http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/226326.page#504366

Just played a game tonight with this exact issue - guy with a drop pod claiming the petals counted as a part of the model that my LR needed to stay at least 1" away from. However I'm not sure where the OP is getting that clarification. Could someone point me in the right direction? Tried looking in the official FAQs and used search on this forum - no dice! (pun intended)

There is no FAQ, because it has not been answered officially.

He is technically correct, since you cannot go within 1" of an enemy model. However, many players consider this ridiculous, especially since if you model the Drop Pod with he Doors glued shut, this problem doesn't happen.

Therefore, the best you can do is say "yes, ya know what, you are right, but how about we not be a bunch of asshats and ignore the doors?"

Up to you to clarify before the game, though I think the INAT one says to ignore the doors (can't remember however because I didn't read it all that well, and cant be bothered downloading it again)

There are no official rulings regarding the shape and size of a Drop Pod and how to play it. . .that sort of thing has been left entirely up to the players unless you are using a home-brew FAQ like the INAT FAQ in your games/tournament.

The issue comes from the fact that we don't know for sure what the "hull" of a Drop Pod is exactly. Page 3 of the rules do show that there are some portions of a vehicle that are not considered the "hull" (the Ork 'ram' in the diagram on page 3, for example) and the "hull" is what is used for when measuring distances (like staying 1" away from it).

So if you and your opponent think that doors on a vehicle="hull" then yes, all measurements would be made from the downed doors. If you don't consider this to be the case (as we did in the INAT FAQ) then measurement would be made to the core hull of the model (its shape when the doors are closed) and the petals would not prevent friendly or enemy movement.

Gwar! wrote:
He is technically correct, since you cannot go within 1" of an enemy model.

That is not completely correct. Measurement to vehicles are made to and from the vehicle's "hull" so it all hinges on whether you consider the doors to be part of the hull or not.

yakface wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
He is technically correct, since you cannot go within 1" of an enemy model.

That is not completely correct. Measurement to vehicles are made to and from the vehicle's "hull" so it all hinges on whether you consider the doors to be part of the hull or not.

The problem with that is you aren't measuring anything. Regardless if it a vehicle or not, the movement rules are very clear:
"To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting."

But I agree it's a pointless argument, especially since you can just blue tac the doors shut if you want, making this debate muddier than a curry shops lavatories.

Thank you for the responses mates!

Gwar! wrote:
The problem with that is you aren't measuring anything. Regardless if it a vehicle or not, the movement rules are very clear:
"To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting."

But I agree it's a pointless argument, especially since you can just blue tac the doors shut if you want, making this debate muddier than a curry shops lavatories.

You have to measure the 1" distance to the vehicle. That 1" restriction is a measurement.

Hmmm, yes you are right actually (serves me right for working off memory at 7am after watching LotR for the last god knows hours). The bit that got me was that the 1" restriction thing doesn't mention measurement. However the vehicle section merely mentions measurement of any sort, not just for range etc.

My Bad!

Just be glad I'm not like some other people I know or we'd have 6 pages of insults by now

Actually this seems like an interesting big deal. Does that mean upon leaving the drop pod marines are measure from the end of the doors when down then? It's almost like another few inches of movment and would make scatter even less of an issue.

as said, there is no definate yes or no answer been made official yet.
going along with all of this and adding a slight sense level to it (some players do see it as true)

the hull would be the main section of a vehicle right?
doors are simply an exit point in the vehicle.


there is nothing to back up what im about to say (unless common sense counts)

how would you do about blowing up a vehicle by shooting its door (while on the ground) with a lascannon?
it just wouldnt make sense that you could blow up a vehicle by shooting a door.



all the players i know simply keep the doors closed, or open them, but they have no use atall.
also, if left closed then it makes movement around them alot easier

While Yak is correct, I don't feel he was strong enough.

It does not seem reasonable to declare that the doors are part of the hull.
If they are, then his marines can deploy 2" from the edge of the petal, and *can't* be placed on the petal itself.
Likewise, it means you should model a door onto your LR, that will get you another few inches of assault range.

The issue could be raised with other vehicles too.. Boarding planks for trukks and battlewagons, Rhino or land raider doors if you model them to hinge..

If someone modelled up a huge, front loading battlewagon with a massive hinged door, it could swing the difference between assaulting a unit or not, if the door does indeed count as part of the vehicle, the orks deploy 2 inches away from it, then can Waagh, then assault.

It gets worse if you have shoting units inside, as an open topped battlewagon with such a huge ramp, could lead a total asshat (of whch there are many) to claim that the whole 20 shoota boyz count as firing from the ramp. TEchnically, they could take their turn, standing on said ramp, shooting, then going to the back of the line, letting others shoot. Its ridiculous, but you JUST KNOW some tw@t will try and pull this sort of horseshiit.

Gw needs to simply say: Doors, drop pod petals, and any other things protruding from a vehicle do not count as the hull for 1", assualting or shooting purposes. Problem solved. Instead they'll answer a not-so FAQ regarding a unit no one has an issue with or uses

Well for what it's worth, I'm emailing GW about it - hopefully I'll have an 'official' answer in a few days which I will post here.

Soooo...if a door goes off the table when the pod is dropped, would that also mean the pod is destroyed by it's hull going off the table, if the doors were considered a part of the hull?

I support that the doors are just not there for any purpose. It seems to make the game smoother. The "hull" would start where the doors are connected. For purposes of shooting and getting shot, also for disembarking. Fewer issues makes for faster game play and fewer arguments. It seems the only way to play for those reasons. However I would say that until an official answer can be brought forth it should be discussed and agreed on by both players when the game starts. At the same time terrain is discussed.

If the "official" stand point is different than what was stated above I would still discuss it before the game to eliminate any questions.

Just my 2 cents...

If you are playing that the doors are part of the model, then yes, if the doors are off the table, bad stuff happens.

My personal peeve is being in a game with a player that doesn't mind putting his marines on the doors when he's unloading, but then reminds you not to get near them. If you unload from a rhino, you can't place models on top of it. I'll play a drop pod either way, but just ask that it's consistant. They either count for everything, or they don't.

I try to play that the doors are NOT part of the hull. However, I think this is one of the big questions GW should issue a ruling on.

My group USED to play that the doors counted as hull when deployed, but it got so asinine that w decided to say, "screw it" and not count them anymore.

Drop Pods work much more smoothly, now.


Eric

I think pods work a lot better if the doors don't count as part of the hull.

But, you need to play it one way or the other, and all the way.

If doors are part of the hull, you need a much bigger footprint to deploy the model. And, you're giving a bigger base for people to assault and or/shoot at.

JD21290 wrote:

how would you do about blowing up a vehicle by shooting its door (while on the ground) with a lascannon?
it just wouldnt make sense that you could blow up a vehicle by shooting a door.

What if the fuel tanks for the drop pods engines are in the doors? I can't see many other places they could be, and the tanks themselves wouldn't need to be all THAT large as the retros only burn for the last few seconds of entry.....

But as far as the OP goes, I always try to play the doors as simply DT, but not part of the model after arrival.

LordHat- DT? They are walkways...shouldn't they be easy to walk on? I do agree with how you play them. Just not the DT as much. We tried it and it seemed too much that way but that is just our gaming group.

I know a guy who called GW about it (one of the regional Reps) and the official answer he got was that they are, but not to play them that way because people will hate you.

Not really an 'official' answer, no matter who you call at GW.

But we have decided that for our tournaments to not count the doors as anything. Just plays better, and avoids some problems that were popping up.

Sha1emade wrote:LordHat- DT? They are walkways...shouldn't they be easy to walk on? I do agree with how you play them. Just not the DT as much. We tried it and it seemed too much that way but that is just our gaming group.

Ever tried crossing a 2 foot handicapped ramp sideways? Those are 'walkways' too, and usually MUCH flatter than the doors on a drop pod. Not impossible, but definitely not clear ground, either.

@ OP:

Direct the person to this thread , have him read it.

And never play against that person again. I haaaate those types of people that will take advantage for w/e they can come across.

Another note about drop pods... While it is obvious that the deployed petals can be made into a distinct advantage, keeping the damn thing closed presents another advantage.

Is there any sort of ruling about LOS blockage of the drop pod? It completely blocks LOS if you keep the dang thing closed as opposed to merely "obscuring" models behind it when it is open.

GW's FAQs contain a remarkably small amount of information, and 50% of their rulings are given in very loose language.

Is there any ruling on whether the pods petals can be "paritally deployed" to gain both advantages? I personally wouldn't alow it, but there doesn't seem to be any ruling favoring or not favoring it. On top of this, placement of the damnable thing is also governed by the "petals as hull" issue, as scattering onto impassible terrain or other models means you move it "just enough" to clear them. Is this with petals up or down?

ARGH.

keezus wrote:Another note about drop pods... While it is obvious that the deployed petals can be made into a distinct advantage, keeping the damn thing closed presents another advantage.

Is there any sort of ruling about LOS blockage of the drop pod? It completely blocks LOS if you keep the dang thing closed as opposed to merely "obscuring" models behind it when it is open.

GW's FAQs contain a remarkably small amount of information, and 50% of their rulings are given in very loose language.

Nothing official No Official Clarification, but, by RaW (and the INAT FAQ) you always use true LoS. So if the Doors are open, you might be able to see, if the doors are closed, it blocks LOS (unless you have magical clear doors).

Now theres a thought! If you have a scratch based model thats made of clear resin (I saw a lictor done like this once, very sneaky) does it block LOS?

Durrr. I am very tired. I meant to say: "Is there any ruling on whether the doors should be up or down, as they block LOS differently in each configuration".

keezus wrote:Another note about drop pods... While it is obvious that the deployed petals can be made into a distinct advantage, keeping the damn thing closed presents another advantage.

Is there any sort of ruling about LOS blockage of the drop pod? It completely blocks LOS if you keep the dang thing closed as opposed to merely "obscuring" models behind it when it is open.

GW's FAQs contain a remarkably small amount of information, and 50% of their rulings are given in very loose language.

Is there any ruling on whether the pods petals can be "paritally deployed" to gain both advantages? I personally wouldn't alow it, but there doesn't seem to be any ruling favoring or not favoring it. On top of this, placement of the damnable thing is also governed by the "petals as hull" issue, as scattering onto impassible terrain or other models means you move it "just enough" to clear them. Is this with petals up or down?

ARGH.

You can't shoot through a drop pod that is open...too much junk blocking the way. Even large models are blocked...be the equivalent of seeing a fin of a Falcon from behind a wall.

Now Dreadnought drop pods, you can see through. I let my opponents do that, even though I glued the doors shut.

Transporting the model with openable doors is a pain, and too much work to magnetize.

keezus wrote:Is there any sort of ruling about LOS blockage of the drop pod?

No more so than any other vehicle... what you can see, you can see.

Is there any ruling on whether the pods petals can be "paritally deployed" to gain both advantages?

There are no specific rulings on how your models should be assembled.

How you put it on the table is how it functions.

yeah,
I think that the Petals are a part of the model (a drop pod is all petals and struts).
As part of the model you can't get within 1" of them unless assaulting...

Panic...

I dont have a BRB with me atm, I thought there was some special rule regarding LOS with open topped vehicles.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression you could always see through them.

Panic wrote:I think that the Petals are a part of the model (a drop pod is all petals and struts).
As part of the model you can't get within 1" of them unless assaulting...

And also makes the pod far too impractical to actually use on any table with terrain on it, as it makes the footprint too big.

Demogerg wrote:I dont have a BRB with me atm, I thought there was some special rule regarding LOS with open topped vehicles.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression you could always see through them.

Sorry, no such rule.

yeah,
If it doesn't fit where you want to put it because of terrain, put it somewhere else.
If you can't deploy it because the petals go within 1" of a enemy model, put it somewhere else.

If you can't find any spot on the table for it at all that's too bad... you've probabily got too much terrain... unit lost.

I'm starting to see DSing as a dirty/messy business.

I understand that we can ignore the petals when shooting and measure to the hull.
and we can ignore the petals, like we ignore wings and banners for LOS purposes.
But since when can we choose to decide what parts of models we ignore as not being a part of the model?
'Oh yeah so My land raider can't fit throught this gap in the terrain... but if we ignore the lascannons it'll fit yeah lets do that!'

Are the petals a part of the model- yes
should they count for the 1" rule- I believe so.

Panic...

Panic wrote:I understand that we can ignore the petals when shooting and measure to the hull.
and we can ignore the petals, like we ignore wings and banners for LOS purposes.
But since when can we choose to decide what parts of models we ignore as not being a part of the model?

Since the rulebook tells us to ignore the other parts and measure to the hull.

Are the petals a part of the model- yes

But are they a part of the vehicle's hull?

That's what's relevant when measuring distances involving the vehicle. Not whether or not they're a part of the vehicle.

Panic wrote:yeah,

'Oh yeah so My land raider can't fit throught this gap in the terrain... but if we ignore the lascannons it'll fit yeah lets do that!'

This is EXACTLY what we do, since the LC's are not part of the hull. Same thing as a Daemon Prince not fitting through a gap unless you ignore his wings and sword, and instead use the width of his base.

yeah,
Thats for measureing a distance to a Vehicle. For shooting and assaults.
DS rules don't care if it's a vehicle or not it just counts it as a model and says you can't DS ontop of another model impassible terrain.

So again are the petals part of the model?

PG 95 says: wrote:
...If any of the models in a deep strike unit cannot be deployed because because they would land off the table, in impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.

Space marine codex then says wrote: to reduce the distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle

Panic...

While I would be happy to play things either way there are only two things holding me up here:

While dropping the petals are part of the drop pods hull. If you shot at them while decending it would be quite damaging. After landing they are doors. this is currently the only model in the game that has a piece of a model that changes function (i.e. from hull to door/exit ramp). A Hat benefits aside, without a ruling this comes down to personal point of view as both sides have valid points.

The other is the LOS rule when open. this vehicle does have the Open topped rule which means it can't block line of sight. However the true LOS rules would seem to contradict this allowing a drop pod to provide cover. However what happens when you have two drop pods, that together totally obscure a models real LOS). One rule would say there is no line of sight, yet open topped would say line of sight cannot be blocked. I love the secondary question of dreadnaught drop pods that don't contain all of the other junk inside.

Note, these are not just A Hat questions. Depending on how answered this would provide a similar model foot print and effect as say a similarly costed Rhino. The only difference is the pod gets the benefit of deep strike and the negative of instantly becomming stationary.

egomine wrote: vehicle does have the Open topped rule which means it can't block line of sight.

Huh? Everything blocks LOS now. Open-topped has feth all to do with TLOS.

Lordhat wrote:

egomine wrote: vehicle does have the Open topped rule which means it can't block line of sight.

Huh? Everything blocks LOS now. Open-topped has feth all to do with TLOS.

Man, how is it people still make up these reidiculous rules.

First of all, open topped vehicles do block line of sight, it was skimmers in 4th that didn't. Now they do.

--Keeps laughing hysterically (at egomine not Lordhat, Lordhat is right)--

If drop pod petals blocked movement, wouldn't open hatches on Land Raiders or Rhinos do so?

Just got a reply from the mens at GW and I quote:

Hello,

No, the Drop Pod ‘petals’ are not part of the hull. Only use the ‘core’ of the drop pod to deploy from.



Thanks!



John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist

Not sure what kinda weight these answers have but there it is!

BlackDracoSLC wrote:Just got a reply from the mens at GW and I quote:

Hello,

No, the Drop Pod ‘petals’ are not part of the hull. Only use the ‘core’ of the drop pod to deploy from.



Thanks!



John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist

Not sure what kinda weight these answers have but there it is!

It doesn't have any weight, but even so, the Rules as Written situation is simple. The petals are doors. If they are doors they are not hull. Simple. If you count them as hull, then if even a silver of the open doors is off the table, in range of the enemy, lands in difficult terrain, you apply the results as if they were. No picking and choosing.

So wait - an email answer right from GW's ask a question line means nothing? Then why do they do they tease me with their official-ness? BLARGH!

@ Gwar: I understand the situation that if it does count as hull, it counts as a hull for all purposes. It's just something I would not like to have to argue about and agree on at the beginning of every other game since SM is such a popular army and most SM players use drop pods.

Also, and I know how some people look at the fluff with scorn as they relate to rules, but it fits in with the lascannons and such to say:

When a drop pod lands, the doors are blown. Violently, I might add. From that point of view, they really aren't a part of the vehicle anymore as it is. At least, not in any effective role.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:So wait - an email answer right from GW's ask a question line That is staffed by the people who pack the boxes means nothing?

Fix'd for you there. While I think what John does is commendable, untill his magical Wiki is made public and recives the GW "Play like this or else" stamp, then Spouting off (easily forged) emails just serve to make rules debates that much more venomous.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:Then why do they do they tease me with their official-ness? BLARGH!

They don't, because they are not.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:@ Gwar: I understand the situation that if it does count as hull, it counts as a hull for all purposes. It's just something I would not like to have to argue about and agree on at the beginning of every other game since SM is such a popular army and most SM players use drop pods.

The thing is, you have to for any army no matter what. GW do not write good tight rules. Each and every play can interpret a huge amount of things different. It's only prudent to always clarify the most common issues pre game (are the ruins Dangerous and/or Difficult, how do we do Drop Pods, Whats your take on the Deffrolla etc etc) and borders on idiotic not to, while things that spring up you roll-off.

KaloranSLC wrote:Also, and I know how some people look at the fluff with scorn as they relate to rules, but it fits in with the lascannons and such to say:

When a drop pod lands, the doors are blown. Violently, I might add. From that point of view, they really aren't a part of the vehicle anymore as it is. At least, not in any effective role.

No, no, NO! Please, No! No Fluff! Fluff is never relevant to any rules what so ever! Basing your opinions on how the rules work from fluff is flawed and will just lead to a poor gaming experience overall (and may the Emperor Protect you if you dare to go to a tournament).

Gwar! wrote:

BlackDracoSLC wrote:So wait - an email answer right from GW's ask a question line That is staffed by the people who pack the boxes means nothing?

Fix'd for you there. While I think what John does is commendable, untill his magical Wiki is made public and recives the GW "Play like this or else" stamp, then Spouting off (easily forged) emails just serve to make rules debates that much more venomous.

Then why do they do they tease me with their official-ness? BLARGH!

They don't, because they are not.

@ Gwar: I understand the situation that if it does count as hull, it counts as a hull for all purposes. It's just something I would not like to have to argue about and agree on at the beginning of every other game since SM is such a popular army and most SM players use drop pods.

So... what's the point in GW advertising the email and telling us to use it? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but rather asking an honest question. To me, GW says "Have a question? Email here!" That says that I should use the answer as part of the rules... am I failing at logic or something?

KaloranSLC wrote:So... what's the point in GW advertising the email and telling us to use it? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but rather asking an honest question. To me, GW says "Have a question? Email here!" That says that I should use the answer as part of the rules... am I failing at logic or something?

To be honest? No idea. I'm guessing its because some people don't know about these fansites, plus they had a "Rules Question Phone Line" before the internets were so widespread, so I guess the email was just an addition to that if nothing else.

It wouldn't be a problem if they actually bothered updating their FAQ's once and a while. Or answered frequently aaked questions (-cough-spacemanrinefaq-coughcough-)

Gwar! wrote:To be honest? No idea. I'm guessing its because some people don't know about these fansites, plus they had a "Rules Question Phone Line" before the internets were so widespread, so I guess the email was just an addition to that if nothing else.

It wouldn't be a problem if they actually bothered updating their FAQ's once and a while. Or answered frequently aaked questions (-cough-spacemanrinefaq-coughcough-)

Right, but why do so many people - yourself included (which is why I'm asking here) - take those answers with such a grain of salt? Again, this isn't meant to be an inflammatory question.

That's my biggest issue - I know they try to make their FAQs look all pretty and such in PDF format, but I'd rather just have a huge list of simple questions (like ones that are emailed in, for example!) that is added on to on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Especially questions that are as simple as this - it's not like they need weeks of play testing to determine whether or not ruling either way would be overpowered.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:That's my biggest issue - I know they try to make their FAQs look all pretty and such in PDF format, but I'd rather just have a huge list of simple questions (like ones that are emailed in, for example!) that is added on to on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Especially questions that are as simple as this - it's not like they need weeks of play testing to determine whether or not ruling either way would be overpowered.

Oh yes but what about those poor people without internets! It means they will be playing the wrong game! Therefore they must keep everyone playing a muddy ruleset to benefit the maybe 0.5% of 40k players worldwide with zero access to it (whether directly, via a friend or via a store)!!!!! </sarcasm> (the irony is that is actually the argument GW give)

That's a good point. Also ironic, the PDF is generally only available from the website...

KaloranSLC wrote:Right, but why do so many people - yourself included (which is why I'm asking here) - take those answers with such a grain of salt? Again, this isn't meant to be an inflammatory question.

Because with the more difficult questions if you call or email them one day, you'll get one answer, and if call/email another, you'll get a different answer. For the stuff that's really problematic (like anything in the INAT FAQ) there's not much consistency amongst the so-called GW "Roolz Trollz".

Death By Monkeys wrote:

KaloranSLC wrote:Right, but why do so many people - yourself included (which is why I'm asking here) - take those answers with such a grain of salt? Again, this isn't meant to be an inflammatory question.

Because with the more difficult questions if you call or email them one day, you'll get one answer, and if call/email another, you'll get a different answer. For the stuff that's really problematic (like anything in the INAT FAQ) there's not much consistency amongst the so-called GW "Roolz Trollz".

Pretty much covered there.

Also dont forget, these "Roolz Boyz" are just Box Packers who don't do much else all day. Now, while in the US at least they have gotten it down to one guy who does it, it still doesnt make up for the fact that he is NOT a member of the Rules Dev team. Unless we have Cavatore integrating them into an official errata Document (which GW will never do because they are greedy prick who dont care about the gamer, and have been from the moment they went public) they cannot be considered "official" by any stretch of the imagination.

Death By Monkeys wrote:
Because with the more difficult questions if you call or email them one day, you'll get one answer, and if call/email another, you'll get a different answer. For the stuff that's really problematic (like anything in the INAT FAQ) there's not much consistency amongst the so-called GW "Roolz Trollz".

Is that still the case with just the one dude (as I am led to believe) answering them, though?

Gwar! wrote:
Also dont forget, these "Roolz Boyz" are just Box Packers who don't do much else all day. Now, while in the US at least they have gotten it down to one guy who does it, it still doesnt make up for the fact that he is NOT a member of the Rules Dev team.

Right, but he/they have been "nominated" by GW to field these questions. Does that not say something?

::edit:: response to Gwar

KaloranSLC wrote:

Death By Monkeys wrote:
Because with the more difficult questions if you call or email them one day, you'll get one answer, and if call/email another, you'll get a different answer. For the stuff that's really problematic (like anything in the INAT FAQ) there's not much consistency amongst the so-called GW "Roolz Trollz".

Is that still the case with just the one dude (as I am led to believe) answering them, though?

While I appreciate I ninja'd you on that one, it still doesn't matter. Who's to say his take on an ambiguous rule is the correct one? The only person who can answer that, are the people who actually wrote the rules.

See ninja'd ninja above.

This whole mess reminds me of being a kid and getting the whole "go ask your mother" then "go ask your father" answer.

::edit:: mathgrammarz

Gwar! wrote:While I appreciate I ninja'd you on that one, it still doesn't matter. Who's to say his take on an ambiguous rule is the correct one? The only person who can answer that, are the people who actually wrote the rules.

Gwar! hit the nail on the head here. Even if it is only one guy, unless he's part of the rules development team, he could be just as wrong as any of us. The 'Roolz Boyz' or 'Roolz Trollz' have historically just been guys that play a lot of GW games and so have a lot of experience with them. AFAIK they're not involved in rules development or writing the FAQs.

KaloranSLC wrote:Right, but he/they have been "nominated" by GW to field these questions. Does that not say something?

No he hasnt been nominated by GW HQ as far as I know. I was under the impression that he just kinda does it.

And even if he was, Not a Rule Dev = Not Official (Sorry John )

I think I can solve this issue simply by ripping off the Drop Pod doors of every fething Drop Pod I see. FOR CHAOS!

On a sidenote, the Chaos Dread Claw (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/dreadclaw.htm) has no finicky doors - no question about the hull there! Proof that Chaos is better and cares about you (sorta).

Gwar! wrote:No he hasnt been nominated by GW HQ as far as I know. I was under the impression that he just kinda does it.

And even if he was, Not a Rule Dev = Not Official (Sorry John )

The email is listed in the Contact Us section of the GW site, and it explicitly states that rules/gaming questions be addressed to it.

KaloranSLC wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No he hasnt been nominated by GW HQ as far as I know. I was under the impression that he just kinda does it.

And even if he was, Not a Rule Dev = Not Official (Sorry John )

The email is listed in the Contact Us section of the GW site, and it explicitly states that rules/gaming questions be addressed to it.

Yes because the webmaster = GW Directors....

Gwar! wrote:Yes because the webmaster = GW Directors....

I get what you're saying, but there's a whole realm of obligation that I don't think you're taking into account. It is what it is, though, and I'm not actually here to argue. So... hurray!

Panic wrote:So again are the petals part of the model?

For measurement purposes, no, they are not... unless you count them as a part of the hull.

Determining the pod's position on the board is measurement. Determining whether the pod is within 1" of an enemy model is also measurement.

I feel sorry for those with the Forgeworld Drop Pods. Even with the doors open they block LOS.

I'm just going to build mine without doors. Problem solved.

Why are people leaving the drop pod doors open anyway?

All the fluff has always said "on landing the bolts pop, doors open and marines leave" when have they ever said "then they close again?"

f74 wrote:Why are people leaving the drop pod doors open anyway?

All the fluff has always said "on landing the bolts pop, doors open and marines leave" when have they ever said "then they close again?"

Where does it say they dont!

P.S. Just to move off topic in an already mad thread, does my Vassal banner look ok on the left or should i centre it?

Looks ok on the left.

So I am sure we can all agree that this is a "discuss before the game issue."

I just want to point out that once you have agreed, enforce it rigidly. If he wants to play the doors as hull, make sure he doesn't move his models on or over them, make sure that if even a tiny bit of a door lands outside the board or in dangerous terrain, you roll for mishap/dangerous terrain respectively.

Remember kids, the only way to fight Asshattery is with even more Asshattery!

It's definitely a good idea. Two ideas, actually.

If/when I get around to digging my marines out again, which will likely involve heavy drop podding, I'll probably just glue mine closed for easier assembly, painting, and playing. The guy I've seen using them, the open doors are just a pain.

Aduro wrote:If/when I get around to digging my marines out again, which will likely involve heavy drop podding, I'll probably just glue mine closed for easier assembly, painting, and playing. The guy I've seen using them, the open doors are just a pain.

Aww that's no fun. Plus you will run into someone calling you a cheating asshat for doing so. You're better off using tiny magnets to keep them shut. That way gives you more options.

insaniak wrote:For measurement purposes, no, they are not... unless you count them as a part of the hull.

Determining the pod's position on the board is measurement. Determining whether the pod is within 1" of an enemy model is also measurement.

yeah,
so your saying petals can overlap models and impassable terrain because you don't need to measure to from them?
As long as the hull is more than 1" away...

I don't think so! When you DS your model has to fit where it's going. No two models can occupy the same space.

Can someone decide to open two doors and leave the other three doors shut so he can get closer to terrain?

Panic...

Panic wrote:

insaniak wrote:For measurement purposes, no, they are not... unless you count them as a part of the hull.

Determining the pod's position on the board is measurement. Determining whether the pod is within 1" of an enemy model is also measurement.

yeah,
so your saying petals can overlap models and impassable terrain because you don't need to measure to from them?
As long as the hull is more than 1" away...

I don't think so! When you DS your model has to fit where it's going. No two models can occupy the same space.

Panic...

Right, no two models can occupy the same space. However, occupying the same space is not the same as one model standing on top of another, and that's a really important distinction.
If you look at page 13 under the 4th bullet point in the section "Classifying Terrain" you'll notice that models are normally considered impassible terrain. Since the classification of ALL terrain is subject to player agreement, treating the drop pod petals as clear terrain instead of impassible because that would simply be consistent with not treating the petals as part of the hull.

You'll also note that on page 11, the passage prohibiting moving through another model defines the space occupied by a model as "represented by its base or by its hull". If the petals aren't part of the hull, then the petals aren't part of the space officially occupied by the model, so it's perfectly fine to move through or over that space. It'd be the same as if you had some some strange fiddly bit of a conversion hanging out over the side of a tank--if it's not part of the hull, it doesn't get in the way.

I've argued for treating the petals as part of the hull earlier, but that was before actually playing with drop pods in a game, and it's just simpler to agree to treat the petals as not part of the hull and as clear terrain. And it just looks so much nicer if you can have models standing on those nice ramps, too.

It'd probably even be fun to play a few friendly games with tanks as difficult and dangerous terrain for something like Tyranids or Daemons versus IG. It'd just be fun to see a guant swarm just bury a few tanks with their bodies, right?

[quote=PanicI don't think so! When you DS your model has to fit where it's going. No two models can occupy the same space.

yeah,
I didn't realise we were discussing house rules?

When the Drop pods were released I had thought that the Space marine player could choose to open the pod or leave it closed.
also I figured he could change this state during his turn...same as with a landraider... During a game Most players move their Doors and lascannons turrets while playing, so why not the doors of a drop pod?

There is not RAW that says he can or can't. But It would enable him to control LOS through the drop pod... so it's proabibly not RAI.
So I'd say he shouldn't.

Fluff indicates doors open on landing (I know Gwar loves his fluff) and every GW photo with a drop pod landed during a game has shown them with all doors open flat on the ground.

But due to the nature of the drop pod rules (or lack of) Each group will play differently...
Having read this thread again this is my current thinking, So to a extent, my house rules!?

Shooting and assaulting is measured to the hull.
I don't think the petals are hull... because they are doors.
Drop Pod Hull must be more than 1" from all other models when DS.
Also When deployed all the petals must be opened.
Petals can't be opened onto/overlaping another model that's already on the table. ie Drop pod must find a place to be fully deployed without bumping into other models.
after which Friendly and enemy models can 'walk' on the petals, I think this is RAI, since I can't find any rules about putting models ontop of models. I agree with solkan it looks cool, it's how I've seen it done in WD and it makes sense.
scattered templates that hit the petals score a hit on the drop pod.

Panic...

Panic wrote:yeah,

I don't think the petals are hull... because they are doors.
Drop Pod Hull must be more than 1" from all other models when DS.
Also When deployed all the petals must be opened.
Petals can't be opened onto/overlaping another model that's already on the table. ...
scattered templates that hit the petals score a hit on the drop pod.

Panic...

House rules are house rules, so I can't tell you you can't play that way, but... the above is a contradiction.

::edit:: bold for clarity

yeah,
I see what your saying...

But the petals cover a huge area and with so much of the drop pod actually (30%? 40%?) made up of petals, I think it's a bit different from clipping the end of a lascannon off to the side of a tank with a template? Prior to opening the petals pretty much are the drop pod! but now that they are open they don't count?
If I hit a landraider ramp with a template I'd count that as a Hit?

I don't think the Pod should be placed somewhere the petals can't be opened. The physical size of the model should be a limiting factor as to where it's placed.
If the doors can't open because it'll hit a model in the face... put it somewhere else.

PAnic...

Panic wrote:yeah,
I see what your saying...

But the petals cover a huge area and with so much of the drop pod actually (30%? 40%?) made up of petals, I think it's a bit different from clipping the end of a lascannon off to the side of a tank with a template? Prior to opening the petals pretty much are the drop pod! but now that they are open they don't count?
If I hit a landraider ramp with a template I'd count that as a Hit?

I don't think the Pod should be placed somewhere the petals can't be opened. The physical size of the model should be a limiting factor as to where it's placed.
If the doors can't open because it'll hit a model in the face... put it somewhere else.

PAnic...

So what if my pod doors were missing? Or I had them glued shut? What would you do then?

The solution is; don't play with asshats.

If your only venue of games are tournaments populated with asshats, you have my pity. Both for being unable to find a game outside of forcing them to play you, and for running into asshats.

(generic "you")

yeah,
Gwar gluing them shut sounds like gaming for an advantage. Blocking TLOS and small footprint.

While a pod pod with no doors, is really quite weird? and sounds like you want the advantages of a small footrpint without the TLOS blocking??? I'd have to guess again that your really gaming for an advantage...

Panic...

yes Panic, so what?

Please show me where it says I may not do this?

Oh Look It doesn't!

As per page 56 of the little Rulebook, "[F]or distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull". Is a petal part of the hull? No, a petal is decorative. It's like the doors on the Rhino.

Gwar! wrote:yes Panic, so what?

Please show me where it says I may not do this?

Oh Look It doesn't!

I play all drop pods. 7 of them in 1750, 4 are those over priced dread ones from forgeworld. Every pod opens...yea even the forgeworld ones with there terrible castings and weak hinges. Ive played a number of tournys and loads of friendly games with them. The doors mean nothing.

Ive played against guys with some glued shut or old style pvc pods. We agree before game that even though nothing opens pods simply give a 4 plus cover. They dont block. IMHO thats a gift to my opponent if hes using closed pods for his dreads...since 50 % of the time my FW dread pods dont even cover 50 % of my dreads giving cover.

If an opponent was such an ass hat as to argue his pods gave full LOS block i wouldnt allow his storm bolter to shoot out of it. I would also drop 7 closed pods on him as well and see what he thought of that.

My suggestion for anyone fielding pods is to model your pods with opening doors, if not simply claim they are open and offer a 4+ cover save. And for the love of god..ignore the doors.

So let me get this straight. If I glue the pod doors shut so I don't have to paint (or build) the interior - this makes me an asshat?

I think it is simple as this:

If the pod has a weapon, where is the range being measured from?

That is the hull.

If you opponent measures from the end of a door, well, he's TFG and all that accompanies that label.

Since I do official demonstrating (not for 40K, but the idea of sense applies across the board), I would say the doors are completely decorative, and do not interfere with movement.

If someone wants to say the doors are there, then force said player to declare where the fire points are, and any model standing on a door is considered mounted in the vehicle.

keezus wrote:So let me get this straight. If I glue the pod doors shut so I don't have to paint (or build) the interior - this makes me an asshat?

nope it doesnt... however trying to claim your pods block LOS does. Especially in 5th edition where TLOS and cover is so very important.

Panic wrote:yeah,
Gwar gluing them shut sounds like gaming for an advantage. Blocking TLOS and small footprint.

While a pod pod with no doors, is really quite weird? and sounds like you want the advantages of a small footrpint without the TLOS blocking??? I'd have to guess again that your really gaming for an advantage...

Panic...

You can't see through a normal drop pod anyway, so you won't be "cheating" That is a total myth that you can shoot through a drop pod. You can never seen enough of an enemy model to do so, unless the drop pod is a dreadnought drop pod.

If you are argueing about the footprint, well, there are no rules that say you have to open all the doors. ( actually there are no rules that say you have to open any doors, its part of the fluff). In any event, doors are doors, and the rules only specify the hull.

General Hobbs wrote:
You can't see through a normal drop pod anyway, so you won't be "cheating" That is a total myth that you can shoot through a drop pod. You can never seen enough of an enemy model to do so, unless the drop pod is a dreadnought drop pod.

You're saying that is impossible to see even the tiniest sliver of a Dreadnought that is standing behind a drop pod? You're saying that one will never see the top of a Space Marines head if they are behind the drop pod? I'm looking at a picture of an open drop pod right now, and I would have no problem seeing something on the other side.

RustyKnight wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:
You can't see through a normal drop pod anyway, so you won't be "cheating" That is a total myth that you can shoot through a drop pod. You can never seen enough of an enemy model to do so, unless the drop pod is a dreadnought drop pod.

You're saying that is impossible to see even the tiniest sliver of a Dreadnought that is standing behind a drop pod? You're saying that one will never see the top of a Space Marines head if they are behind the drop pod? I'm looking at a picture of an open drop pod right now, and I would have no problem seeing something on the other side.

What if you modelled your drop pod to be totally solid in the middle with the seat brackets facing outward from that solid cylinder, leaving no room to walk "inside" it. One of my friends has done this as he has (quite rightly) realised that having so much empty weak space in a transport designed to smash into the ground at Mach 11 is idiotic to the extreme.

Its actually possible...however very difficult to hide a 10 man squad behind a GW drop pod and have it fully obscured. the seats actually will hide a very tightly packed unit behind it. However you them become very easy to kill from template weapons.

Dreads are another thing. Impossible to hide fully behind an open GW DP even with seats in it. However you will almost always get a cover save. Seatless pods are even harder to hide behind 50 %. Then its even harder if almost impossible to get an cover save behind a FW pod since its so darn big and empty.

Gwar! wrote:

f74 wrote:Why are people leaving the drop pod doors open anyway?

All the fluff has always said "on landing the bolts pop, doors open and marines leave" when have they ever said "then they close again?"

Where does it say they dont!

P.S. Just to move off topic in an already mad thread, does my Vassal banner look ok on the left or should i centre it?

Where does it say it doesnt have a nuke inside? As always, if it isnt written it isnt there regardless of logic or w/e.

Im wondering abit where you get the fact that "doors" doesnt count as part of the hull? If you measure for something reaching a vechile precisly where the doors are, dont they reach? How about the front door on a LR, arent they a part of its hull?

Kallbrand wrote:Im wondering abit where you get the fact that "doors" doesnt count as part of the hull?

From the rules for measuring distances wth Vehicles, where it tells us to ignore 'decorative elements'

Obviously, people's interpretation of what consitutes a 'decorative element' may vary, but a Drop Pod door which serves absolutely no purpose once the pod has landed and the door is laying on the ground, and which would result in no particularly effective damage on the pod if it was removed, certainly fits my (and from various similar discussions on this topic previously, most other players') definition of 'decorative'...

If you measure for something reaching a vechile precisly where the doors are, dont they reach?

If the door is closed, and this effectively forming a part of the vehicle's hull, yes.
If the door is open, and thus serving no purpose other than to stick out and create a closer point from which to measure, then no.

coredump wrote:While Yak is correct, I don't feel he was strong enough.

It does not seem reasonable to declare that the doors are part of the hull.
If they are, then his marines can deploy 2" from the edge of the petal, and *can't* be placed on the petal itself.
Likewise, it means you should model a door onto your LR, that will get you another few inches of assault range.

QFT

If the player insists that the ramps are part of the hull, then he can't deploy on them either. I don't think he would mind as it would give him a huge deployment advantage. However if it is a hull he would also possibly get hosed by the 'can't drop within 1in' of an enemy model when the doors drop.

imweasel wrote:

coredump wrote:While Yak is correct, I don't feel he was strong enough.

It does not seem reasonable to declare that the doors are part of the hull.
If they are, then his marines can deploy 2" from the edge of the petal, and *can't* be placed on the petal itself.
Likewise, it means you should model a door onto your LR, that will get you another few inches of assault range.

QFT

If the player insists that the ramps are part of the hull, then he can't deploy on them either. I don't think he would mind as it would give him a huge deployment advantage. However if it is a hull he would also possibly get hosed by the 'can't drop within 1in' of an enemy model when the doors drop.

Which is why you have the petals open, and position the drop pod so it is more than 1" from any enemy models, then roll for scatter. Even if you scatter onto an enemy, you reduce the scatter until you are more than 1" away from an enemy, then go off and deploy.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:That's my biggest issue - I know they try to make their FAQs look all pretty and such in PDF format, but I'd rather just have a huge list of simple questions (like ones that are emailed in, for example!) that is added on to on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Especially questions that are as simple as this - it's not like they need weeks of play testing to determine whether or not ruling either way would be overpowered.

Possibly because gw cannot write a faq any better than a bunch of monkeys having a fight at the zoo?

I mean, even most of their 'officially published faqs' are quite laughable. They have even taken the cowardly stance that the answers to faq's are 'gw house rules' and that only errata is an 'official rules change'.

I mean really,

/rant off

Ahhh, that feels so much better.

Gwar! wrote:Which is why you have the petals open, and position the drop pod so it is more than 1" from any enemy models, then roll for scatter. Even if you scatter onto an enemy, you reduce the scatter until you are more than 1" away from an enemy, then go off and deploy.

True, but it still can create problems with table edges and deployment.

Oh hai guise I thought I'd just leave this here...

The rulebook states specifically to use your judgement. If it looks like you can move there, or shoot that, you probably can. So with this in mind, you think a land raider won't climb over a roughly 1ft tall gradual incline? Guess they can't get over curbs or onto terrain base edges either Your buddy needs to quit hiding behind technicality and use better tactics. I personally prefer melta guns over drop pod doors to hinder my opponent's movement

I have just one question, would you measure from the open door of a LR? EXACT same situation guys.





-Orkishly

Whats he doingtrying to stay 1" away from a pod in a land raider??? he should be ramming it, negating the problem. then, your large petal thing works against the marine player.