooperation.

I would play it that the doors do not block LoS if he glued them to the droppod.
But if I remember it correctly, all of our doors are not glued.