I was watching a game a few minutes ago and a kid dropped from a DP in front of a enemy devastator squad. Now he deployed 2 inches to the rear of the DP so the models were in partial sight of the squad... Now here is where trickery comes into play. Since he got out on one side of the drop pod he said the doors on the other sides were closed, this meant that the devastator squad had no LoS and could not attack his 5 man squad.... Not even attack and them getting a cover save. Meaning can not attack them at all because they could not see through the vehicle.

His reasoning... The rules say 2 inches away from the hull he has to disembark. He was able to fit all his models in that 2 inch span w.o giving the dev squad a LoS arc. He said that the pod did not have to open the other doors for his squad to disembark in order for the 2 inch rule. So they could not shoot them. And the vehicle counts as open topped so they could hop out of the top?

I thought it was kinda a cheap move but it kinda makes sense and reasonable, but it does say all hatches are blown bt there is no definition or clear rule that says the doors are down... What do you guys think?

Codex: Space Marines page 69 says, "once the Drop Pod has landed, the hatches are blown." Not "some of the hatches," "the hatches." This implies all of the hatches. Once all of the doors are down, use true line of sight to draw an arc of fire to the squad. They can claim cover behind the pod but it would take some significant shenanigans to claim complete line of sight block.

Regarding open-topped: The hatches come down no matter what. Regardless of if he comes out of the top of the model or not, he must be within two inches of the hull of the pod.

The official way to deply a drop pod is with the doors down on the ground, though the doors do not count for model. The center is open, and you can see through it.

You can glue the doors shut, it's easier, but you have to count it as if they were open.

So no, that doesn't work.

Actually the rules do not cover this situation at all. There is no "official way to deply a drop pod"

With the current application of TLOS if a model can see another model's body it can shoot at it, if it cant then it cant shoot at it.

There are no rules that tell you that you have to oped the doors of the drop pod to be able to deploy within 2 inches of the hull.

It is commonly played one of three ways:
1) You keep all of the doors closed (because they are glued in place) and the Storm bolter can not shoot, but there is no LoS through the pod because the doors are closed.
2) You keep all of the doors closed (because they are glued in place) but you assume they are open and can draw LoS through the Pod, being generous about enemies being able to because you can not actually see the unit on the other side because the doors.
3)You open all the doors upon landing and use TLOS as normal.

So... its a thin line basically...

Yes, On the side of fairness, and sportsmanship you should probably follow one of the three ways I have outlined above, with 3 being the most sporting way to handle it, if possible.

I prefer option 4: Leave the doors off the model in the first place because they contribute nothing but problems.

Here's the thing...were the doors up or were they down? If they were up then they are up and block line of sight. If they are down then they are down and do not. No rules say which way he has to deploy it but he can't change it once they are deployed. And if they are down he can't say "well they are actually up". Also nothing says they have to be down for him to get out. Only thing is fluff which doesn't count in rules.

His were up.

usmcmidn wrote:His were up.

All of them?

usmcmidn wrote:Since he got out on one side of the drop pod he said the doors on the other sides were closed

The shady part would be opening half of them, to me.

The others have the rules down, though.

Yes, he opened half and disembarked his Marines out 2 inches from the hull of the DP where those doors were... The others he left closed.

Basically it won him the game, because no other units could shoot at the command squad which was fully decked out, except the scouts who inflicted 1 casualty but his feel no pain rule negated that with the save, he then proceed to his next turn where he moved the command squad, put the doors down shot his missile launcher from the DP at the scouts took out 3 of them the scouts ran away, he moved the command squad and charged some 7 man terminator squad which took 2 casualties from a melta and plasma pistol shot and decimated them with power weapons, swept into a scout squad which was running.

Opponents next turn he regrouped and shot the scouts at them did nothing again, rapid fired a full tactical squad took out 2 of them. His attention had to be focused on other things and could not focus all his fire power on the CS.

Then CS shot and charged 5 man scout squad that remained took out 4 killed the last in CC then swept into the tactical squad where by that time the tactical squad was down to half due to his other units shooting at it.

Next opponents turn tactical squad shot and charged the CS and lost CC ran away his CS was reduced to 1 man... game ended.

He swept away quite a few models due to squads not being able to shoot that CS when it came in.

If he can do it very good tactic but also very cheap however it is a war game where you going to want to win... But it basically won him the game or greatly helped.

usmcmidn wrote:Then CS shot and charged 5 man scout squad that remained took out 4 killed the last in CC then swept into the tactical squad where by that time the tactical squad was down to half due to his other units shooting at it.

This confuses me, and reminds me a bit of a previous edition of the rules and not 5th.

usmcmidn wrote:Yes, he opened half and disembarked his Marines out 2 inches from the hull of the DP where those doors were... The others he left closed.

That's fine if a bit unconventional

usmcmidn wrote: he then proceed to his next turn where he moved the command squad, put the doors down shot his missile launcher from the DP at the scouts took out 3 of them the scouts ran away,

That is illegal. He cannot change his model in the middle of the game. You can model the doors up or down but you can't change it mid game.

1) It sounds like there were a few rules confusions to begin with.


2) The raising/lowering the doors of a drop pod in order to control TLOS to your advantage is not a "sporting" move. It is dubious weather it is legal or not, But if you were to pull something like that in a Tournament, or in a friendly game against a stranger, they would not be happy, and probably not allow it.

Drop Pod doors are a ver difficult issue, but in General, re posing your model during the game for TLOS advantages is just not cool.

He is not allowed to change the modelling of the DP once it hits the table. So, if he claimed that only some doors were open and the others were closed that's how he has to keep it. So, even if you accept that some doors can be open while others are closed he still cheated by changing his model during the game.

Ahh see it was sketchy to me too. Especially after he basically cleared the board using it. In the rule book it does say it is immobile so... We should of picked up on it. It was my friend who got owned (an experienced player he said it was sketchy especially the rule book is very gray with it).

My college has this 40k gaming night for students and w.e wants to join in and thats where it happened. Some guys thought it was an amazing tactic but others thought it was sketchy.

But just to recap... He can choose to not put all the doors down to block LoS? But afterward he can not drop them.

Looking back at it, its a pretty good tactic whether cheap or not I think it can easily be abused... I hope the next rule book they clearly define it.

Wouldn't all the doors have to open because of the storm bolters arc of fire?
Assuming that he had to put down at least one hatch to deploy his troops.

Waghbif wrote:Wouldn't all the doors have to open because of the storm bolters arc of fire?
Assuming that he had to put down at least one hatch to deploy his troops.

Well I just thought of this... It was not "cheating" because a model never blocks its own line of sight, therefor it could shoot its cannon/missile launcher. On Pg 58-60 in the rule book it explains the vehicle's hull blocks LoS but nothing about doors, again having to rly interrupt the rules. Therefor extremely cheap it is do able. It is not a clear rule and it is worded for fluff reasons in the codex as my buddy (who got killed because of it) even said, it could mean stuck as he is a former sailor breach could mean a lot of things. He also pointed out there are pictures in the SM codex with DPs with only a couple doors open and not all of them.

And it does say the vehicle is open topped, nothing mentions it is open topped because of the doors in the codex. This is what bothers me the most. If someone glued the doors shut and has the its open topped rule I can get out w.e i want bit... He could. Again no where in the codex says it is open topped because of the doors being fully down. I really wish GW would word things better,.

As much as I do not want to admit it I think its legit but very cheap. Honestly I do not think I would do it though. It would lead to arguments like it did tonight. It lasted a good half hour. It is cheesy and cheap but for gamers sake id say puck it and have em all down anyway and hide to get that 4+ save haha

The doors count as part of the hull when they are closed so they would block LoS.
As I said before, even if you do accept that you can open some of the doors without opening them all it is still illegal to change the positioning of the doors after you have declared them open/shut. So the Marine player still did not play the game by the rules. This same rule prevents you from using say 2 Wraithlords (1 standing the other being prone) as the same figure. You can not swap out one for the other depending on your whim and the advantage(s) to be gained. Once you declare a door opened or closed that's it for the model.

usmcmidn wrote:But just to recap... He can choose to not put all the doors down to block LoS? But afterward he can not drop them.

How you choose to pose your models is entirely up to you. So yes, you can choose to model your drop pods with doors up, down, or any combination of the two. There is no rule that requires them to be in the open position, any more than there is requiring a rhino or Land Raider to have their doors open for troops to get out.

However, the only rules that allow you to modify a miniature during the game are the vehicle shooting rules, which allow you to turn the vehicle's weapons. No permission is given to alter a model in any other way.

Waghbif wrote:Wouldn't all the doors have to open because of the storm bolters arc of fire?

If the doors are up, they would block the storm bolter's LOS. There is no rule requiring them to be open, though.

usmcmidn wrote:Well I just thought of this... It was not "cheating" because a model never blocks its own line of sight, therefor it could shoot its cannon/missile launcher.

This is not actually true. See the rulebook FAQ for clarification on this, where they point out that, for example, a Razorback's pintle storm bolter will block LOS from the turret. Model's most certainly do block their own LOS.

Ah ok and he did not model the doors closed he modeled the doors to be free moving and could prop them up or down pending what he wanted to do.

Again thats fine. He just can't change it mid game because there is no rule saying he can. It would be like if I modelled a special character perched on a rock for dramatic effect but didn't glue him to the rock. Then half way through they game said "he stepped down" and took the rock away so he can get out of LOS.

How is he sweeping away models? Marines can't be swept

As I was told the drop pod doors open and can't not stay closed now if you are good you can make it so you still can't be seen that is legal but the doors must be open.

cgage00 wrote:As I was told the drop pod doors open and can't not stay closed now if you are good you can make it so you still can't be seen that is legal but the doors must be open.

Where most people agree to play that way, as it's obviously the way it was intended, there is actually no RAW rule supporting that.

I disagree I think when the codex says "whenthey drop pod lands the hataches are blown" that means oppon landing they open automatically. Basically this guy took a story that sounds plausable about what could happen rather than what the book says happen. now a drop pod can give you a cover save

Pony_law wrote:I disagree I think when the codex says "whenthey drop pod lands the hataches are blown" that means oppon landing they open automatically. Basically this guy took a story that sounds plausable about what could happen rather than what the book says happen. now a drop pod can give you a cover save

Your quoting fluff. The drop pod doesn't "land". It's placed on the board according to deep strike rules (amended by the special drop pod rules). As i said, it's obviously supposed to have it's doors open but RAW doesn't say it does only fluff.

VoxDei wrote:

cgage00 wrote:As I was told the drop pod doors open and can't not stay closed now if you are good you can make it so you still can't be seen that is legal but the doors must be open.

Where most people agree to play that way, as it's obviously the way it was intended, there is actually no RAW rule supporting that.

They did do an FAQ saying the doors come down and can't be up. Trust me I was going to write a Los block army using pods.

VoxDei wrote:

Pony_law wrote:I disagree I think when the codex says "whenthey drop pod lands the hataches are blown" that means oppon landing they open automatically. Basically this guy took a story that sounds plausable about what could happen rather than what the book says happen. now a drop pod can give you a cover save

Your quoting fluff. The drop pod doesn't "land". It's placed on the board according to deep strike rules (amended by the special drop pod rules). As i said, it's obviously supposed to have it's doors open but RAW doesn't say it does only fluff.

He's NOT quoting "fluff". "the hatches are blown" is under TRANSPORT in the Drop Pod entry on page 69, which is a RULE.

cgage00 wrote:

They did do an FAQ saying the doors come down and can't be up. Trust me I was going to write a Los block army using pods.

Do you know which one? It's not in the SM one that I could find.

VoxDei wrote:

cgage00 wrote:

They did do an FAQ saying the doors come down and can't be up. Trust me I was going to write a Los block army using pods.

Do you know which one? It's not in the SM one that I could find.

It's not in any FAQ that I can find either.

I just read this which clearly says that you can leave the doors up to block LoS... It is a space wolves thing but reading deeper into the article it clearly is talking about DPs in general and not jsut the space pups DP...

http://space-wolves-grey.blogspot.com/2009/06/drpo-pod-faq.html

"Concerning the space marine drop pod rules"

"Do they block LOS when they land, especially if you keep some petal doors up and some down?

The [b]new Games Workshop drop pod model will be used for this. Use true line of sight for targeting purposes once the drop pod has descended.

It is perfectly reasonable to keep some of the petal doors up as the occupants receive up to date information on the situation on the ground as they descend, thus enabling them to deploy to their maximum advantage.

Please note that if the petals are up or down, this must be represented on the model.

If the petals are up, the drop pod is still open topped and the drop pod’s weapon cannot shoot as the petals block line of sight from the weapon. If you are using home drop pod, this last point still applies."

I need to book mark that article.

but are those real FAQ?

That is not an official FAQ, it's just a fan made one.

But, the information they're giving is valid. Plenty of people will call you cheesy for doing this. And, others will call this modeling for advantage (they're kinda right).

The only FAQ I can find that addresses this (and it's not legal per ymdc tenets) is INAT.

Someone earlier said there were official FAQ for the drop pod. Can anyone find it?

INAT has it under DP and they say no. But is that official?

The DP article I posted was explained by simon tull (He hosts Carnage) but is this official? ? ?

What one wins this gray battle? ? ? Since both are not very official then it still is up to interpretation.

Is there any way to do a poll on this? Can do, can't do type deal?

cgage00 wrote:They did do an FAQ saying the doors come down and can't be up. Trust me I was going to write a Los block army using pods.

This is not present in any of the current FAQs.

gruebot wrote:He's NOT quoting "fluff". "the hatches are blown" is under TRANSPORT in the Drop Pod entry on page 69, which is a RULE.

It's fluff. There are no rules that define what effect 'blowing the hatches' has in game terms... it is therefore not a game term. Unless you're suggesting that Drop Pods actually have to be fitted with small explosive charges that blow the doors open when you place it on the table?

Again, the fact that fluffwise the doors are opened on landing has no bearing on the rules, since the rules don't require it. Just as they don't require you to open the doors of your rhino to disembark the unit inside, and your Landspeeders don't actually have to fly over terrain.

Poll is up guys. I am not going to vote. I just want a clearer view of who supports it and who does not.

usmcmidn wrote:The DP article I posted was explained by simon tull (He hosts Carnage) but is this official? ? ?

No. The 'official' FAQs are in the Errats and FAQ Articles section on the GW website.

I am getting curious of those voters who plays SM and used Drop Pods? ? ?

Well I voted "Yes but the inside weapon of the DP can not shoot through the doors"

I play Blood Angels, but never ever use Drop pods.

Well I should not say never, I use drop pods in about 1% of the games I play

I voted yes, but can't shoot. I don't play SM/variants.

I used a DP list in a recented GT tournament, it a really dick move to stated that only so many doors are open and the rest are close just to benefit youself. I just don't understand the BS about this rule. once there landed all of there doors are open and doesn't cause a LOS blockage.

I play a DP list often, and have not voted.

No where I have played, at the FLGS or a tournament has someone tried to pull this pathic move. If they did, every TO I know would shout them down.

Everywhere I have seen played:
The doors count for nothing. They don't block line of sight. They are not part of the hull so other models can be placed on them.

I play SM.
When the DP is deployed, after any scatter, the doors are opened. If they lay flat on the table that's fine. If there is terrain in the way, I open them as far as they will go. If there are friendly or enemy models where the opened doors would go, the models are picked up, the doors opened, and the models replaced.
The opened doors count for nothing. They are not part of the DP hull, they are not a friendly or enemy model, they are not terrain.
YMMV but that's the way I play it.
To leave one or more door closed for a turn and say they block LOS, and then on a subsequent turn say you can open them and have LOS is just plain wrong.

Admitting it is a cheap move... i understand that the game is a war game. Tactics are tactics... I think I would let an op do it playing against me. I mean yeh its sketchy but I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

I think it is gray but id let them do it, do I feel it is wrong... MAYBE. If they are doing it for tactics... I could respect, for it is a war game where you need tactics. But if they have a history of being a cheesy player and will spread the cheese on every rule out there (me being 1mm away from the 6 inch charge from and not allowing me in stupid gak like that) then it turns a fun stragety game into omzzg all I want to do is play cheesy.

Did that make sense?

All doors open? Fine.
All doors closed? Fine.
Some open, some closed? Still fine.
Repositioning doors on another turn? I don't think so.

when the drop pod lands all hatches are blown off. you cannot leave the doors closed. it's not grey, it's written in the rules, I'd love to hear how this person would justify what he did when confronted with that language. The rules also say that the drop dop is no longer a sealed environment after it lands further suggesting all the doors open. It sounds much more like he took advantage on an inexperienced player. It's not tactics it's cheating

Pony_law wrote:when the drop pod lands all hatches are blown off. you cannot leave the doors closed. it's not grey, it's written in the rules,

No, that's fluff. Otherwise, I expect you to fill your Drop Pod with explosives so that the hatches are indeed blown off.

Pony_law wrote: when the drop pod lands all hatches are blown off.

It doesn't say 'blown off'... it says the hatches are blown. Meaning that they are opened quickly. And it's a piece of fluff, as is the part about the pod being a sealed environment. Actually having the doors open on the model is no more required by the rules than having to open the assault ramp on a land raider in order to disembark and assault, or having your power weapons actually wreathed in electrical discharge, or your Wraithlord actually posessed by the soul of a long-dead space elf warrior.

It'snot fluff its under the section call transport. as is the mention of it not being a seal environment. it is not in the fluff at the top of the page it is part of the rules description of the vehicle

Anyone who tries to pull any of the bs detailed in this thread will quickly be added to my ignore/never play list.

i love it when TFGs clearly identify themselves...

Happyjew wrote:All doors open? Fine.
All doors closed? Fine.
Some open, some closed? Still fine.
Repositioning doors on another turn? I don't think so.

Is this the general view?

I ask, because it seems like a huge pain to find space for all the doors to lie flat in a Drop Pod army (10+ pods), not to mention having to let models walk all over your painted model...

I feel like I'd rather have them closed...

I've ruled for all our tournaments that drop pod doors are considered open once they hit the table. If they can't open because of terrain, or they are glued shut, that's fine, but you draw los as if they were open.

Why do people keep trying to claim this is right? lol

All hatches must be dropped when it lands unless glued in place.

What happens to the squad that has to immediately disembark when the doors are closed..?

Pony_law wrote:It'snot fluff its under the section call transport. as is the mention of it not being a seal environment. it is not in the fluff at the top of the page it is part of the rules description of the vehicle

Since you're claiming it's rules..

What does it mean, rules wise, to be a sealed environment? Can you show me where "blown open" is talked about as far as rules go?

So it's illegal to model a drop pod with the doors glued shut?

The whole problem with the argument is this, do the doors have to come down? The answer is no they do not.

Why don't they have to come down? It's the same principle as disembarking from a rhino. Do you need to physically be able to open the back or side hatches? No, this is an extraneous affectation. Which carries over perfectly to a drop pod IMHO. Do the doors have to open to allow the models to disembark? Nope, it counts as an immobile open top vehicle as soon as it enters play, and the hatches have no affect on the game whatsoever. Let me ask another question about this, if the doors remain up, do they block LOS to models behind it, or the weapon mounted on it? They do not. Doors on vehicles have no rules associated with them, as such they are simply an extra piece that doesn't interfere with the game one way or another. When shooting at a droppod that puts the hatches out, do you measure line of sight to them? No, you measure to the actual hull of the vehicle.

It's all a matter of thinking about it from the point of the doorways are no different than the doors of a Land Raider, Razorback, Falcon, what have you. The hatches themselves have no bearing on the game, so don't let them interfere.

the plan meaning of the language describing what happens in game terms when the pod lands say the hatches are blown, which means open period, hatches = doors they are one in the same. The quote about no sealed environmentis just further context to let you know what they are talking about ie the interior of the pod is exposed to the rest of the environment ie the hatches are down.

You can modle it however you want, of course the model is designed to be functioning ie the hatches swing down and will stay up if you took time to assemble it correctly.

Pony_law wrote:the plan meaning of the language describing what happens in game terms when the pod lands say the hatches are blown, which means open period, hatches = doors they are one in the same. The quote about no sealed environmentis just further context to let you know what they are talking about ie the interior of the pod is exposed to the rest of the environment ie the hatches are down.

So... fluff. Thanks for clarifying.

You can modle it however you want, of course the model is designed to be functioning ie the hatches swing down and will stay up if you took time to assemble it correctly.

If the doors are not required to be modeled in the down position, then there is no rule requiring such - similar to Rhino doors/hatches, Chimera doors/hatches, etc.

if someone ever tried to pull that bs with me I'd pull out my hard cover rule book raise it as high above the tabled and let it drop and crush their drop pod... armour 10 or 12 couldn't stop that... and crush that lil half pound of plastic into rubble and then that can block my line of site all day long

Pony_law wrote:It'snot fluff its under the section call transport. as is the mention of it not being a seal environment. it is not in the fluff at the top of the page it is part of the rules description of the vehicle

Take a look through any of GW's codexes, and you will find a fairly large amount o flfuff mixed in with the actual rules. It's just how GW write their books... they generally give a bit of a fluff explanation of what's going on, and then list the actual rule that applies as a result.

'The hatches are blown' is not something that has a specified in-game effect. Nor is being (or not being) a sealed environment something that the rules consider. They are fluff descriptions of what is happening wehn the pod lands, and enforcing them as rules would be no less ridiculous than insisting that models should actually run across the board.

RiTides wrote:

Happyjew wrote:All doors open? Fine.
All doors closed? Fine.
Some open, some closed? Still fine.
Repositioning doors on another turn? I don't think so.

Is this the general view?

From my experience, yes, most players don't much care whether the doors are up or down, so long as you don't try to move them later.

Whether or not the interior weapon can shoot when the doors are modelled closed is a little more variable, though. I personally go with no... You need actual LOS from the weapon.

Pony_law wrote:the plan meaning of the language describing what happens in game terms when the pod lands say the hatches are blown, which means open period,

The doors of a rhino open when the troops disembark as well. As does the assault ramp of a Land Raider. And yet nobody insists that you actually do so with the physical model, or that they must stay open afterwards. Why? Because the rules don't tell us to do so.

Try to find a single rule that defines that 'the hatches are blown' means that the pod must be deployed with the doors open.

You won't find one.

IMO when a dp lands the hatches are blown, just like it says in the book...when the drop pod lands, all hatches are blown.

Anyone here seen an aircraft cockpit blown?

Anyone here ever see one stay where it is intentionally?

All the doors must open. Now I agree, certain people may not want to open the doors on their model, or for some reason they can't. so in that case leave the doors closed, for count them as open and give LOS through the damned pod!

1. It's there written in the codex, so do as it says.

2. How the hell would a squad of marines get out of a drop pod if the only exit is the door behind them...they can't walk round in a drop pod, you walk in, sit, get shot from orbit onto the planets surface, the door in front of you opens, you walk out...simple


LazzurusMan

LazzurusMan wrote:2. How the hell would a squad of marines get out of a drop pod if the only exit is the door behind them...they can't walk round in a drop pod, you walk in, sit, get shot from orbit onto the planets surface, the door in front of you opens, you walk out...simple

How do they get out of a rhino when the door is glued shut?

For that matter, how do they get out when their feet are glued to a giant black disc covered in rocks?

Nobody is disputing that the door has to open in order for the marines to get out. The difference of opinion comes from people disagreeing whether 'the hatches are blown' means that you have to place the pod with the doors open, or if it's simply a fluff reference to the fact that (fluffwise) the doors open to let the marines out, not a requirement for them to be open on the model.

Basically it boils down to player choice on how he wants to model his drop pod.

If he models it with 2 movable doors, and 3 glued shut doors, he can open two when the drop pod arrives, or not. Either way once the Deep strike is finished and the model is on the table, you can not manipulate the doors of the model mid-game.

GAH!!!!!

I was in no way saying that they can get out because the doors REALLY open.

Some people obviously take this too damn seriously.
The doors would open IN REAL LIFE. The whole idea of the game is to simulate real life in a simple *ish* way that creates enjoyment for those both taking part and watching.

The doors are glued shut on your rhino? The models can still disembark, because the doors WOULD open in real life.

What I was INTENDING to say is that the rules say that the doors would open on landing, meaning that models get los through the drop pod.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even if al the doors are glued shut, all doors would count as open, giving los.

LazzurusMan wrote:
What I was INTENDING to say is that the rules say that the doors would open on landing, meaning that models get los through the drop pod.

Even if al the doors are glued shut, all doors would count as open, giving los.

Actually the rules do not say if the "doors would open on landing" or not.

And the doors only count as open, if they are actually open, TLOS tells us this.

So if the doors are glued shut, then they are glued shut and you can not see through something that, quite obviously, blocks LoS.

Wow, after reading what the majority of people had to say...

First off to the players who say they would crush the opposing players models or block them or not play them... Thats kinda ridiculous and to me unsporting. Its a game. I am sure there are other rules in different armies that can be bended like the DP rule.

As for taking advantage of an experienced player... My friend is very experienced having played in the UK and Germany. This is the first time he really encountered this type of tactic before.

And yeh in the end I think it just comes down to what you guys agree on before the game starts. If I were to use them ill admit I would ask permission to do it if my player agrees then great if he gets mad about it then I wouldn't. Also if your gona do it I would also not be literal in the game as well and allow my opponent to do gray things as well. For example the charging example I said earlier. If my opponent wanted to charge me and was a bit off I would give it to him, or he was just out of range to shoot w.e. Its a game have fun. Just like terrain cover saves figure those things out before the game starts so when you do play it will go smooth and both players enjoy it.

Thx for the votes on the poll... Keep voting and discussing I am still listening. Good arguments. But please be sporting in your arguments. I do not want to hear you would slap the opposing player or something stupid and fictional like that.

insaniak wrote:

RiTides wrote:

Happyjew wrote:All doors open? Fine.
All doors closed? Fine.
Some open, some closed? Still fine.
Repositioning doors on another turn? I don't think so.

Is this the general view?

From my experience, yes, most players don't much care whether the doors are up or down, so long as you don't try to move them later.

Whether or not the interior weapon can shoot when the doors are modelled closed is a little more variable, though. I personally go with no... You need actual LOS from the weapon.

Since the hull of the vehicle is defined on p.56 BRB and the rule is that a vehicle can't shoot through its own hull I would think that the doors being closed would block LoS for the built in weapon as well as any troops behind the DP. Otherwise +1.

insaniak wrote:

Pony_law wrote:It'snot fluff its under the section call transport. as is the mention of it not being a seal environment. it is not in the fluff at the top of the page it is part of the rules description of the vehicle

Take a look through any of GW's codexes, and you will find a fairly large amount o flfuff mixed in with the actual rules. It's just how GW write their books... they generally give a bit of a fluff explanation of what's going on, and then list the actual rule that applies as a result.

'The hatches are blown' is not something that has a specified in-game effect. Nor is being (or not being) a sealed environment something that the rules consider. They are fluff descriptions of what is happening wehn the pod lands, and enforcing them as rules would be no less ridiculous than insisting that models should actually run across the board.

RiTides wrote:

Happyjew wrote:All doors open? Fine.
All doors closed? Fine.
Some open, some closed? Still fine.
Repositioning doors on another turn? I don't think so.

Is this the general view?

From my experience, yes, most players don't much care whether the doors are up or down, so long as you don't try to move them later.

Whether or not the interior weapon can shoot when the doors are modelled closed is a little more variable, though. I personally go with no... You need actual LOS from the weapon.

Pony_law wrote:the plan meaning of the language describing what happens in game terms when the pod lands say the hatches are blown, which means open period,

The doors of a rhino open when the troops disembark as well. As does the assault ramp of a Land Raider. And yet nobody insists that you actually do so with the physical model, or that they must stay open afterwards. Why? Because the rules don't tell us to do so.

Try to find a single rule that defines that 'the hatches are blown' means that the pod must be deployed with the doors open.

You won't find one.

I always open my hatches on tanks when letting my men out. It helps to lessen arguments if my dudes move 2" from the bottom of the hatch as it is their disembarkment point.

insaniak wrote:

LazzurusMan wrote:2. How the hell would a squad of marines get out of a drop pod if the only exit is the door behind them...they can't walk round in a drop pod, you walk in, sit, get shot from orbit onto the planets surface, the door in front of you opens, you walk out...simple

How do they get out of a rhino when the door is glued shut?

For that matter, how do they get out when their feet are glued to a giant black disc covered in rocks?

Nobody is disputing that the door has to open in order for the marines to get out. The difference of opinion comes from people disagreeing whether 'the hatches are blown' means that you have to place the pod with the doors open, or if it's simply a fluff reference to the fact that (fluffwise) the doors open to let the marines out, not a requirement for them to be open on the model.

Actually the debate is not about how the droppod is model'd it's how you treat it for LOS and the correct answer is you treat it as having all the doors open so it does not block line of site (it does give a cover save)

Actually there is no "correct" answer, otherwise their could be no debate. There is however, a HYWPI answer, which we as a community can discuss to gain further insight. I think that almost everyone does agree whether or not pod deploys with doors open/closed (and how it affects LOS), you cannot change the position on subsequent turns to gain a benefit.

DeathReaper wrote:

LazzurusMan wrote:
What I was INTENDING to say is that the rules say that the doors would open on landing, meaning that models get los through the drop pod.

Even if al the doors are glued shut, all doors would count as open, giving los.

Actually the rules do not say if the "doors would open on landing" or not.

And the doors only count as open, if they are actually open, TLOS tells us this.

So if the doors are glued shut, then they are glued shut and you can not see through something that, quite obviously, blocks LoS.

Yes they do they say the hatches are blown which means doors open. Thats the plain meaning of the language in the codex. just because someone modles it to look a certain way ie hatches shut does not mean it ceases to function as the rules state. WYSIWYG referes to wargear, how you pose a model has no efect on the rules what so ever. Maybe if we play I'll see some of your modles with a CC weapon but their pistol in a holster, uh oh you decided to have him put his gun away, he does not get +1 attack.

Pony_law wrote: it's how you treat it for LOS and the correct answer is you treat it as having all the doors open so it does not block line of site

Have you read the LOS rules?

I ask honestly because there are very, VERY few things that are treated as something other than they are in those rules - and they are explicit.
This is not one of them.

Pony_law wrote:Yes they do they say the hatches are blown which means doors open. Thats the plain meaning of the language in the codex. just because someone modles it to look a certain way ie hatches shut does not mean it ceases to function as the rules state. WYSIWYG referes to wargear, how you pose a model has no efect on the rules what so ever. Maybe if we play I'll see some of your modles with a CC weapon but their pistol in a holster, uh oh you decided to have him put his gun away, he does not get +1 attack.

They give you some fluff about the hatches are blown.

This tidbit of info is not a rule.

we can not define "the hatches are blown" in the context of the rulebook, so it is fluff and has no bearing on the actual rules of the game.

If you want to say "the hatches are blown" is a rule, then you would be required to actually blow your hatches, but that is a bit over the top, because no one is going to destroy their drop pod doors.

LazzurusMan wrote:What I was INTENDING to say is that the rules say that the doors would open on landing, meaning that models get los through the drop pod.

And what I was saying in response is that the rules don't say that. The fluff says that, and so the drop pod shouldn't be treated any differently to any other vehicle with doors.

IdentifyZero wrote:I always open my hatches on tanks when letting my men out. It helps to lessen arguments if my dudes move 2" from the bottom of the hatch as it is their disembarkment point.

How does opening the door change the disembarking point?

Pony_law wrote:Yes they do they say the hatches are blown which means doors open. Thats the plain meaning of the language in the codex. just because someone modles it to look a certain way ie hatches shut does not mean it ceases to function as the rules state. WYSIWYG referes to wargear, how you pose a model has no efect on the rules what so ever. Maybe if we play I'll see some of your modles with a CC weapon but their pistol in a holster, uh oh you decided to have him put his gun away, he does not get +1 attack.

You're confusing a couple of different issues there.

If the rules said that the pod had to have it's doors open, that would mean nothing more than that the pod has to have its doors open, and that a pod with doors closed would be breaking that rule. That has no effect on the LOS rules, which use the actual profile of the pod, as they do for every other model.

There is no rule that tells you to pretend the pod is modeled with the doors open if they are actually closed. If the doors are closed, then the pod blocks LOS as if the doors are closed... because that's how the LOS rules work.

The hatches are access points. They block line of sight. When the drop pod lands it becomes open topped. Open top means you may disembark from anywhere on the vehicle's hull. In order for this to be possible all the hatches would have to be down.

Obviously not RAW, but fairly straightforward.

WanderingFox wrote:The hatches are access points. They block line of sight. When the drop pod lands it becomes open topped. Open top means you may disembark from anywhere on the vehicle's hull. In order for this to be possible all the hatches would have to be down.

Obviously not RAW, but fairly straightforward.

So in order to disembark from a Rhino (or any transport) you have to model the ramp as down? Remember, you can't change the model during the game, so if its going to drop it has to stay down.

"obviously not raw"

It was an observation based on the model itself. The rhino has a hatch, it's easy enough to realize that they lower the hatch, let models out, and then raise it.

The drop pod is clearly stated as open topped. The only way for that to happen is that the pod doors are all down after it lands.

So I voted that you can have the doors up but you can't shoot the gun only becuase some people glue the doors in place. If so that's fine, if not then the doors...all doors come open. Nowhere do you have permision to only open some of them and that is a very sketchy move to begin with. Either way I would say if you want to play a pod list then either glue the doors up or accept the fact that some of them may overlap onto each other and enemy models may be moving over them...it's a game.

Akroma06 wrote: Nowhere do you have permision to only open some of them and that is a very sketchy move to begin with.

Just curious... Can you find permission for some Space Marines to be holding their bolters at waist height, and for others to have them held up higher?

You don't need permission to pose your model a certain way. So long as the model is assembled correctly, the rules don't much care. They don't even explicitly care about being assembled correctly, for that matter... it's just a general assumption that people make, on the grounds that the rules deal with normal Citadel models.

Opening some of the doors is, ruleswise, absolutely no different to opening all of them, or leaving them all closed. Yes, it will potentially affect the pod's LOS profile... but this is no different to how you pose any other model affecting its LOS profile.

People are trying to make an exception for this one specific model, when no such exception exists in the rules.

Actually that is a rule... or at least can be derived from one.

Some players like to mount their models on impressive
scenic bases. As mounting your models on differentsized
bases might affect the way they interact with the
rules, make sure before the game that your opponent
does not mind this.

In short, you'd have to okay it with your opponent first.

Akroma06 wrote:So I voted that you can have the doors up but you can't shoot the gun only becuase some people glue the doors in place. If so that's fine, if not then the doors...all doors come open. Nowhere do you have permision to only open some of them and that is a very sketchy move to begin with. Either way I would say if you want to play a pod list then either glue the doors up or accept the fact that some of them may overlap onto each other and enemy models may be moving over them...it's a game.

Or just model them movable... And leave them up. It makes no sense to allow it for someone who glues the doors but not for someone who has movable ones...

WanderingFox wrote:Actually that is a rule... or at least can be derived from one.

Some players like to mount their models on impressive
scenic bases. As mounting your models on differentsized
bases might affect the way they interact with the
rules, make sure before the game that your opponent
does not mind this.

In short, you'd have to okay it with your opponent first.

Sorry, you've lost me. Who was talking about mounting a drop pod on a large scenic base?

Or are we taking the doors off and mounting them on scenic bases now?

It was the precedent of deliberately altering a model to gain an advantage in regards to line of sight.

Hence the comment of deriving from it. If it's okay to have a scenic base that alters the size of a model as long as it is okay with your opponent, so too is it okay to leave the doors on/off/etc. so long as it is okay with your opponent.

WanderingFox wrote:It was the precedent of deliberately altering a model to gain an advantage in regards to line of sight.

How are you altering the model by leaving the doors shut?

The rule you mentioned deals with adding something that wasn't there originally to change the model's profile. That has nothing to do with how you pose the model, or when you assemble it with the parts it comes with.

Otherwise, do I need your permission to field my Tactical Sergeants with banners? Or when I leave them off?
What about my dreadnoughts? Do I need your permission to raise their CCW arm?

You wander into very slippery territory very quickly with that argument.

No because that has no bearing on line of sight. Banners and arms don't count (explicitly detailed in the brb when measuring to models).

The doors do. As such you must clear your intention with your opponent.

It is also worth noting this passage in true line of sight:
Of course, this method does mean that
occasionally there are border-line cases when it is
quite hard to decide if a model can see a target or
not, but sporting players will always be generous
and give their opponent the benefit of the doubt

As well as the wording of the drop pod itself, which clearly states that it is open topped.

I forgot to mention earlier:
All doors closed (open) but count as open (closed)? Still fine, albeit closed counts as open can cause some problems.

However, I'm not OK with all doors being open/closed and only some of them counting as the other way. If you have a DP with the doors glued shut and say that the doors are open, it will cause some problems with determining LOS, but it can played through. If you glued your doors open, but want to say they are all shut, I can't shoot you, through it, you can't shoot me, and the weapon inside can't shoot at anything due to no LOS.

DeathReaper wrote:

Pony_law wrote:Yes they do they say the hatches are blown which means doors open. Thats the plain meaning of the language in the codex. just because someone modles it to look a certain way ie hatches shut does not mean it ceases to function as the rules state. WYSIWYG referes to wargear, how you pose a model has no efect on the rules what so ever. Maybe if we play I'll see some of your modles with a CC weapon but their pistol in a holster, uh oh you decided to have him put his gun away, he does not get +1 attack.

They give you some fluff about the hatches are blown.

This tidbit of info is not a rule.

we can not define "the hatches are blown" in the context of the rulebook, so it is fluff and has no bearing on the actual rules of the game.

If you want to say "the hatches are blown" is a rule, then you would be required to actually blow your hatches, but that is a bit over the top, because no one is going to destroy their drop pod doors.

You keep saying it's fluff but its not it is in the section under transport, where it desribes how it brings modles to the battlefield, thus it is a rule. hatchs are blow is synonomis with the doors open you don't need to define in contrxt of any other rule because that is what that language clearly means, codex . the rolebook. further just go and ask a person what happens on a ship if someone is orded to blow the hatches, the answer you will get is they open the doors. Also in the next section of rules about the drop pod they mention the vehicle counts as open topped once arriving because the hatches are blown ie cannot be raised again unlike a tanks access points. Like I said you arguemnt is if the doors are up on the modle they are up in the game, which is the same as saying if the pistol is holstered the model is not using it so no +1 attack which is rediculous.

Without a FAQ answer here is my take. I agree with what others have said. Once the model hits the table you can not manipulate the doors further. So yes, he deploys out of LOS with one side up, however that blocks the weapon system of the DP and will be blocked in that direction for the remainder of the game. However, players attempting to do this in a tournament environment need to make sure what rulings will be used....as the INAT FAQ which is what is used around where I play, as well as at Adepticon, already clearly takes care of this and says that all doors are opened upon deployment. If they are glued up, then they are "treated as" they are all open.

Pony_law wrote:
You keep saying it's fluff but its not it is in the section under transport, where it desribes how it brings modles to the battlefield

You do realize that the drop pod did not actually bring models to the table, right?

That is why folks call things like that "fluff".

Pony, please define "the hatches are blown" in the context of the rulebook. preferably with page references.

If you can't find the rules that tell us what "the hatches are blown" means then you have to accept that it is in fact fluff, and has no bearing on weather the doors need to be up or down.

DeathReaper wrote:Pony, please define "the hatches are blown" in the context of the rulebook. preferably with page references.

If you can't find the rules that tell us what "the hatches are blown" means then you have to accept that it is in fact fluff, and has no bearing on weather the doors need to be up or down.

While entirely correct DeathReaper, that can be argued. If fluff and rules are mixed in, where do the rules start and the fluff ends in the BRB? You need to make that assumption at some point Or at least define what a rule consists of.

Thanks insaniak / mikhaila (and others)... I will likely model mine shut but be open to playing it either way if certain venues rule they always count as open.

I just really don't like the idea of having to put all my models disembarking on top of my (painted) model... and the same for my opponent's models.

WanderingFox wrote:No because that has no bearing on line of sight. Banners and arms don't count (explicitly detailed in the brb when measuring to models).

They count for determining LOS blocked by the model, though. A sergeant with a banner blocks LOS mor eeffectively than a sergeant without one. So by your interpretation, I need to ask my opponent to use... one of those two perfectly valid options. How do we determine which is the 'correct' way to model him then?

As well as the wording of the drop pod itself, which clearly states that it is open topped.

Which has no bearing on the actual model. See Space Marine Landspeeders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WanderingFox wrote: If fluff and rules are mixed in, where do the rules start and the fluff ends in the BRB?

The rules are the things that have a function within the structure of the game. The rest is fluff.

Being open-topped is something that has a defined effect in the rules. That makes it a rule.
Disembarking is something that has a defined effect in the rules. That makes it a rule.
'The hatches are blown' is a piece of descriptive padding to add colour to the entry. The rules don't cover 'blown hatches' nor do they require doors on the physical model to be open in order for the unit inside to disembark. So that makes it fluff.

For the record I agree with you that there isn't any RAW backing direclty, but for the sake of argument what is stopping 'the hatches are blown open' from not being a rule?

As far as I know there's no rule directly contradicting a model being modified in mid-game, and from there it could simply be a rule phrased in exciting wording (they have done that in several places after all).

While I agree it is fluff, there is nothing that is directly stating it as so.

Hinge the doors at the top then.

They can be blown and stay closed.

WanderingFox wrote:For the record I agree with you that there isn't any RAW backing direclty, but for the sake of argument what is stopping 'the hatches are blown open' from not being a rule?

What is stopping it from being a rule is 'the hatches are blown open' is not a term to define how to take any kind of action within the game.

If we have a fire point, we know we have to measure from the firing point when firing out of a transport because the rules define what a Fire Point does. They do not define what 'the hatches are blown open' does, so in game terms it does nothing, and is fluff.

While I agree with that statement, there is nothing stopping someone from claiming it as a rule. It's not in italics or otherwise set aside from the rest of the rules of the drop pod. This is of course entirely GWs fault for randomly inserting fluff into their rules, but there is no definition of what a rule is vs what fluff is. Are rules only the things that tell you to roll dice? What about all the rules that dictate how to move models? What about the line of sight rules that are completely intangible?

What I'm driving at here is that the only unified definition you can state for all rules is that they have an impact on how the game is played.

Sadly, by that definition so too does the phrase "the hatches are blown open" since hatches is a reference to a specific part of the model and open is an obvious state in which the model should be placed.

Not just 'have an impact on how the game is played' they tell you to take some sort of action.

The rules tell you to Check LoS and give you guidelines to take this action.

The rules tell you to remove casualties and give you guidelines to take this action.

The rules tell you to move and give you guidelines to take this action.

The rules tell you to take saves and give you guidelines to take this action.

See a pattern? Rules tell you how to take some sort of in game action. 'the hatches are blown open' does not tell you to take any action, thus it is fluff.

you keep mentioning "the rules" yet the fluff is contained in the exact same passages as "the rules"

Not once in the BRB is that explicitly mentioned that somethings is fluff or something is rules.

That is an assumption on your part, as much as I happen to agree with that asumption, it still is one.

What I'm trying to get at here is that what is rules or not requires a logical assumption... and that is a matter of opinion.

I make no assumption but I know what 'rules' means.

GW assumes everyone knows what rules means, and once you know what it means then you can tell what is fluff and what is rules.

WanderingFox wrote:you keep mentioning "the rules" yet the fluff is contained in the exact same passages as "the rules"

Not once in the BRB is that explicitly mentioned that somethings is fluff or something is rules.

That is an assumption on your part, as much as I happen to agree with that asumption, it still is one.

What I'm trying to get at here is that what is rules or not requires a logical assumption... and that is a matter of opinion.

Did you ignore his last post?

Every rule has an in game method of accomplishing that directive.
Where is the method of accomplishing the "hatches are blown open" directive?
Where is the method of accomplishing the "unsealed environment" directive?

It's not a logical leap to figure out that those sentences are not rules.

again i agree with him, but it can be insinuated otherwise. That was all I was trying to point out.

On a less hostile note, this is what magnets are for XD

WanderingFox wrote:While I agree with that statement, there is nothing stopping someone from claiming it as a rule.

They can claim it's a rule all they want... but it won't have any effect on the game, since there is no defined effect of the hatches being blown. Within the context of the game rules, it's a meaningless statement.

Even if you want to apply the real world definition, you can't definitively state that it means the doors must be modelled open. All that you can definitively state is that the pod opens its doors when it lands in order for the embarked unit to disembark. Nothing in the Drop Pod entry says that the pod can't close the doors again after the unit has disembarked, and nothing in the rules states that the doors being opened to disembark means the pod has to be modelled with the doors open when every other transport vehicle in the game functions just fine without open doors on the model.

So just out of curiosity, Insaniak, what does the statement "the hatches are blown" meen to you? What would come to mind if someone were to tell you that "the hatches were blown"?

insaniak wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:While I agree with that statement, there is nothing stopping someone from claiming it as a rule.

They can claim it's a rule all they want... but it won't have any effect on the game, since there is no defined effect of the hatches being blown. Within the context of the game rules, it's a meaningless statement.

Even if you want to apply the real world definition, you can't definitively state that it means the doors must be modelled open. All that you can definitively state is that the pod opens its doors when it lands in order for the embarked unit to disembark. Nothing in the Drop Pod entry says that the pod can't close the doors again after the unit has disembarked, and nothing in the rules states that the doors being opened to disembark means the pod has to be modelled with the doors open when every other transport vehicle in the game functions just fine without open doors on the model.

I dunno the fact that it becomes immobilized and open topped as well as the picture of all the doors being down in the codex give pretty good evidence to the contrary.

gruebot wrote:So just out of curiosity, Insaniak, what does the statement "the hatches are blown" meen to you? What would come to mind if someone were to tell you that "the hatches were blown"?

It doesn't matter what it means to him. All that matters is what it means to the rules of the game which is nothing. Real world definitions have no bearing on the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WanderingFox wrote:
I dunno the fact that it becomes immobilized and open topped as well as the picture of all the doors being down in the codex give pretty good evidence to the contrary.

You don't have to model everyone of your models exactly as the picture in the books.

gruebot wrote:So just out of curiosity, Insaniak, what does the statement "the hatches are blown" meen to you? What would come to mind if someone were to tell you that "the hatches were blown"?

It means the hatches are satisfied and the money is on the counter.

azazel the cat wrote:

gruebot wrote:So just out of curiosity, Insaniak, what does the statement "the hatches are blown" meen to you? What would come to mind if someone were to tell you that "the hatches were blown"?

It means the hatches are satisfied and the money is on the counter.

I can't believe it took 4 pages for a fellatio reference.

Seriously it's a phrase that could have several real world meanings but has no in game definition (go ahead and find "blown hatches" in the index or defined in any section of the BRB) therefore it is not a rule.

gruebot wrote:So just out of curiosity, Insaniak, what does the statement "the hatches are blown" meen to you? What would come to mind if someone were to tell you that "the hatches were blown"?

It means that they blow the hatches open to disembark.

But, as I have already explained, that has no bearing on the rules, since the rules don't require a vehicle model to have the doors physically open in order for the models on board to disembark. There is generally no need to open them, since you measure from the hull of the vehicle regardless of whether the hatch is up or down.

The only reason that this is even an issue is because some people think that it is abusive being able to leave the doors up to block LOS through the pod. In response to that, I would point out that when the drop pod was released, we had whole bunches of people complaining that it was abusive to draw LOS through the pod...

No answer on this is going to satisfy everyone.

Generally, I think that it's one of those cases that should just be determined before the game: either the hatches will be open, or else closed. Just no half measures, and no surprises.

LOL, Yeah, I totaly understand where your comming from.The dex doesn't specificaly say what happens in plain english. I've seen a drop pod with all its doors open, on a flat surface, block LOS from a certain angle. But, luckily this all most never comes up in tournaments. I'm just surprised that it warranted a four page thread.

I didn't vote because I do not think it's legal to block LOS with some of the doors but fully legal to not open the doors. I've seen the horror of building the GW Drop Pods and could never blame anyone for gluing them shut.

That being said, I'm not a wealthy man so I use red Solo cups with foamcore fins as Drop Pods and have always played it as "doors are open and models can be targeted through it but get a cover save". This makes the most sense to me. I can understand why someone would want it to be different from a tactical view, using doors to block line of sight. But I want my Space Marines to be the near-invincible angels of death that the codex describes, but that's not always the case.

I think that it is about the "spirit of the law" and not the "letter of the law". The DP was designed for all of the doors to be blown open. If the guy wants to play like that and win on that, I would not play him again.

"The hatches are blown open...." ....hmmm.

This is fluff.
This is a guideline.
This is the rule.

I think it is all of the above.

DeathReaper wrote:I make no assumption but I know what 'rules' means.

GW assumes everyone knows what rules means, and once you know what it means then you can tell what is fluff and what is rules.

GW mixes what has become fluff with the rules in their material, because they want to give you some in world guidelines to what the rule is representing. That being said, the "fluff" becomes a guideline for folks to use common sense, and thus, a part of the rules. Yes, I know this is not a popular view, but I find that is what makes games fun, using a little common sense when it comes to rule interpretation.

So "The hatches are blown open..." says to me that this Drop Pod comes screaming out of the sky, charges at the top of the doors go off and blow these hatches open, and ten Space Marines come out and shoot me in the face.

inb4 Common Sense Isn't Common.

You are right that it is fluff.

It may be a guideline, but how do we know if all the charges at the top of the doors actually went off? What if three of them malfunctioned and stayed closed?

It is certainly not rules.

insaniak wrote:"The rules don't require a vehicle model to have the doors physically open in order for the models on board to disembark."

insaniak wrote:"They can claim it's a rule all they want... but it won't have any effect on the game, since there is no defined effect of the hatches being blown."

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Since the hull of the vehicle is defined on p.56 BRB and the rule is that a vehicle can't shoot through its own hull I would think that the doors being closed would block LoS for the built in weapon as well as any troops behind the DP. Otherwise +1.

The Hull of the vehicle is pretty much the main chassis which it is mounted on. Doors are not part of the hull, and I believe that you can fire through them.

Of course, I believe that having part of your vehicle block LoS shouldn't really destroy the outcome. If you had a Land Raider and there were several enemy models hidden under the actual chassis from the multimelta that you had put on top, I think it would be ridiculous just saying that you cannot over 1/2 the models, therefore they get a cover save. So Commander Dante can deep strike with a bunch of Sang. Guard w/ PF right next to you and they get a huge cover save for being close to you...

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Since the hull of the vehicle is defined on p.56 BRB and the rule is that a vehicle can't shoot through its own hull I would think that the doors being closed would block LoS for the built in weapon as well as any troops behind the DP. Otherwise +1.

The Hull of the vehicle is pretty much the main chassis which it is mounted on. Doors are not part of the hull, and I believe that you can fire through them.

Of course, I believe that having part of your vehicle block LoS shouldn't really destroy the outcome. If you had a Land Raider and there were several enemy models hidden under the actual chassis from the multimelta that you had put on top, I think it would be ridiculous just saying that you cannot over 1/2 the models, therefore they get a cover save. So Commander Dante can deep strike with a bunch of Sang. Guard w/ PF right next to you and they get a huge cover save for being close to you...

Yeah, you should totes be able to shoot through your hull and ignore the limitations of the way your vehicle is built. Makes complete sense.

D.Azrinae wrote:"The hatches are blown open...." ....hmmm.

This is fluff.
This is a guideline.
This is the rule.

This is not what it says...

So "The hatches are blown open..." says to me that this Drop Pod comes screaming out of the sky, charges at the top of the doors go off and blow these hatches open, and ten Space Marines come out and shoot me in the face.

Sure. But what about that suggests that the model has to have its doors physically open, when no other transport vehicle in the entire game has to do so?

It's a description of what is happening in the 'real world' when the pod lands. It's not something that has to be represented on the table, because the rules don't say 'The hatches are blown, so the model must be placed with the doors open...'

We don't have to open transport doors for models to get in or out. We don't have to open building doors for the same purpose. Models don't have to actually run across the board. They don't have to actually hit each other with pointy sticks. Vehicles don't need to actually explode when you roll a 6 on the damage chart. Weapons don't actually have to glow, or be possessed by daemons, or have mono-molecular blades that cut through a tomato! A shoe! This anvil!

All of these things are simply fluff descriptions of what is supposedly happening when we pick up a lump of plastic and do something with it.

rigeld2 wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Since the hull of the vehicle is defined on p.56 BRB and the rule is that a vehicle can't shoot through its own hull I would think that the doors being closed would block LoS for the built in weapon as well as any troops behind the DP. Otherwise +1.

The Hull of the vehicle is pretty much the main chassis which it is mounted on. Doors are not part of the hull, and I believe that you can fire through them.

Of course, I believe that having part of your vehicle block LoS shouldn't really destroy the outcome. If you had a Land Raider and there were several enemy models hidden under the actual chassis from the multimelta that you had put on top, I think it would be ridiculous just saying that you cannot over 1/2 the models, therefore they get a cover save. So Commander Dante can deep strike with a bunch of Sang. Guard w/ PF right next to you and they get a huge cover save for being close to you...

Yeah, you should totes be able to shoot through your hull and ignore the limitations of the way your vehicle is built. Makes complete sense.

This is about the Drop Pod. Anyway, I'm trying to point out how some people may use the limitations on LoS due to the hull to bring about major cheese
I'm talking about having Dante attached to a squad and saying he cannot be hit as you cannot see him, yet you still can draw LoS to the squad he joined.

My point about doors being excluded as part of the hull is sttill valid in my opinion.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:This is about the Drop Pod. Anyway, I'm trying to point out how some people may use the limitations on LoS due to the hull to bring about major cheese
I'm talking about having Dante attached to a squad and saying he cannot be hit as you cannot see him, yet you still can draw LoS to the squad he joined.

You brought up the LR. And the shooting rules say that if he's part of the squad he can be hit - even out of LoS.

My point about doors being excluded as part of the hull is sttill valid in my opinion.

So doors are decorative elements? Because they're not "gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners" so we are not told to ignore them when measuring to/from the hull.

DeathReaper wrote:

GW assumes everyone knows what rules means,

GW also tends to assume people can use common sense and not be TFGs when they play the game.

Unfortunately their game has been co-opted by a subset of players that want it to be a sport and/or desire to rules lawyer their opponents into submission.

And thus threads like this exist showing the cancer that has infected the game...

Figured it out. You have to draw LoS from the weapon and measure range from it too. If you cannot see the weapon you cannot draw LoS or measure ranges accurately.

You win, rigeld.

CT GAMER wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

GW assumes everyone knows what rules means,

GW also tends to assume people can use common sense and not be TFGs when they play the game.

Unfortunately their game has been co-opted by a subset of players that want it to be a sport and/or desire to rules lawyer their opponents into submission.

And thus threads like this exist showing the cancer that has infected the game...

agreed, this is why i have yet to play in a tourny setting and prefer fun lists, it is about getting together, rolling some dice and having fun.

to me a drop pod seems liek it shoudl deploy open, but if the opponent wants it clsoed then i really wouldn't care. if he then opened the pedal to get los where my los was blocked i'd just figure the person needs a handicap to have any chance at winning or think that winning is the only important thing to them. either way I'd vocalize that, and brow beat them a bit, but other than that not pay it much mind... if they did things like that alot though i might not want to play them again/often.

there are TFG / WAAC players all around, my usually policy is ignore em and find people to have fun with

G00fySmiley wrote:this is why i have yet to play in a tourny setting and prefer fun lists

What does a tournament have to do with anything?

And why would they not include fun lists?

My questions are these: Why is a poll in YMDC? Shouldn't it be moved to discussion at this point?

CT GAMER wrote:GW also tends to assume people can use common sense and not be TFGs when they play the game.

Unfortunately their game has been co-opted by a subset of players that want it to be a sport and/or desire to rules lawyer their opponents into submission.

And thus threads like this exist showing the cancer that has infected the game...

From my experience, when people start bandying about the 'use common sense instead of being TFG' line, it translates to 'Play with your toy soldiers my way, dammit!' which is ultimately every bit as 'TFG' as the person you're calling a TFG.

You have posted twice in this thread, and neither post actually addressed the topic, but instead served no purpose other than to insult people for having an opinion on the game that is different to your own. If you're not interested in discussing the rules of the game, and find yourself incapable of seeing how interpreting the rules for a game of toy soldiers differently to how you do doesn't make them a bad person, I would recommend just staying out of YMDC.

There is no right or wrong way to play the game, so long as both players are having fun. Insulting people because they don't play the way you do is unnecessary, and unwelcome on this board.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:My questions are these: Why is a poll in YMDC? Shouldn't it be moved to discussion at this point?

Gathering people's opinions on a given rule via a poll is still within the bounds of what YMDC is for. It's not always the most reliable way of forming an opinion on how a rule should work, since people will often just vote from their own understanding of the rule (flawed or not) without actually reading the discussion... but for some people it's enough of an indication of how people actually play it.

kirsanth wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:this is why i have yet to play in a tourny setting and prefer fun lists

What does a tournament have to do with anything?

And why would they not include fun lists?

fun list to me would be like a theme list not just the best units in your codex, but somethign different that makes me and my opponent think about how to work against this because neither person has seen it used before

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/415576.page

This is a little 1750 surprise attack eldar list I plan on using this weekend. it has some weaknesses and will auto fail to some builds... but just something different, something to break up the same old lists you always see... like bw bash, sure it is effective, and I play variants of it, but I can only play against it so many times before I get tired of playing it/against it... or venom spam DE. I know some people just want to win or have super strong armies that have no weakness, and are ok playing the same list over and over again, but I get bored and want change

I'd love to see a tournament where you have to use theme or fun lists... i might actually play in that, might even enjoy it, but even then how do you judge what is a fun list vs a power made take on everything list.; it'd be difficult

insaniak wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:GW also tends to assume people can use common sense and not be TFGs when they play the game.

Unfortunately their game has been co-opted by a subset of players that want it to be a sport and/or desire to rules lawyer their opponents into submission.

And thus threads like this exist showing the cancer that has infected the game...

From my experience, when people start bandying about the 'use common sense instead of being TFG' line, it translates to 'Play with your toy soldiers my way, dammit!' which is ultimately every bit as 'TFG' as the person you're calling a TFG.

You have posted twice in this thread, and neither post actually addressed the topic, but instead served no purpose other than to insult people for having an opinion on the game that is different to your own. If you're not interested in discussing the rules of the game, and find yourself incapable of seeing how interpreting the rules for a game of toy soldiers differently to how you do doesn't make them a bad person, I would recommend just staying out of YMDC.

There is no right or wrong way to play the game, so long as both players are having fun. Insulting people because they don't play the way you do is unnecessary, and unwelcome on this board.

GW staffer's have discussed in print that they find the way that the ultra-competative set approach the game to be very alien and shocking to them at times.

They have discussed how many of the things that have to be FAQ'd to prevent rules abuse are things that most of them would not consider attempting.

I also remember one article in which they discussed the general difference in attitudes and approach to the game between brits and Americans for example.

People looking to rules lawyer are NOT playing the game in the spirit that GW intended. GW has stated very clearly that their general approach is not one in which the goal is to use the rules as a weapon to get your way or some advantage in the game.

The "rules" for a drop pod (or lack of clear ones) is unfortunate because it leaves this gray area for lawyering, but it is pretty clear what the intent was if anyone reads what GW has said about gameplay, and spirit of the game over the years...

IF beng called on unsporting rules lawyering makes people uncomfortable, then perhaps they need to look inward...

Right: To you, the rule is clear... so anyone who disagrees is rules lawyering.

Do you honestly not see how that attitude is every bit is bad as what you're accusing the 'rules lawyers' in this thread of?

The fact that the rule works a given way in your opinion doesn't make it 'right', any more than my opinion is 'right'. They're both just opinions.

And making judgements on a player's character or sportsmanship based on the fact that they disagree with you on whether or not a drop pod should open its doors? That way lies madness.

insaniak wrote:Right: To you, the rule is clear... so anyone who disagrees is rules lawyering.

The rule is very unclear (unfrotunately or we wouldn't be having this problem).

The Drop pod rules shoud state: "when a drop pod's final position is determined the hatches are blown (ie. placed fully down or removed) and remain so as long as the pod is in play. Los can be drawn through a drop pod as per TLOS rules".

However GW left people the loophole to play/model for advantage as discussed in this thread by poor choice of wording. They in effect underestimated the way people would attempt to use the non-specific wording to their advantage.

The spirit of what was intended is very clear if one reads any story, looks at drop pod art, even looks at battlereport that use drop pods. In any WD battle report has it ever discussed doors being selectively manipulated as described in this thread? Gw makes the false assumption that people can connect the dots and stay with the spirit of the game.

And that is the issue, when you continue to argue for/do something when you know it is wrong in spirit then that is where we part ways.

No big deal, peopel can continue to argue and do whatever their opponent allows them to get away with. And hopefully our paths never cross...

CT GAMER wrote: However GW left people the loophole to play/model for advantage as discussed in this thread by poor choice of wording. They in effect underestimated the way people would attempt to use the non-specific wording to their advantage.

Did they?

So if I leave my pod doors up (which I will, since my pods are custom made and don't have opening doors) and it blocks my LOS to a unit of my opponent's that I want to shoot at, am I still rules lawyering?


That's a large part of what makes the claims of rules lawyering so ridiculous here. The pod blocking LOS or not works both ways. And even if you do drop the doors, LOS through the pod isn't great... and from my experience, most players just assume that you can't draw LOS through it anyway (although, horrible rules lawyer that I am, I would have no hesitation in pointing out to them that they can do so if the situation arises).


You're slinging names and stereotypes around over something that simply isn't that big an issue.

insaniak wrote:

So if I leave my pod doors up (which I will, since my pods are custom made and don't have opening doors) and it blocks my LOS to a unit of my opponent's that I want to shoot at, am I still rules lawyering?

This wan't the sticking point of what was being discussed here, nor what i took issue with, but then you know that already.

What was being discussed was leaving some doors up and some doors down or all up or all down by choice at any given point so as to maximize advantage for the owning player.

I assume you can see the difference...

CT GAMER wrote:What was being discussed was leaving some doors up and some doors down or all up or all down by choice at any given point so as to maximize advantage for the owning player.

The idea of opening or closing doors during the game was debunked back on the very first page.

If that's what you're complaining about, you're a bit late. The thread since then has simply been about whether or not it's legal to deploy the pod with the doors closed.

CT GAMER wrote:GW staffer's have discussed in print that they find the way that the ultra-competative set approach the game to be very alien and shocking to them at times.

Can you support this claim? Even if it is true, it's a naive viewpoint. They have created a set of rules by which two people may enter a contest where there is a winner and a loser. The end goal is to have fun and enjoy yourself, but the fact of the matter is, it's a perfectly valid format for a tournament. Many of these tournaments are sponsored by GW themselves, so they propagate this practice. When in the course of playing this game, it becomes necessary for there to be a set of clear, concise rules that two people may agree upon in order to settle disputes. Ignoring that this is a requirement does not make it go away, nor does playing dumb to the fact that people exist who will try to exploit a rules system. Naturally, when prize support is on the line, people will attempt to win that prize support (or even just bragging rights) by building a list that has the maximum number of strengths and minimum number of weaknesses possible, and by taking advantage of rules, terrain, opponent weaknesses, or any manner of other things. This is human nature, and it leads to disputes between players.

GW should not claim surprise that people would attempt such a thing. They should attempt to do their absolute best to make it impossible, but they have never, and will likely never do this. The simple fact is that they are in the business to make money. They are casual gamers (clearly, as other companies have created games with far fewer problems simply by using competent, professional rules designers and an open beta process) that make a game used by a group of players they claim indignation toward, but will not cut off because they want their money. This is naive at best, and I honestly find it difficult to believe. I would assume that by now they would understand that they could make more money by changing their development process just slightly.

CT GAMER wrote:They have discussed how many of the things that have to be FAQ'd to prevent rules abuse are things that most of them would not consider attempting.

Again, citation please? Simply because they would not consider attempting something does not mean that several thousand of their player base would not attempt it in a large tournament where potential financial gain is involved.

CT GAMER wrote:I also remember one article in which they discussed the general difference in attitudes and approach to the game between brits and Americans for example.

We are two very different cultures, obviously or we would all still be under the same leadership. It was their choice to release their game in America, and to ignore the attitude and approach of such a huge customer base is a poor way to run a company. It is obviously necessary to have a cut-and-dried set of rules, and simply claiming otherwise because of cultural differences will not make that go away. By contrast, look at WoW. Americans are relatively hardcore when it comes to online games such as World of Warcraft, but Korea takes it to a whole new level. They exploit every angle of the system for actual financial gain by selling gold, something that is against the EULA and something that most Americans wouldn't consider (because it's illegal and perhaps partially out of laziness) but Blizzard made actual in-game changes that made it more difficult to gold farm. Claiming indignation would get your point across, but it wouldn't make it go away so they took action. All I want is for GW to do the same with their game.

CT GAMER wrote:People looking to rules lawyer are NOT playing the game in the spirit that GW intended. GW has stated very clearly that their general approach is not one in which the goal is to use the rules as a weapon to get your way or some advantage in the game.

They can say that all they want, but the cold hard truth is that people exist who will do that, and they go to tournaments. Saying something is against your intent when designing rules is all fine and good, but unless something in the rules (or an FAQ/Errata) prevents it from actually working against that intent, the intent itself is MEANINGLESS. I would consider myself a Rules Lawyer simply because I have spent a LOT of time combing the rules to find exploits and loopholes, and reading these forums. The difference is, I do it for awareness. I do it to know what kinds of things to expect if I run into a player attempting to exploit them at an event. I keep up with the FAQ and read the various discussions simply so that I know what the different viewpoints are. I find that knowing these things and bringing them up in a casual manner during a game against a WAAC player diffuses the situation. He knows I know the rules, and many of his attempts to exploit them stop and we get down to business.

The people I normally play against strive to know the issues so we can come to a group consensus on how something should be played. We go with RAW whenever possible, even if it might be against intent, unless it is clearly a game-breaking issue. We have fun playing. We enjoy ourselves and actual arguments while playing the game are few and far between. We are competitive, strong willed players and we bring lists designed to be effective in order to sharpen our skills unless someone specifically says they want a casual game using models they would not normally use, and we have fun. The thing that upsets me the most about people that share your argument is that you assume that simply because a player like me wants to play with a clear set of rules and official FAQ preventing exploits that we are not in this to have fun, and that we don't play to enjoy the game. I most certainly do play to enjoy the game, and have done so for almost 13 years. And you know what? Some of my most UN-ENJOYABLE games have been against players who assume that because I know the rules and call them out when they break them, that I am a bad person and am playing against the spirit of the game.

CT GAMER wrote:The "rules" for a drop pod (or lack of clear ones) is unfortunate because it leaves this gray area for lawyering, but it is pretty clear what the intent was if anyone reads what GW has said about gameplay, and spirit of the game over the years...

Do not assume intent on the part of GW. Their intent could be completely opposite from what you think it is. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Space Marines, being tactically superior to almost every army in the galaxy, will consider things such as which doors to blow on their Drop Pod when it lands to offer maximum cover to disembarking infantry. If GW intended for the model to have all of the doors open and close together, they could easily have done so with an interlocking gear mechanism at the base of each door rather than making them open and close independently.

CT GAMER wrote:IF beng called on unsporting rules lawyering makes people uncomfortable, then perhaps they need to look inward...

And perhaps your unwillingness to accept that there is more than one valid way to play this game means you should consider taking your own advice.

For the record, my stance is that the model should function exactly as it was designed. In other words, some, none or all of the doors may be opened when the model is placed on the table based on the situation at hand. However, they block LoS for the Storm Bolter inside the model as well. There are currently no rules that allow or disallow this, however, and so players should decide before the game starts how they will handle Drop Pods.

Why not just glue the door shut to block LOS or not block LOS depending on what you agree to with opponent beforehand, and then model the SB or ML on the outside so that the weapon can always shoot? Since you're modeling for advantage anyway, why not go the whole way and WAAC-out.

Gluing the doors shut is not modeling for advantage. It is just called modeling.

Putting it on a scenic diorama base that blocks LoS more than the pod could block on its own is modeling for advantage.

CT GAMER wrote:What was being discussed was leaving some doors up and some doors down or all up or all down by choice at any given point so as to maximize advantage for the owning player.

That same person apparently changed which doors were open for the same reason that they used the first time.

Kir is correct.

Deploying the model one way, and changing it mid-game without explicit permission from the rules (Like turret facing) is what is not legal within the rules.

Deploying the pod with doors open, closed, or a combination of both and leaving it that way the whole game is (as far as we can tell) legal.

GW does not cover modeling aspects in the BRB. so we are left with kind of an ad hoc situation.

Aldarionn wrote:it's a perfectly valid format for a tournament.

I disagree. But then I simply don't play them, so problem solved.

The best way to deal with this matter is to have a stores and players to come up with their own FAQ about DP, and stated that either the dam thing is close or open (when it lands). I know in our store that all DP are deploy open, you can't leave the door shut. If it glued you still can have draw LOS to any target onthe other side of the DP.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:The best way to deal with this matter is to have a stores and players to come up with their own FAQ about DP, and stated that either the dam thing is close or open (when it lands).

What's wrong with simply treating them as closed if they're closed, and open if they're open? No FAQ required.

5th Ed rulebook, page 2, Paragraph 3: wrote:

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is yours.

If someone I was playing pulled that gak on me I'd say "Nice one, you win", shake his hand, pack up my guys and leave.

Forgeworld isn't so sloppy.

IA Apocalypse 2, page 31 - Lucius pattern dreadnaught drop pod wrote:

ACCESS POINTS: All round (its doors open when the pod lands).

Personally I'd use that as a precedent and leave it at that...

rob-or-ross wrote:

5th Ed rulebook, page 2, Paragraph 3: wrote:

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is yours.

If someone I was playing pulled that gak on me I'd say "Nice one, you win", shake his hand, pack up my guys and leave.

Forgeworld isn't so sloppy.

IA Apocalypse 2, page 31 - Lucius pattern dreadnaught drop pod wrote:

ACCESS POINTS: All round (its doors open when the pod lands).

Personally I'd use that as a precedent and leave it at that...

See I see that as unsporting. why would you just stop. I dont see why you would take the game that seriously and act childish and leave like that. My buddy who got slaughtered stayed. He even said he would play the kid again, know he knows he would do that he would figure out a different strategy why play if your gona take the game super ceral seriously?

Do you just rage quit playing MW3 when someone used the UMP wit the silencer and rapid fire and just rapes the map? no you play and try to figure out ways to kill that guy.

Personally I think people who rage quit are cowards and no offence childish. Not trying to piss off anyone but... How sportsman would it be if you did something your opponent did not like and he was like omfg im done you win, just packs up and leaves and ignores you when you want to play a friendly game?

And getting to the IA armor thing... The Land raiders have access points in the back sides etc... but that doesn't mean your models have to disembark through all of them. And it does not say all its doors open when it lands. Just decide on what your going to do with ur DP b4 the game starts so when you do, do it, your opponent wont throw a tantrum and pack up and leave.

Might not have come across as I wanted to there.

It's not rage quitting since I would not loose my temper.

It is not childish or unsporting either.
I will not play with cheats.
And I would point out that I would not in the first instance sit back and take it.

I would first express that I think that what my opponent is doing goes against the spirit of the game and I am not happy, I would then (should he insist on playing that way) quit.

Cowardice is a strong word, I play this game for fun. If some "win at all costs" kid is going to try to suck all the fun out of the game then there is no point in playing.

He gets to tell all his friends that he won and I get to spend my time doing something more fun - like rubbing my face vigorously with a cheese grater.

If I did something my opponent did not like (happens all the time with forgeworld units, converted minis, prone melta squads etc.) then I ask what the problem is and come to an amicable arrangement because I am not a childish coward I am a grown man who can take responsibility for his actions.

Now, to clarify, my above reaction would be to an opponent altering his model mid-game for advantage, not claiming he can open only a few doors.
My reaction to the claim that you can open some doors but not all would be gentle piss-taking initially followed by a discussion leading to a mutually agreed compromise.

As for the IA thing (and I know that as it is in IA it isn't exactly relevant)

I know it doesn't say all doors but unless you read English as a second language it is pretty clear.

Also who cares about Land Raiders?
We are not talking about Land Raiders.

It has nothing to do with access points and where you have to be 2 inches from exactly. I only mentioned it because it clearly states that the reason the access points are "all around" is because the doors open when it lands.

Not "some of the doors", not "the player can choose to open the doors", doors required to allow disembarkation will open" but simply "the doors".


Finally and if anyone even cares at this point other than for the purposes of a good scrap - the obvious solution to this problem is to model the drop pod with no doors on it at all.

However the crux of the matter is (as I mentioned in my previous post) that only the two players involved can make this decision.

It is not cheating. The rules are unspecific. I would still say b4 the game starts decide.

The cheating is in reference to altering the model during play (in this instance changing some of the doors from closed to open).

i will agree that is cheating if your gona play the DP doors closed then open them and shoot my guys but saying their closed I wouldnt call that cheating. Then accusing the player of cheating and finishing the game or even if you dont accuse him and finish thats a rage to me and unsporting. Its aonly a game. Any one who calls off a game because of anothers tactic is childish.

I would agree that it is cheating to open and close the doors but something unspecific like landing open or closed then no.

usmcmidn wrote:i will agree that is cheating if your gona play the DP doors closed then open them and shoot my guys but saying their closed I wouldnt call that cheating. Then accusing the player of cheating and finishing the game or even if you dont accuse him and finish thats a rage to me and unsporting. Its aonly a game. Any one who calls off a game because of anothers tactic is childish.

I would agree that it is cheating to open and close the doors but something unspecific like landing open or closed then no.

You're playing a friendly game of soccer (or football everywhere else that actually plays it) and your team and the other teamplay to 2-2, and they change the rules halfway through the game. They get nine more goalies in front of the net in addition to their current team.

How is that fun? Acting in rational self interest, I'd walk way too. In fact, an argument could be made that that allowing a person or group of people to walk all over someone like that is unhealthy.

Give me proof its cheating. To some those are the rules. Again until it is definitively proven work out Wat ur gona do b4 the game.

Don't cry its a game of strategy ... That could b ones strategy .

While my first post could have been misunderstood if not misread I tried to be extremely clear with my second post.

Perhaps my post was too long?

To summarise:

Rules discussions should be settled as if between gentlemen - it is a British game after all.

Withdrawing when a player is cheating for advantage is not childish, unsporting or raging.
It is simply refusing to pander to the whims of a spoilt brat with no discipline.

If enough players refuse to play against them they will change their ways or never play again.

Games of strategy and tactics rely on honour, if your opponent has none then there merit in playing.

I have ended games before when my opponent has tampered with my minis while I was in the bathroom, fielded more units than in his list or repeatedly used a single dice to make practised rolls for advantage.

We all should, it might bring a bit of maturity and circumspection to the gaming masses.

rob-or-ross wrote:While my first post could have been misunderstood if not misread I tried to be extremely clear with my second post.

Perhaps my post was too long?

To summarise:

Rules discussions should be settled as if between gentlemen - it is a British game after all.

Withdrawing when a player is cheating for advantage is not childish, unsporting or raging.
It is simply refusing to pander to the whims of a spoilt brat with no discipline.

If enough players refuse to play against them they will change their ways or never play again.

Games of strategy and tactics rely on honour, if your opponent has none then there merit in playing.

I have ended games before when my opponent has tampered with my minis while I was in the bathroom, fielded more units than in his list or repeatedly used a single dice to make practised rolls for advantage.

We all should, it might bring a bit of maturity and circumspection to the gaming masses.

^ this. Give this man a cookie.

I can see tampering with ur figures but just stop playing because he did the loS thing?

i wasnt talking about tampering or anything. Leaving a game because you think your getting cheated when your opponent isnt is childish. But in that case I would agree with you.

But we must understand my interpretation of the rules may b different urs and vice versa and that is y w.e you think you should agree b4 the game starts. After all it is a gentlemen s game.

I just hate arguing and petty gak.

This thread would appear to have reached the point where it's wandering into side-topics and people just posting off the original post without reading the thread first.

As such, I think it's time to give it a rest.