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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can when they're the same unit.

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

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

How I Play It:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAW yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Yay... this thread again...

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

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

Rhinos are not open topped

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you mean?

Call your opponent on disembarking?

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

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

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

This is just a tiresome thread to resurrect.

Solo can you please answer my question. Thank you.

Can you watch your tone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Can you watch your tone?

Now I am confused, is this a serious question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Can you watch your tone?

Now I am confused, is this a serious question?

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

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

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

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

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

If you deploy it with doors closed, it blocks LOS as the game has, for many editions now, used TLOS

There is no rule requiring you to lower the doors, and whether the doors are lowered or not has absolutely no bearing on whether the models inside can disembark.

Jinx - yo uare actually wrong about the question. Insaniak has it 100% correct - the question asked is:

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

The condition is you ARE deploying the pod with the doors closed, so as a result does this block LOS. The correct answer is "yes", otherwise you are playing a houserule

Jimsolo, I would absolutely agree that the intent is for the pod to be deployed doors open. The simple fact that the pod's weapon is on the inside it's more than enough of a clue there.


But the simple fact is that many players are not going to do so, either because they glued the doors shut for one reason or another, because the terrain doesn't permit it, or because they're using non-GW pods.

The issue I have with pretending in those situations that the pod on the table is actually a regular GW pod with doors down is that it is practically impossible to actually do so.

Let's say you're trying to shoot through the pod at a single marine on the other side. He could be in full view through the gaps. He could be partially obscured by the harness, or he could be completely hidden by the central console. How on earth do you tell, when you can't actually see it?

Far, far easier to just treat the pod on the table as the pod on the table and let true line of sight be true line of sight.

 insaniak wrote:
Far, far easier to just treat the pod on the table as the pod on the table and let true line of sight be true line of sight.

Agreed, it is easier. That is fine for casual games and such, but at more serious levels of play, we often do things that are more difficult to ensure fairness.

WYSIWYG is a good example. It's easier for me to say "the grey based IG Vets are my special weapons guys. They have whatever my army list says they have." This is fine for many games, but not tournaments with WYSIWYG restrictions. If I want 3x Plasmas, I have to model 3x Plasmas.

I see MFA as the key feature of this argument. The doors on the Drop Pod are supposed to open. The gun is on the inside. The instructions instruct you to. It's an open-top vehicle. The fluff describes it. Etc. Each reason on their own (except the gun being inside) is a bit flimsy. Taken together, fairly strong case.

However, the doors are hinged on crappy joints. The model itself not the easiest GW product to assemble. It has one of the worst points costs to $US value ratios - thus motivating many people to make their own or buy cheaper imitations. Transporting a fragile, bulky, expensive, commonly used model is no fun either.

I can see why people want closed doors. It makes sense, it's reasonable, and it's easier, but it's MFA.

HIWPI - a sealed Drop Pod should have the same general footprint as an open doored one.
Shooting through a sealed Drop Pod always grants a 5+ cover save. Sure, sometimes it would be no save, but sometimes it might completely block TLOS. A steady 5+ is my compromise.

RAW - I think the a sealed drop pod is MFA. It's an extremely reasonable case of it, much like a self defense case of manslaughter. I would not cite a player for this or cause a fuss unless there were other circumstances. I would suggest the player's try to play the sealed Drop Pod as if it was correctly assembled, using much the same guidelines as HIWPI above.

RAI - I think the sealed Drop Pod is flatly better than the open Drop Pod. This irks me. 40k is often a game of trade-offs. Do I give a unit special weapon X or special weapon Y? Each is good in its own way. The sealed drop pod can be place in much smaller areas than an open Drop Pod. The troops coming out of the sealed Drop Pods can be placed closer to their target for Melta fire and/or future Assaults. The TLOS blocking can be a huge issue, especially considering the guidance system on the DP allows for low risk precision placement. I do not think this is what GW intended.

Is it still modelling for advantage if the only player who benefits from the pod providing more solid cover is your opponent?

And in a game where you can change how a model interacts with cover and what it can shoot at by choosing whether to use the standing legs or the kneeling ones, is it really worth all the fuss?

We have a whole forum here devoted to fuss

And yes, even if I was the SM player with sealed Drop Pods, I would give my IG Gunline opponent TLOS through my DPs - and apologize for my reasonable laziness

 insaniak wrote:
Jimsolo, I would absolutely agree that the intent is for the pod to be deployed doors open. The simple fact that the pod's weapon is on the inside it's more than enough of a clue there.


But the simple fact is that many players are not going to do so, either because they glued the doors shut for one reason or another, because the terrain doesn't permit it, or because they're using non-GW pods.

The issue I have with pretending in those situations that the pod on the table is actually a regular GW pod with doors down is that it is practically impossible to actually do so.

Let's say you're trying to shoot through the pod at a single marine on the other side. He could be in full view through the gaps. He could be partially obscured by the harness, or he could be completely hidden by the central console. How on earth do you tell, when you can't actually see it?

Far, far easier to just treat the pod on the table as the pod on the table and let true line of sight be true line of sight.

I've always seen it played that the unit being shot at gets the standard cover save for firing through a unit. I've never had it come up that the target might have been COMPLETELY obscured by the pod gubbins, but if it ever does, I would probably just give my opponent the benefit of the doubt (whichever way that would work out for him). I can at least see where you're coming from now, though. I'm still never going to try and run it that way, since I think it would benefit me more than my opponent, and I don't want people thinking I'm trying to pull a fast one.

Cover for firing through a unit applies when the LOS passes between models. You'll never get cover from a single model unit unless the model is actually obscuring the target.

I think the line of reasoning still tracks though, and everyone I've played seems to think it's a reasonable way to play it, too. It's not a perfect solution, but it's both reasonable and expedient, so I think it's the best one. I've yet to encounter an argument at the table.

The majority of players at my FLGS have GW sealed door Drop Pods. I also don't recall an argument over it. At most, a 60 second discussion is enough to settle it.

I don't say a word when they fire the SB out. When I shoot through them, I tell them to take a 5+ cover save. In casual games, we tend to tell our opponents when they get a cover save. Mostly an honor system.

If it's not a tournament, I just eat the disadvantage they get in location and proximity. If it is a tournament, the TO has said, play it as though the doors are open.

It's modeling for advantage is the bottom line. At tournament I'd call a TO and in a friendly game I'd pack up and play someone else.

I agree that it should be if it is closed and blocks tlos then no storm bolter as well

 General_Chaos wrote:
It's modeling for advantage is the bottom line. At tournament I'd call a TO and in a friendly game I'd pack up and play someone else.

No, it isnt. There is no requirement, in the rules, to fold the doors down.

I think it would do most of us well to remember that this forum is usually used for determining RAW - with that in mind, why are we calling each other out for breaking the game's fun when this is just a forum? I doubt many of us in this thread, if any at all, seek to use the door-closing for advantage, though I know some have in the past.

To the issue at hand:

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

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

I feel these points pretty much sum up the argument either side. Thing is, all the "for" arguments are RAW. All the "against" arguments are fluff-based and therefore RAI.
If you look at the rules for open-topped vehicles, nothing states the model has to appear open-topped for it to count, only that the unit has the rule to begin with. Also with disembarking, you need an access point to disembark - but this is the entire vehicle anyway when we're talking about open-topped. Nothing states the model has to be able to open those access points, or as rightly mentioned already, other vehicles like Rhinos or Razorbacks would be unusable if modelled as the instructions tell you to.

So, strict RAW, nothing forces you to have the doors open *OR* closed, and true line of sight applies in either case (even though this means that with the doors shut, the pod cannot fire). I've felt this is in need of clarification either by FAQ or new rules in Codexes for as long as I've known about the pod rules - sadly it doesn't look like they're coming any time soon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 General_Chaos wrote:
It's modeling for advantage is the bottom line. At tournament I'd call a TO and in a friendly game I'd pack up and play someone else.

No, it isnt. There is no requirement, in the rules, to fold the doors down.

We had this occur at our club - everyone there considered the person who suggested it to be trying to rule lawyer for his advantge in a friendly setting.....strange how many of these game lawyers do this about rules that only give them an advantage and get other rules wrong........

I voted that the doors all blast open and remain open - which is what we play at our club, otherwise your just twisting things IMO

Ah, love those negative aspersions, they really help a debate proceed in a friendly manner.

Explain how you are twisting things. Please show the rule requiring ANY vehicles doors to open in order for the unit inside to disembark. Page and paragraph will be sufficient.

We've always played it that TLOS is paramount.

i.e, if I can't see through your pod's closed doors then it can't shoot me with its storm bolter, etc.

I don't know what having the doors open means for disembarking however, a rhino's doors don't have to open for you to disembark.

Iranna.

I'd like to purpose a scenario. Say I was playing with two drop pods: one with doors that can open and one that have doors glued shut because I got tired of trying to assemble it otherwise. It would be possible to draw TLOS through the pod with the open doors but not the pod with the doors glued shut?

In a game, would they be treated differently in terms of TLOS.

It's actually quite simple, the GW model as shown is doors open. Any variation is your own model (like the soul grinders that are damn near laying down to always get 25% cover from the aegis defense line).
The vehicle is designed to represent and open topped vehicle (with no individual access points), a closed drop pod does not represent this and it different from the GW model.
Like I said you can just dice off if your opponent is being a jerk about it, but my argument to take that a step further would be that if you are using a custom model that changes the rules (blocking los where the GW correctly modeled one would not) then it shouldn't be treated as open topped and with no access points you can't disembark then you can dice off about that

Also show me a rule that says I can't model my devistators to stand on dead rip tides as part of their base to gain extra height to see over the entire battle field? you see where this line of reasoning goes.

Bottom line, stop trying to win though modeling

Kisada II wrote:
It's actually quite simple, the GW model as shown is doors open. Any variation is your own model (like the soul grinders that are damn near laying down to always get 25% cover from the aegis defense line).
The vehicle is designed to represent and open topped vehicle (with no individual access points), a closed drop pod does not represent this and it different from the GW model.
Like I said you can just dice off if your opponent is being a jerk about it, but my argument to take that a step further would be that if you are using a custom model that changes the rules (blocking los where the GW correctly modeled one would not) then it shouldn't be treated as open topped and with no access points you can't disembark then you can dice off about that

Also show me a rule that says I can't model my devistators to stand on dead rip tides as part of their base to gain extra height to see over the entire battle field? you see where this line of reasoning goes.

Bottom line, stop trying to win though modeling

Then I assume all your models are built in the exact same pose as those in the instructions? Better not see any purity seals on those sgts! And you can forget having tactical marines with meltaguns...

You see where this line of reasoning goes.

Caboose

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, love those negative aspersions, they really help a debate proceed in a friendly manner.

Explain how you are twisting things. Please show the rule requiring ANY vehicles doors to open in order for the unit inside to disembark. Page and paragraph will be sufficient.

The description clearly states how drop pods work - it lands - the doors blast open on bolts and those inside disembark - totally unlike a normal vehicle. If you can't see how opening none or only some of the doors is twisting the intentions then lets just agree to disagree as we clearly want different things from our games and its easier to just not argue about these things.............

Kisada II wrote:
it shouldn't be treated as open topped and with no access points you can't disembark

RAW, It is not Open Topped because the doors open. it is Open Topped because the rules say it is Open Topped. Open topped vehicles do not require access points for Embarked units to Disembark.

Ah ok, so you are making a non-rules argument, based on what you think the intent of the designers was?

Then can i point you to the tenets, where you are required to state you arent making a rules argument, just a HIWPI one.

 Mr Morden wrote:


The description clearly states how drop pods work - it lands - the doors blast open on bolts and those inside disembark - totally unlike a normal vehicle. If you can't see how opening none or only some of the doors is twisting the intentions then lets just agree to disagree as we clearly want different things from our games and its easier to just not argue about these things.............

Since when did fluff - outside of specific instances laid out by GW - ever dictate rules?

If that's the case, shouldn't damaged necrons just get teleported back to the Tomb and therefore, not count as being removed as casualties? They do get repaired after all.

Iranna.

Lets just agree to disagree as we clearly want different things from our games and its easier to just not argue about these things.............

@Mr Morden - It's been my experience that there are two types of people in forums like this. People who come seeking wisdom, and people who come to create wisdom.

The creation of wisdom is messy work, much more so than making omelets. We break not mere eggs, but our beliefs, egos, ignorance.

We break them to make ourselves stronger. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change.

Of course, there is also the 3rd type of person. The one who goes to a Boxing Prize Fight and stands up to ask "why all the violence?"

Ok so here is the reason you always play it as does not black LOS. The simple answer is consistency and Modeling for advantage.

1.) If you state that Pods with doors glued shut, those that want them to BLOS will glue them shut, and those that want LOS will model them as being able to open.

2.) For those that argue well if all the doors are shut you cannot fire the gun, ok why can I not glue say 2 or 3 shut and not the other doors, pod in with those door facing you open them and shoot while I get out with the doors blocking LOS. After all there are no rules stating I need to open all the doors.

Essentially you need consistency either, the doors always count as closed in all cases, in which case all pods BLOS, or they always count as open, and don't block. Given that the intent of the model is that the doors open on impact the second is the stronger interpretation.

Yes other models have opening doors, (and doors that cannot open) but none of this impacts the way they impact the game. If I open the rear hatch on a Chimera you cannot see through it.

Essentially as most other things GW it is not designed for competitive play, but at that level you need a consistent interpretation of how the model works concerning LOS, anthing else is akin to allowing a 2" tall daemon prince (nothing in the actual rules makes this illegal ether.)

Breng77 wrote:
Ok so here is the reason you always play it as does not black LOS. The simple answer is consistency and Modeling for advantage.

1.) If you state that Pods with doors glued shut, those that want them to BLOS will glue them shut, and those that want LOS will model them as being able to open.

2.) For those that argue well if all the doors are shut you cannot fire the gun, ok why can I not glue say 2 or 3 shut and not the other doors, pod in with those door facing you open them and shoot while I get out with the doors blocking LOS. After all there are no rules stating I need to open all the doors.

Essentially you need consistency either, the doors always count as closed in all cases, in which case all pods BLOS, or they always count as open, and don't block. Given that the intent of the model is that the doors open on impact the second is the stronger interpretation.

Yes other models have opening doors, (and doors that cannot open) but none of this impacts the way they impact the game. If I open the rear hatch on a Chimera you cannot see through it.

Essentially as most other things GW it is not designed for competitive play, but at that level you need a consistent interpretation of how the model works concerning LOS, anthing else is akin to allowing a 2" tall daemon prince (nothing in the actual rules makes this illegal ether.)

It's been awhile since I built a rhino but I'm pretty sure if you don't glue the side doors shut you can see through it... So can I always see through the middle of my rhinos? I've been playing it wrong all these years!!

There's no ground for a MFA argument, TLOS works both ways. If I pod in and hide my guys behind a closed pod so you don't have LOS then they don't have LOS either. And if you say "well you get to place the pod so it blocks what you want it to!" then that's deploying for advantage. You gonna call someone a cheater for blocking LOS by parking a LR in front of you? If anything, it's more of a disadvantage to the owning player since they can't fire the weapon inside. Sure it's not a major one, but a disadvantage is a disadvantage.

I partially agree with your consistency argument. If someone is playing with multiple pods then they should play them all the same. But if I'd rather give up my stormbolter/crap missle launcher to block LOS and my opponent prefers to get his 2 awesomesauce shots/crap template then I dont see any problem.

Caboose

Glue them shut? do you mean glue them on, as they are not attached by anything else. SO yeah if you don't put doors on so you can see through yeah you are MFA.


So say I am playing an assaulty Dread in my pod, I don't care about LOS to you at all, so I glue 2 of the doors shut and get out behind them, and still shoot you with my awesome storm bolter.

I laugh that you think it is some kind of disadvantage to me that I cannot shoot a storm bolter. Say I am playing an asasult army well I have now the advantage of dropping a LOS blocking wall between you and me, which I can then run around and assault you next turn.

As for consistency it is not just the same player it is all players. The same model should be treated the same by al players within reason.

Your TLOS argument works for my 2" tall DP too he can't see you over terrain either, but it is still MFA. Essentially MFA is making a choice at the modeling stage to gain an advantage. If I have glued the doors shut to gain an advantage, then I am MFA.

Also, in your case do I need to glue the doors or can I just decide, hey your a shooty army I'll just leave some doors up. Or if I can put them down do I have to?

Look at rulings at more or less any major Tournament, you'll see most play the doors always open.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just as some Reference

NOVA open FAQ
 To avoid confusion, gaming the system, pressuring players to play it “your” way, etc., treat drop pod doors as open NO MATTER WHAT; do not treat them as closed if glued shut.

Adepticon/BAO/Wargmes CONFAQ

• The doors of a drop pod model are ignored for all game purposes (e.g. they never block LoS, they may not be disembarked from, and enemy models do not need to remain 1” away from them).

foolishmortal wrote:
@Mr Morden - It's been my experience that there are two types of people in forums like this. People who come seeking wisdom, and people who come to create wisdom.

The creation of wisdom is messy work, much more so than making omelets. We break not mere eggs, but our beliefs, egos, ignorance.

We break them to make ourselves stronger. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change.

Of course, there is also the 3rd type of person. The one who goes to a Boxing Prize Fight and stands up to ask "why all the violence?"

I expressed my opinion and then decided to refrain from a long and eventually nasty slagging match that would get the thread closed down

I like violence when it happens to other people

In this case we have such diametrically opposed views thats its really not worth the time for anyone of use to debate (or even type answers whilst getting annoyed - been there - done that..........no one wins.

(Necrons do get teleported back - thats when they are removed from the table and then they rendered down into energy to create new ones as per the Codex fluff)

Breng77 wrote:
Glue them shut? do you mean glue them on, as they are not attached by anything else. SO yeah if you don't put doors on so you can see through yeah you are MFA.


So say I am playing an assaulty Dread in my pod, I don't care about LOS to you at all, so I glue 2 of the doors shut and get out behind them, and still shoot you with my awesome storm bolter.

I laugh that you think it is some kind of disadvantage to me that I cannot shoot a storm bolter. Say I am playing an asasult army well I have now the advantage of dropping a LOS blocking wall between you and me, which I can then run around and assault you next turn.

As for consistency it is not just the same player it is all players. The same model should be treated the same by al players within reason.

Your TLOS argument works for my 2" tall DP too he can't see you over terrain either, but it is still MFA. Essentially MFA is making a choice at the modeling stage to gain an advantage. If I have glued the doors shut to gain an advantage, then I am MFA.

Also, in your case do I need to glue the doors or can I just decide, hey your a shooty army I'll just leave some doors up. Or if I can put them down do I have to?

Look at rulings at more or less any major Tournament, you'll see most play the doors always open.

The loss of a gun is still technically a disadvantage.

There is no MFA argument here. If I had 6 FW pods would I be cheating? Even open you can't see through them, and they were the original pod. You can't claim MFA because I glued doors shut. If I used a RT era Avatar on the correct base size am I cheating? I've followed every rule in the book.

Caboose


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty sure there's some NOVA FAQs that have gone against what GW FAQ'd...So that's kind of a moot point.

Caboose

The game uses True Line of sight, as per page 8 of the BRB, you have to trace a direct line between the firing model, and his target. if anything is intervening, it blocks LOS.

The drop pod has the following rules:

Transport, Open topped, drop pod assault, inertial guidance system, and immobile,

The Transport rules given are:

The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single dreadnaught or Thunderfire cannon.

Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark, as normal. Once passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Dop for the remainder of the game.

C:SM pg 69

The Transport Rule given in C:SM does not state that the hatches are blown open simply that they are blown. the intent is clear imo that the doors are intended to be opened, but this is not stated in the rules, so RAW there is no reason that they cannot be kept closed, especially because the rules for open topped vehicles state, that the whole vehicle is an access point, and thus whether the doors be open or closed, you can still disembark. The open topped rules ALSO mean that if the doors are in the open position, you can measure from any point you like on the model, potentially gaining a few extra inches of movement.
If the doors are closed TLOS means that the doors block LOS, and also that the Drop Dop itself cannot fire its storm bolter or deathwind launcher since it cannot trace LOS through the LOS blocking doors.

The rules also do not state that the doors have to remain in the open or closed position (although the intent i feel is pretty clear) so RAW its also legal to open or close them whenever you feel the inclination

RAW, they block TLOS and you don't have to open the doors

HIWPI is that the doors open when the drop pod lands, and stay open

IamCaboose wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Glue them shut? do you mean glue them on, as they are not attached by anything else. SO yeah if you don't put doors on so you can see through yeah you are MFA.


So say I am playing an assaulty Dread in my pod, I don't care about LOS to you at all, so I glue 2 of the doors shut and get out behind them, and still shoot you with my awesome storm bolter.

I laugh that you think it is some kind of disadvantage to me that I cannot shoot a storm bolter. Say I am playing an asasult army well I have now the advantage of dropping a LOS blocking wall between you and me, which I can then run around and assault you next turn.

As for consistency it is not just the same player it is all players. The same model should be treated the same by al players within reason.

Your TLOS argument works for my 2" tall DP too he can't see you over terrain either, but it is still MFA. Essentially MFA is making a choice at the modeling stage to gain an advantage. If I have glued the doors shut to gain an advantage, then I am MFA.

Also, in your case do I need to glue the doors or can I just decide, hey your a shooty army I'll just leave some doors up. Or if I can put them down do I have to?

Look at rulings at more or less any major Tournament, you'll see most play the doors always open.

The loss of a gun is still technically a disadvantage.

There is no MFA argument here. If I had 6 FW pods would I be cheating? Even open you can't see through them, and they were the original pod. You can't claim MFA because I glued doors shut. If I used a RT era Avatar on the correct base size am I cheating? I've followed every rule in the book.

Caboose


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty sure there's some NOVA FAQs that have gone against what GW FAQ'd...So that's kind of a moot point.

Caboose

So I post the FAQs for the 4 largest 40k tournaments(at least in the States, actually I think Feast of Blades uses the BAO/Adepticon/Wargamescon FAQ as well) as how you will most often see it played. Sure it may not be RAW, but it still shows how most large events play it. As such it is reasonable to think that might be how many people will play it.

So essentially you don't believe in MFA, fine, good luck in with that in competitive play. As to answer your questions about those models. If you aquired them specifically in order to use the advantages...yes you are "cheating". Furthermore I would expect you to play them as if they were the appropriate size/ LOS blocking as the GW model (were I the TO at your event.). Essentially this is an unanswerable question RAW, if you want any kind of consistency. Therefore each event will make a call on it (until GW does, which they won't, because if you asked them they would probably expect that your doors would open and would not understand the other side.), and as I have shown it is reasonable to expect them to rule, pods don't BLOS. So if you don't intend on tournament play any way your group plays is fine, if you plan on going to tournaments practicing with them not blocking LOS is the way to go.

madtankbloke wrote:
The game uses True Line of sight, as per page 8 of the BRB, you have to trace a direct line between the firing model, and his target. if anything is intervening, it blocks LOS.

The drop pod has the following rules:

Transport, Open topped, drop pod assault, inertial guidance system, and immobile,

The Transport rules given are:

The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single dreadnaught or Thunderfire cannon.

Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark, as normal. Once passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Dop for the remainder of the game.

C:SM pg 69

The Transport Rule given in C:SM does not state that the hatches are blown open simply that they are blown. the intent is clear imo that the doors are intended to be opened, but this is not stated in the rules, so RAW there is no reason that they cannot be kept closed, especially because the rules for open topped vehicles state, that the whole vehicle is an access point, and thus whether the doors be open or closed, you can still disembark. The open topped rules ALSO mean that if the doors are in the open position, you can measure from any point you like on the model, potentially gaining a few extra inches of movement.
If the doors are closed TLOS means that the doors block LOS, and also that the Drop Dop itself cannot fire its storm bolter or deathwind launcher since it cannot trace LOS through the LOS blocking doors.

The rules also do not state that the doors have to remain in the open or closed position (although the intent i feel is pretty clear) so RAW its also legal to open or close them whenever you feel the inclination

RAW, they block TLOS and you don't have to open the doors

HIWPI is that the doors open when the drop pod lands, and stay open

This.

RAW it's perfectly legal, and that's how I play it. Me and a frequent opponent( who disagrees with the RAW interpretation) generally play it this way, and then in our next game we play it as most agree is RAI. In a tournament our TO plays it RAW until there's something official saying otherwise.

MFA has become a staple argument of those with no rules to back them up. It's almost as bad as the the ole "Specific>General" mess people try.

Caboose

You do know that the rule book contains little to no rules about models at all right? So by your argument, I can model things anyway I please and it is ok. MFA is a tournament standard (much like WYSIWYG, time limits, preset terrain etc.), rather than part of the core rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
if your area plays it as it blocks that is up to them. But I would not expect it on a larger scale.

BTW there is no RAW to govern this at all, there are no rules governing the doors at all, so your assumption that they may be glued closed is no more valid than the assumption that they should not be (which is actually how the instructions for the model have you assemble the model.)

TLOS disagrees with you.

Caboose

Yes TLOS is RAW, now show me the rule about Vehicle doors? DO you have to open them or not? You make an assumption that because it is not stated we don't have to do so. This is no where in the rules. So it is just as valid as the assumption that you must.

Can you see through said doors?

You never answered the question, where is the rule that allows you not to open them (or that says they need to be opened ) it does not exist. You are making an assumption that they can be closed in the first place. I don't need to see through them if they are supposed to be open they will be on the table. No where is there RAW that allows them to remain shut (nor is their RAW stating that they open.)

As such either call is a RAI judgement call.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Essentially if your judgement is that they should be open, then keeping them closed is MFA.

If you don't feel that way then Seeing through them breaks TLOS.

There is no rules support for either angle.

Given the assembly instructions, and the description of the pod landing, the stronger RAI is that they are intended to open.

SO when there is no clear RAW why not go stronger RAI?

Breng, you're quite correct, there is no rule stating that the doors have to be open or shut. However - your tone suggests that you believe them being open should be the default way of playing, and that you need permission to keep them shut.

There is no rules basis for this. Games Workshop has plenty of pictures of drop pods with hatches shut as well - you also have to consider that the instructions don't tell you to glue it so that the hatches are open. The argument is pure RAI / HIWPI, which is fine, but doesn't have a place on this forum.

As per the forum tenets, we should be discussing RAW - and the RAW is clear, as myself and madtankbloke have already covered.

SO you are saying in the absense of rules RAW is do what ever you please, then apply RAW after that? Rather than try to come up with the best interpretation?

I guess that is one way to go, but it in itself is not RAW as at some level an assumption of the intention of the rules has been made.

Modeling a drop pod with the doors closed and then claiming you can't see through it is a direct case of modeling for advantage. TLOS or not, those doors are modeled on hinges. The exact rules say the hatches are blown open.

Play the PC games, watch what happens when a drop pod strikes. They don't magically fart out of the top.

Yes you can see through them, and I will take shots through a closed one. If you don't allow it, then you're cheating.

I'm willing to concede that there's no clear ruling one way or the other.

I wouldn't be heart broken if I went to another tourny and they ruled them open.

But I will continue to argue this with my frequent opponent out of spite.

Caboose


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
Modeling a drop pod with the doors closed and then claiming you can't see through it is a direct case of modeling for advantage. TLOS or not, those doors are modeled on hinges. The exact rules say the hatches are blown open.

Play the PC games, watch what happens when a drop pod strikes. They don't magically fart out of the top.

Yes you can see through them, and I will take shots through a closed one. If you don't allow it, then you're cheating.

You have a terrible argument.

The fluff says the hatches are blown, not the rules.

PC game has no relevance to the table top.

I won't address the third line, as me and Breng have been over this long enough now lol.

Caboose

Breng77 wrote:
NOVA open FAQ
 To avoid confusion, gaming the system, pressuring players to play it “your” way, etc., treat drop pod doors as open NO MATTER WHAT; do not treat them as closed if glued shut.

Adepticon/BAO/Wargmes CONFAQ

• The doors of a drop pod model are ignored for all game purposes (e.g. they never block LoS, they may not be disembarked from, and enemy models do not need to remain 1” away from them).

I find it interesting that these (non-GW) FAQs agree on the doors not blocking TLOS, but have different ways to go about it.

The second method seems to be more advantageous to the DP player than the first. It allows the DP to land in smaller areas.

Sadly, while non-GW faqs may provide ideas and interesting reading, they are not cannon here.

Not claiming them as cannon, just as reference for those that travel to events, that it may be safer to assume the doors must open, and not use the BLOS to your advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also the ammount to the same, I have never seen it ruled that you can disembark from the doors or that they prevent landing. Essentially most events ignore them entirely.

No, no. Not bothered by it. I was actually sad that you didn't link them. I like having a downloaded copy of the most recent big events FAQ, but I am often lazy

Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out?

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS.

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. I still get shots through the model.

It's so modeling for advantage it's on the same level as kneeling wraithlords.

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like. So please, try to model your drop pods glued shut and then say I can't shoot through them as you hide stuff behind them. That's when I know never to play you again because you have to cheat)

((Edit 2: and the fluff does play into the rules. See the ruling on Necrons inside a nightscythe. Everyone said S10 hits if it explodes! No the fluff says they aren't even IN the damned thing and that they teleport on. Get's FAQ'd, oh look, guess who's right? The people with reading comprehension and realizing RAI and the fluff do have meaning... Oh, and see Imotek's lightning))

 TheKbob wrote:
Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out?

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS.

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. I still get shots through the model.

It's so modeling for advantage it's on the same level as kneeling wraithlords.

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like. So please, try to model your drop pods glued shut and then say I can't shoot through them as you hide stuff behind them. That's when I know never to play you again because you have to cheat)

Some people just don't let up...

The hatches have no relevance to it being open topped. It has the open topped rule. And since it has this rule you measure disembarking form anywhere on the hull. So give up that argument, it's flawed in every way.

You can gain the same "huge advantage" by moving a rhino/land raider infront of a unit, or using terrain.

Again there's no clear ruling on building a model so TLOS can be argued either way.

I dont see the point of your kneeling wraithlord argument. It could just as easily fall under the "rule of cool".

They also disappear in the PC games(except Space Marine, but then they only pod in a weapon or something...it's been awhile since I played that), so should I deep strike in and then pick up the pod? Again PC games have nothing to do with this discussion.

Luckily we'll never play each other so we both win.

Caboose

*Edit for you second failed attempt at a fluff argument*

There was also fluff written where a nightscythe exploded and the warriors on the other side of the portal were killed. So again, drop the fluff argument.

 TheKbob wrote:
Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out?

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS.

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. I still get shots through the model.

It's so modeling for advantage it's on the same level as kneeling wraithlords.

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like. So please, try to model your drop pods glued shut and then say I can't shoot through them as you hide stuff behind them. That's when I know never to play you again because you have to cheat)

Fluff, and RAI have no place in a pure rules discussion. Fluff and RAI can be interpreted by different people in different ways, which is why YMDC concentrates on the rules as they are written, together with quotes and page references to make the discussion easier.

My own interpretation is that the drop pods are intended to open on landing, and stay open. This is not, however supported by the rules, and if someone wanted to play his drop pods with doors shut, thats allowed, if he wanted to open and close then throughout the battle, that too is allowed, technically. would i tell him he was wrong, certainly not. would i have a low opinion of his shenanigans, certainly.

Kbob - have you actually read the forum tenets...? Again - I'd suggest that most people posting here wouldn't actually try to pull MFA shenanigans in a game. But that's not RAW. RAW is, the vehicle is open-topped so the doors don't have to be open for deployment to happen.
Ergo, it's not cheating. It's beardy, and cheesy, and probably all kinds of morally reprehensible, yes fine. But not *CHEATING*. That's why this discussion exists - to nail out what is and isn't legal per the rules.

If you're going to state something is cheating, you need to back it up with the rules. Fluff doesn't count.

 TheKbob wrote:
Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out? No, there are plenty of reasons why the doors should be open. Realism is not one of them.

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS. Yep

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. Why is that fine? Why can DP doors be within 1" of an enemy model?

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like.

LOL, this thread has gone way beyond "cinematic / narrative play.

madtankbloke wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out?

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS.

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. I still get shots through the model.

It's so modeling for advantage it's on the same level as kneeling wraithlords.

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like. So please, try to model your drop pods glued shut and then say I can't shoot through them as you hide stuff behind them. That's when I know never to play you again because you have to cheat)

Fluff, and RAI have no place in a pure rules discussion. Fluff and RAI can be interpreted by different people in different ways, which is why YMDC concentrates on the rules as they are written, together with quotes and page references to make the discussion easier.

My own interpretation is that the drop pods are intended to open on landing, and stay open. This is not, however supported by the rules, and if someone wanted to play his drop pods with doors shut, thats allowed, if he wanted to open and close then throughout the battle, that too is allowed, technically. would i tell him he was wrong, certainly not. would i have a low opinion of his shenanigans, certainly.

I would almost certainly tell someone he is wrong if he were raising and lowering doors whenever during the game. Something like that is enough for me to call a judge (who will deem that as cheating in almost every case.) or in a casual setting pick up and leave.

SO I pod down, get out behind my open pods, shoot you, then put the doors up to block LOS for your shooting, then put them down shoot again, put them back up.... While it may not RAW be cheating, it is against the spirit of the game...perhaps the wrong argument for YMDC, but honestly full RAW breaks the game and should never be used as the only way to make ruling.

madtankbloke wrote:
My own interpretation is that the drop pods are intended to open on landing, and stay open. This is not, however supported by the rules, and if someone wanted to play his drop pods with doors shut, thats allowed, if he wanted to open and close then throughout the battle, that too is allowed, technically. would i tell him he was wrong, certainly not. would i have a low opinion of his shenanigans, certainly.

I now have a strong urge to create a 1 to 10 40k shenanigans chart for future reference

I also have the odd urge to create some sort of non-liner Shenanigans addition / cumulative value rules similar to the 3.5 DnD Encounter Challenge Ratings...

3 + 3 = 5...
4 + 8 = 9...

When you get to 10, I take you off my christmas card list

 Super Ready wrote:
Kbob - have you actually read the forum tenets...? Again - I'd suggest that most people posting here wouldn't actually try to pull MFA shenanigans in a game. But that's not RAW. RAW is, the vehicle is open-topped so the doors don't have to be open for deployment to happen.
Ergo, it's not cheating. It's beardy, and cheesy, and probably all kinds of morally reprehensible, yes fine. But not *CHEATING*. That's why this discussion exists - to nail out what is and isn't legal per the rules.

If you're going to state something is cheating, you need to back it up with the rules. Fluff doesn't count.

There are plenty of good arguments and discussions, but this is one that is absolutely dumb (the argument, not the individuals).

I call it cheating because of every reason you state. Cheating isn't just breaking the rules, it involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, etc. Doesn't have to be just "breaking this rule" *points to it* to be cheating. It involves intent. If you look me right in the eye that I cannot shoot through your drop pod because you glued it shut, the following would happen: A) a TO would be called over and I'd get a ruling that I could (see precedent earlier that two of the biggest ones already rule it in my favor) or B) if it's a pick-up game, I shrug it off and never play the person again.

Most of us aren't this prone to discussion because we would rather the game go on versus making a stink and hating the next hour of our lives. Well, I'm allowed to make my stink here and say it's modeling for advantage and if you're doing it intentionally, it's cheating.

Doors are meant to be open. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Why is that fine? Why can DP doors be within 1" of an enemy model?

There may be a CC you drop your drop pod next to... there may be some unit that moving it is too much of a hassle. I am thinking in protecting my investment in building/painting a drop pod just as much as you are in your models. Playing with it open is a part of a game, but if it came down to physically harming the models or slowing the game down to pick up units and plop em back down, not a big sweat.

We would know it's "open," but for the sake of making the game carry on smoothly, that's not something to get upset about.

madtankbloke wrote:

My own interpretation is that the drop pods are intended to open on landing, and stay open. This is not, however supported by the rules, and if someone wanted to play his drop pods with doors shut, thats allowed, if he wanted to open and close then throughout the battle, that too is allowed, technically. would i tell him he was wrong, certainly not. would i have a low opinion of his shenanigans, certainly.

I'd tell him he can't. If he continued, I'd quit. If it's a tournament, I'd get a TO over and make him stop.

And maybe the Necron stuff is elsewhere, but I read the codex and the book says they aren't in there, therefore no S10. GW ruled it as I saw it; as most of the folks saw it. RAI + fluff makes up a good portion of how the FAQs are ruled. So yea, dismiss that thought if you must, but I'll continue using best gaming judgement and the context of the model/unit within the game world to determine the best method of play in hairy rules situations until a FAQ hits. And more often than not, using said methodology proves right.

If intent never mattered, our legal system (US based, here), would be much more cut and dry. Same nonsense falls into our little game of plastic army men and tin soldiers.

 TheKbob wrote:
There are plenty of good arguments and discussions, but this is one that is absolutely dumb (the argument, not the individuals).

It's actually a pretty decent. This has probably come up at every FLGS ever. almost 1/2 the Codex can use Drop Pods. The rules are suggestive, but not explicit. The fluff is inadmissible. I'm glad it's being discussed.

 TheKbob wrote:
Most of us aren't this prone to discussion because we would rather the game go on versus making a stink and hating the next hour of our lives. Well, I'm allowed to make my stink here and say it's modeling for advantage and if you're doing it intentionally, it's cheating.

Fair point, but a bit out of synch with your earlier statements about this not being worth discussing.

 TheKbob wrote:
Doors are meant to be open. Period.

I love that my brain translater that as "Doors are meant to be open..."

foolishmortal wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Doors are meant to be open. Period.

I love that my brain translater that as "Doors are meant to be open..."

Everytime a drop pod closes, another one opens?

And I'd argue that open topped rules plays into the model; I may be crazy but most DE stuff is open topped and I see no covering. My Necrons stuff is open topped, no covers. Ork trukks are open topped and they have no cab and are basically a pick-up truck of boys. WYSIWYG is encouraged and a vehicle that is open topped should, I dunno, I might be crazy here... open?

I have to agree (in general with) TheKbob, that cheating is more than just breaking the rules.

You can break the rules without cheating, and you can cheat without breaking the rules.

It is all about intent. Honestly on this question I could care less about LOS from pods (I don't play a shooty army, and if you want to not see me rushing you I'm ok with it. )

Techically I'm not breaking any game rule if I use fixed dice, MFA,speed rolling, etc. Actually there is no rule that says my opponent even needs to see my rolls. What I am breaking is the social contract/implied rules of the game resulting in fair play. We all have some "rules" that we play the game by that are not RAW.

Breng77 wrote:

I would almost certainly tell someone he is wrong if he were raising and lowering doors whenever during the game. Something like that is enough for me to call a judge (who will deem that as cheating in almost every case.) or in a casual setting pick up and leave.

SO I pod down, get out behind my open pods, shoot you, then put the doors up to block LOS for your shooting, then put them down shoot again, put them back up.... While it may not RAW be cheating, it is against the spirit of the game...perhaps the wrong argument for YMDC, but honestly full RAW breaks the game and should never be used as the only way to make ruling.

Tournaments usually have their own FAQ regarding rules that are ambiguous, and while i can say that having a drop pod having its doors closed to block LOS or opening and closing is RAW, i have never encountered this behaviour. technically its allowed by the rules (which is what YMDC is all about) but it is bad sportsmanship at the very least.

This forum is all about RAW, not fluff, not MFA, not RAI, but RAW, and as has already been stated by someone above me, the majority of the people making RAW outrageous (and fully supported) arguments would never try to pull them in a casual or tournament game, and if they did its probably a clear indicator that they are TFG.

If you play by RAW you cannot 'technically' cheat. but it helps the discussion along tremendously when you seperate RAW, from RAI, from fluff from HIWPI

Sure I can I just described how, I can MFA. I can lie by ommision etc.

The issue I have with people saying well this is RAW(even if it is not how they would play), is that then guys bring it to tournaments/stores, and get into arguments, it sets a bad precident for other players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also I'm pretty sure you cannot say RAW that a pod can open and close its doors, there are not rules about this at all. I actually think that rule for them being imoblie once landed would be stronger as the pod is imobile. (I know it is not tecnically movement, but again no rules govern this at all).

madtankbloke wrote:


If you play by RAW you cannot 'technically' cheat. but it helps the discussion along tremendously when you seperate RAW, from RAI, from fluff from HIWPI

A good point.

However, there are numerous instances where RAI + fluff won over people belly aching about "RAW". See the current nonsense of the Tau Bomber, Necron Flyers, Bouncing FMC, Imotek's lightning, etc., etc.

RAW is fine and dandy, but when you step back and use reasoning, logic, and a dash of the grimdark, you're probably going to come up with the correct answer. Sticking to just straight RAW for interpretations is going to make you look silly and wrong quite a lot in these discussions.

This drop pod matter is purely intent, mind you. While we don't have rules on how to put together our models (I glued his head on a stick... now he can have a better LOS!), we all very well know the intent of the game. Making is so that you can't see through an open vehicle very much goes against the intent.

In other words, a bad lawyer sticks to the black and white, the successful ones go for the grey and context.

For me, I hate having those doors all splayed out over the board...especially if someones doing an all pod army (6-9+ pods). It makes the board a real mess.
So I glue the doors shut for convinience of play, but treat the model as only providing cover if your LoS traces through the hull of the Pod.
Claiming it blocks LoS because you glued the doors shut sounds too much like modelling for advantage for my tastes...especially if you insist on shooting the pods SB with doors closed.

It's probably worth mentioning (again) that 'MFA' =/= 'using a model that is in some way, shape, or form different from a GW model assembled exactly as instructed by GW'

There ought to be, and is, a certain amount of flexibility. I'm not the most artistic person, but I see that it has it's place in 40k. Granted, I'm rather cynical, and from my point of view, "it's place" is mostly to get more people involved and playing so that I have more people to play with

Still MFA is more than your model being "just different."

My litmus test...
1) Is the difference granting the person some sort of in game benefit?
2) Is the difference outside the realm of normal customization? (some kits have different heads, pose-able limbs, a choice of flying base height, etc)
3) Does the opponent refuse if I ask to play as though the special model was a typical model?

If all 3 are Yes, then I would think they were modeling for advantage.

If there is no GW model, I try to fuss 50% less.

If they are using an older GW model that gives some comparative advantage, more power to em. They made a good, legal choice IMO.

There is WAAC, and there is just...dickery. This is just that xD

The space marine's walk through the closed doors. Or the doors that blast off, stick themselves back on.

It -might- help you win a game. It -will- help you lose your friends.

I'm fine with the doors closed or open as long as its consistant. I've had a game where some pods kept their doors shut when they need LOS blocking, and others open when it suited them more.

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

I haven't encountered a situation yet where a unit or model or something would be _completely_ out of LOS when seen through an open pod (I've built them both ways), and so I've always considered any LOS passing through the closed pod as granting the appropriate cover save. This might just be an artifact of having played a lot of Vassel games while I was living in Japan, and having gotten used to being permissive with LOS because of it.

Of course if you want to play "your" pods by "your" rules (closed door blocking LoS) then don'T complain when I use "your" rule against you.
You drop a pod and get your guys out. I drop my pod next to yours, but place my unit in front of your pod (as long as I'm within 6" of my pods hull). I then shoot you through my pod's open doors (giving you a cover save) but you may not shoot (nor assault) me through your pods closed doors from any models on the opposite side of your pod.
Especially handy to protect my Dreds RA10 while still torching your unit with a heavy flamer.

You want to be a douche, I'll be more than happy to figure out a way to use that douche-baggery against you.

drop pods are supposed to be modeled with the doors open we play that as open even if they are glued shut. Now if you have custom pods like a guy we play with that are scratch built we just use TLOS.

Wow, go away for a few hours and come back to four pages to sift through. Lets see if I can just sum up my argument and walk away from this mess. Honestly, I have yet to read through all of them so if I miss your point, I apologize.

MFA - I see it as clear modeling for advantage.

It doesn't matter if your opponent may also benefit from it, because your opponent did not make the model. I could easily field a 'made with the right parts, but glued completely differently' monstrosity that blocks line of sight to most of my army. Simply stating that it blocks line of sight to my own men doesn't suddenly make it a legal model.

It is very unlikely that opponent facing 'modified so doors remain closed' drop pods have made any tactics that take advantage of this rule exploit. So no amount of stating it is equal actually makes it so, your opponent is at a obvious disadvantage simply because you modified the model so it couldn't be shot through.

On the other hand, if you are doing this for a line of sight blocking advantage, it is easy to say that you are designing your tactics around this fact. By placing your melee based assault force in such a way behind your modified model so that they can not be shot at than you have tipped the scales into your favor through an exploit. One that does not benefit your opponent in the slightest.

No RAW - I beg to differ as all my pondering on this question is based around the RAW.

There is a paragraph in the drop pod which is clearly an 'exception rule' with the title of Transport. All exception based rules have higher priority over base rules, as they may create limitations and restrictions that need to be followed. This paragraph is nothing but restrictions that change how the drop pod relates to the basic transportation rules. This is why bringing up all other transport and stating 'but they don't require open doors' is irreverent. They are not bound by this exception rule that is unique to the drop pods.

So why is that important?

Well within this higher priority rule is the words 'blown open' in relation to the doors and the whole debate can hinge on those two words. If this sentence, which contains clear restriction based rules within it, is an order of events then the doors must be opened. You must place it on the table, you must open the doors and you must disembark your men, is the paraphrased version of that sentence. Nothing else matters at that point, the rules will clearly have stated that you must open the drop pod.

The issue is simple... the writing doesn't make that clear. If it used better terminology to get it's intent across, well we wouldn't be having this debate to begin with.

It can reasonably argued that it was simply being artistic in providing the clear exception rule of 'must disembark.' It can also be argued that it is a order of events, as stated above. It could also be argued that nothing within the rule prevents you closing the doors again, though I would state it does not give you permission to. The real biggest one is it doesn't state 'all' doors, so if I wanted to go all rule lawyer then I could easily open just one facing your guys and then disembark my troops through the standard 'opened top' exception on the other side of the closed doors!

Models and terrain being displaced: The question of 'what if models or terrain is under the door' can easily be answered by the exception rule above this one titled Inertial Guidance System. In short, you need to place the drop pod in such a way that it does not encounter these obstacles. If it would normally encounter them, you have permission to move it into a position where it does not.

Forge Word Drop Pods - Irreverent to this discussion. If you have permission to use a forge world unit, tournaments rules often exclude them and in friendly games your opponent can chose not to go against these units, then you can use the solid-internals drop pod regardless to your hearts content. Should you be in a situation where you suddenly pull one out, expect people to take exception to it as you do need permission to use them first, as many forge word units are ill balanced one way or the other. Besides, if you did have permission to use forge world drop pods then the line of sight thing is moot for another reason: Your going to be in melee the turn you drop that thing, so they won't be shooting anyway.


In closing -

We have a RAW situation that can not be over looked, the exception to the normal rules under the transport heading in the drop-pod entry. The real problem is that the wording is so bad that we can come away with many different interpretation as to what they could mean. I do not have a solid answer myself, I am one man and I can fathom several different interperations that might all be correct. All I can say at this point is - Welcome to rule written by Games Workshop....

JinxDragon wrote:
MFA - I see it as clear modeling for advantage.

It is very unlikely that opponent facing 'modified so doors remain closed' drop pods have made any tactics that take advantage of this rule exploit.

1) MFA is not a rule, but more of a player convention. Modelling something as per the instructions, and not opening the doors is not most peoples definition of MFA.

2) The drop pod does not have to be "modified so doors remain closed" the vehicle is normally assembled so the doors can open up, but they can be in the closed position with no modification needed as the doors themselves open from a closed position on the model.

Death -

I will give you that. An unmodified model and the modified model can be placed down side by side and still look identical. That argument holds a lot more merit then simply stating 'each side has equal footing' which they clearly do not. Should the unmodified and modified models operate in an identical fashion, then we really can not state it is MFA. So from now on, I will ignore the people saying it is MFA and drop that from future arguments while focusing on the meat of the problem:

How does this interact with the rules as written?

That part I probably am never going to be swayed over, as I have looked at them from many different interpretations and most of them have equal footing. It is going to be up to the people playing the game, or the organizers, to decide which one they feel is correct. Personally, I would lean more towards the always opened option but I have never considered personal choice to matter in rule based discussions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The four interpretations that are most pressing to me right now, all resolving around doors blown open in the rules.

Artistic expression - This one can be summed up that the doors blown open is nothing but fluff and can be ignored. It doesn't feel right to me, because that would mean we have a sentence that is half fluff and half rules. However, thanks to the wording of that sentence, it is not clear what the intent actually is. It can reasonably be argued that they took some liberties while presenting the part we all agree is pure rules: Must disembark.

Order of Events - This is the one that states the whole paragraph is rule. This holds merit because the paragraph is clearly an exception rule, outlining what additional restrictions exist on drop pods that do not exist on other transports. This would include the state of the doors, which is normally a non-issue for transports but is brought up in the exception for drop pods. That would mean the sentence in question is simply telling you what to do, in the order that you need to do them. You must place the model on the table, duhhh you don't say, then you must open all the doors and finally you must disembark the men inside.

Some doors Opened - This is the most rule lawyer interpretation of the sentence and can be used to allow massive amounts of exploitation. However, it is also technically correct and holds equal right with the two above interpretation. The sentence does not states which doors need to be opened, just that the doors are blown open. If I open just one or two doors I would have filled the requirement being laid out in the exception as doors have been blown open. Then I can disembark my men however I see fit, through closed doors if I want, thanks to the open topped exception rule. As I said, this is rule lawyer heavy, but it is a discussion on the rules so expect at least some lawyering to take place.

Closing the door after - This one I can state is completely incorrect, but it does come up a lot. In order to have permission to close the doors afterwards it would need to be stated in the rules that you can do so. No where in the basic transportation rules, the opened topped exception rules or the drop pod exception rules does it state you have permission to open and close the doors at will. Without it being stated, you do not have grounds via RAW to do so, hence you can not close any door that you do chose to open.

dkellyj wrote:
Of course if you want to play "your" pods by "your" rules (closed door blocking LoS) then don'T complain when I use "your" rule against you.
You drop a pod and get your guys out. I drop my pod next to yours, but place my unit in front of your pod (as long as I'm within 6" of my pods hull). I then shoot you through my pod's open doors (giving you a cover save) but you may not shoot (nor assault) me through your pods closed doors from any models on the opposite side of your pod.
Especially handy to protect my Dreds RA10 while still torching your unit with a heavy flamer.

You want to be a douche, I'll be more than happy to figure out a way to use that douche-baggery against you.

I don't see your point here... Of course you're allowed to pod in next to mine and place your units however you want. And if you play your doors open, then by all means feel free to shoot.

Only thing douchey here would be your attitude...

Edit for spelling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Death -

I will give you that. An unmodified model and the modified model can be placed down side by side and still look identical. That argument holds a lot more merit then simply stating 'each side has equal footing' which they clearly do not. Should the unmodified and modified models operate in an identical fashion, then we really can not state it is MFA. So from now on, I will ignore the people saying it is MFA and drop that from future arguments while focusing on the meat of the problem:

How does this interact with the rules as written?

That part I probably am never going to be swayed over, as I have looked at them from many different interpretations and most of them have equal footing. It is going to be up to the people playing the game, or the organizers, to decide which one they feel is correct. Personally, I would lean more towards the always opened option but I have never considered personal choice to matter in rule based discussions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The four interpretations that are most pressing to me right now, all resolving around doors blown open in the rules.

Artistic expression - This one can be summed up that the doors blown open is nothing but fluff and can be ignored. It doesn't feel right to me, because that would mean we have a sentence that is half fluff and half rules. However, thanks to the wording of that sentence, it is not clear what the intent actually is. It can reasonably be argued that they took some liberties while presenting the part we all agree is pure rules: Must disembark.

Order of Events - This is the one that states the whole paragraph is rule. This holds merit because the paragraph is clearly an exception rule, outlining what additional restrictions exist on drop pods that do not exist on other transports. This would include the state of the doors, which is normally a non-issue for transports but is brought up in the exception for drop pods. That would mean the sentence in question is simply telling you what to do, in the order that you need to do them. You must place the model on the table, duhhh you don't say, then you must open all the doors and finally you must disembark the men inside.

Some doors Opened - This is the most rule lawyer interpretation of the sentence and can be used to allow massive amounts of exploitation. However, it is also technically correct and holds equal right with the two above interpretation. The sentence does not states which doors need to be opened, just that the doors are blown open. If I open just one or two doors I would have filled the requirement being laid out in the exception. Then I can disembark my men however I see fit, through closed doors if I want, thanks to the open topped exception rule.

Closing the door after - This one I can state is completely incorrect, but it does come up a lot. In order to have permission to close the doors afterwards it would need to be stated in the rules that you can do so. No where in the basic transportation rules, the opened topped exception rules or the drop pod exception rules does it state you have permission to open and close the doors at will. Without it being stated, you do not have grounds via RAW to do so, hence you can not close any door that you do chose to open.

Artistic Expression: Agreed...for the most part. If hatches blown=rule then should I rip the doors off my pod everytime it lands?

Order of Events: I don't see that part about opening doors in my codex.

Some doors opened: Agree that this would be extreme rules lawyering. I see it as you either open them all or none of them.

Closing the door after: Again, kind of extreme...Once they're open they're open, even I wouldn't try this.

you don't have to rip them, just open them gently so they lay flat against the table top to show they have been blown open. As with all things in model gaming, you do not always have the means to make the model look or act exactly as described. It wouldn't be an isolated case to drop pod either, most vehicles are described being able to do something that the models can not, thanks to the way they are constructed or the fact it will break the model, physically do.

As for finding this rule, I would advise you you to take another look in the codex or at least inform me what one you are looking in so I can see if it is different. I assure you that it is both present in the standard space marine codex and the new Dark Angels codex. Page 69, I believe, for the standard and page 42 for the Dark Angels. The section you need to look at is Transport. In the Dark Angels codex it informs you of the capacity of the drop pod then goes on to outline what additional exceptions exist for a drop pod that do not exist for other transports. The very first sentence of that paragraph contains the words you are looking for.

I will make one correction: They use the word hatches and not doors...

Looking at my DA codex, I don't see any rule that states doors/hatches must be opened. I see a bit of fluff there for hatches being blown...

 beigeknight wrote:
I'd like to purpose a scenario. Say I was playing with two drop pods: one with doors that can open and one that have doors glued shut because I got tired of trying to assemble it otherwise. It would be possible to draw TLOS through the pod with the open doors but not the pod with the doors glued shut?

In a game, would they be treated differently in terms of TLOS.

As per the rules for LOS, yes, of course they would. Just as the Marine with the standing legs and the marine with the kneeling legs are treated differently for LOS, despite supposedly being the same model.

For the people who are claiming you can draw LOS through the doors, do you also allow your opponent's tanks to draw LOS with a sponson through the tank?

It is not written in the unit description section of the book, where fluff is found. It is also contained in a paragraph which is clearly an exception rule. Not only that, it is contained in the same sentence as something which is clearly an exception rule. The location of it is very important. If it was any where else on that page, outside of the other exception rules of course, then I would easily side with you as to it being fluff. However it is clearly smack bang in the middle of the rule section and can easily be interpreted as a rule, which clearly has by 2/3 of the people reading it, so we can't simply wave it away as fluff.

The real big concern for me is the wording is very poor as it allows multiple interpretations, including the 'it is artistic expression' one that allows you to ignore that part of the sentence.

This goes back to the questions I asked earlier:
If it changes the way the model interacts with rest of the game, can it ever be considered fluff?
Also:
Can we really consider half a sentence to be fluff when the other half is clearly rules?

Maybe it's just fluff for that rule? As in its the reason they must disembark.

Look at the "rules" for the Lion Helm. It has a bit of fluff in the same sentence that says how you represent it on the table.

And please don't tell me that "The Lion Helm is carried by a mysterious Helmet Bearer,..." is not fluff. It's a model, a model of a cloaked midget/dwarf/hobbit/stack of keebler elves carrying a helmet.

Breng77 wrote:
1.) If you state that Pods with doors glued shut, those that want them to BLOS will glue them shut, and those that want LOS will model them as being able to open.

Yes indeed. Just as those Guard players who want to draw LOS over the ADL will use standing legs instead of kneeling ones for their heavy weapons. You can affect LOS with how you choose to assemble GW's models. That's not the fault of the players, it's just a side effect of a rules system that uses the physical profile of the models for LOS without considering how posing and optional modelling affects that profile.

2.) For those that argue well if all the doors are shut you cannot fire the gun, ok why can I not glue say 2 or 3 shut and not the other doors, pod in with those door facing you open them and shoot while I get out with the doors blocking LOS. After all there are no rules stating I need to open all the doors.

There is nothing at all stopping you from doing this. Whether or not that is a problem ultimately comes down to whether or not you thought leaving the doors up was an issue to begin with.

Essentially you need consistency ...

We do? Why?

In a more hardcore ruleset, this might be the case. But a more hardcore ruleset wouldn't use TLOS in the first place, or at the very least would stipulate how each model must be assembled.

GW doesn't write such a ruleset. A standing guardsman, a kneeling guardsman, and a prone guardsman all count as the same model, all cost the same number of points... and all work quite differently for cover, and when they want to shoot something. A Battlewagon, Landraider or Baneblade has different range on its weapons depending on just where on the model you choose to put them. A dreadnought may or may not even be able to fire its weapons at all, depending on how you choose to position its arms.

The simple fact is that there is no consistency when it comes to models in 40K. Your choice of model, and in many cases just your choice of pose, affects how the model interacts with the game rules.

Why then should we single out the drop pod as needing to be played as if it is assembled a specific way?

JinxDragon wrote:
Can we really consider half a sentence to be fluff when the other half is clearly rules?

War Walkers are used for forward reconnaissance and hence have the Scouts special rule.

What does "used for forward reconnaissance" mean from a rules standpoint?

 insaniak wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
1.) If you state that Pods with doors glued shut, those that want them to BLOS will glue them shut, and those that want LOS will model them as being able to open.

Yes indeed. Just as those Guard players who want to draw LOS over the ADL will use standing legs instead of kneeling ones for their heavy weapons. You can affect LOS with how you choose to assemble GW's models. That's not the fault of the players, it's just a side effect of a rules system that uses the physical profile of the models for LOS without considering how posing and optional modelling affects that profile.

2.) For those that argue well if all the doors are shut you cannot fire the gun, ok why can I not glue say 2 or 3 shut and not the other doors, pod in with those door facing you open them and shoot while I get out with the doors blocking LOS. After all there are no rules stating I need to open all the doors.

There is nothing at all stopping you from doing this. Whether or not that is a problem ultimately comes down to whether or not you thought leaving the doors up was an issue to begin with.

Essentially you need consistency ...

We do? Why?

In a more hardcore ruleset, this might be the case. But a more hardcore ruleset wouldn't use TLSO in the first place, or at the very least would stipulate how each model must be assembled.

GW doesn't write such a ruleset. A standing guardsman, a kneeling guardsman, and a prone guardsman all count as the same model, all cost the same number of points... and all work quite differently for cover, and when they want to shoot something. A Battlewagon, Landraider or Baneblade has different range on its weapons depending on just where on the model you choose to put them. A dreadnought may or may not even be able to fire its weapons at all, depending on how you choose to position its arms.

The simple fact is that there is no consistency when it comes to models in 40K. Your choice of model, and in many cases just your choice of pose, affects how the model interacts with the game rules.

Why then should we single out the drop pod as needing to be played as if it is assembled a specific way?

+1 internets to this man.

I don't see what your getting at with that, if I read the full paragraph it clearly is all rules as well. It goes into detail to describe this Helmet Bearer and how it functions. It also gives you permission to move this model, an exception to the normal way models would move, in certain situations.

It is pointless rules as it all can be summed up as 'does not interact with the game what so ever so why bother including it' but they are still rules telling you how to handle this particular unique model.

JinxDragon wrote:
The location of it is very important.

It's really not.

GW's rules don't have specific 'This section is fluff' and 'This section is rules' type demarcation. Their rules are written in a fairly casual style, and fluff and rules quite often coexist in the same sentence, to the effect of 'This [thingo] works by [fluff] which means that [rules]'

Which is exactly what is happening in the drop pod entry,

How do we know that the first part of the statement is fluff? Simply by looking for any rules that deal with 'blown hatches'. There is no mechanic in the rules for 'blowing hatches' on a vehicle. We can not point to a single rule in the rulebook or codex that tells us that 'blown hatches' have any specific effect in game.

Therefore, the only sane interpretation is that this is a fluff description of what happens when the pod disembarks, and has no more specific impact on the rules than it would if the, say, Land Raider entry said that the assault ramp opens to allow embarked troops to charge straight into the enemies' teeth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't see what your getting at with that, if I read the full paragraph it clearly is all rules as well. It goes into detail to describe this Helmet Bearer and how it functions. It also gives you permission to move this model, an exception to the normal way models would move, in certain situations.

It says the helmet bearer is mysterious. If we're assuming that a statement that contains rules can't also have fluff in it, then if I don't find your helmet bearer to be particularly perplexing, you are breaking the rules...

HappyElf,

Which codex and section, so when I get back from a long arse drive I can hopefully read the whole entry and have a better understanding of what they are trying to say. Sometimes context is needed to better form an answer. On face value, it does give president that sometimes creative expression is used by the Game Workshop writers even though it is detrimental to interpretation of the rules. Unfortunately, this can often be a problem when it comes to these rule books and I honestly ask if they had an editor at times.

I would still point out that question remains:
Can we consider something fluff it it does change the way the model interacts with the game?

In the example you are putting forth it clearly doesn't seem to interact with the game in anyway, shape or form. However 'hatches blown open' does change the way the drop operates on the field when it comes to line of sight and a few other places as well. Given how dramatically it changes game play, I would state it can not be considered fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak,

I am going to consider that a fifth interpretation that holds merit as well. One can put forth the argument that the blowing of the hatches does not simply mean opening them, but require their own separate rules to deal with how this takes place. As there is no rules for such, then it clearly can none can be played and the whole thing must be ignored in favor of the basic rules that came before it. As no rule exists telling you to open a transport hatch, or even giving you permission to ever do so, you can then leave them closed without it being a violation of the rules.

It is logical.

Honestly I have to wonder why this hasn't been FAQed before now. It would be so simple to type two lines 'Can the Drop-pod doors be left closed?' 'Yes/No.' I've seen things that are far more clearly written in the book getting sections of the FAQ that would take up three to four times that space. Yet something that is clearly changing the outcome of a game, something that has at least a third of the player base playing differently to the rest... not a peep.

Oh, and the helm bearer thing: Can you tell me the name of my helm bearer? If not, then it is a mystery.... not a good one, mind you, but still one.

Fluff is just fluff.

The only exceptions are Necrons (GW's new love child)

And when they randomly FAQ something...usually for Necrons(GW's new love child)

I don't know Caboose. Game Workshop has clearly used fluff sections to screw people over in the past. Do I need to remind people of the plasma syphon FAQ that allows it to screw over anything that dares to use the word plasma anywhere in the entry?

Lol Touche Jinx.

Alot of people in favor of allowing them to stay shut to gain advantage keep asking where the rules are for it, there doesn't need to be. The GW model is open, if your model is different that's fine but when your claiming you get extra bonuses for your model being different then your opponent can make ANY argument they want and you can't say otherwise because it's in the rule book, labeled as the most important rule no less!
When you disagree you roll off whoever wins gets what they were arguing.

As for the comment about not using purity seals....really? You think that putting an a large line of sight blocking vechicle onto the board anywhere you want that clearly doesn't block line of sight if modeled via the standard model is at all the same as adding some purity seals......

jinx - Codex Eldar (2006 version) pg 44 (War Walkers). The part I quoted (illegally, sorry dakka) was posted in its entirety as written in the codex. Nothing was left out.

Kisada II wrote:
Alot of people in favor of allowing them to stay shut to gain advantage keep asking where the rules are for it, there doesn't need to be. The GW model is open, if your model is different that's fine but when your claiming you get extra bonuses for your model being different then your opponent can make ANY argument they want and you can't say otherwise because it's in the rule book, labeled as the most important rule no less!
When you disagree you roll off whoever wins gets what they were arguing.

As for the comment about not using purity seals....really? You think that putting an a large line of sight blocking vechicle onto the board anywhere you want that clearly doesn't block line of sight if modeled via the standard model is at all the same as adding some purity seals......

I'll point you to Insaniak's above post.

I also remember sth. about a doors + 1'' rule somewhere...recently read about it...will try to dig it up.

I'm on the side of them not blocking LOS, mainly because they are open-topped, supposed to open and (keep your crying to yourself) it's an official rule on EU tournaments:

5.7 The 'petals' of a Drop Pod are not taken into
account for disembarkement, LOS or cover
purposes.

/e:

Once the Drop Pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark as normal. Oce passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Pod for the remainder of the game

Seems very clear to me.

Kisada II wrote:
The GW model is open,

Do I need to post the pic from the GW website again?

The GW model is open when it is open. There are quite a few pics of it closed. I just had a flick through my Space Wolf codex, and found 2 pictures of the drop pod model in there. In one, it's open. In the other, closed.

if your model is different that's fine but when your claiming you get extra bonuses for your model being different...

Nobody is claiming that they get 'extra bonuses'. Blocking LOS works both ways. If it blocks LOS for you trying to shoot me, it also blocks LOS when I'm trying to shoot you.

The product information page at GW's website (here) has three pictures of a Drop Pod in its entirety. 2/3 of the pictures show the doors shut.

JinxDragon wrote:
However 'hatches blown open' does change the way the drop operates on the field when it comes to line of sight and a few other places as well. Given how dramatically it changes game play, I would state it can not be considered fluff.

Please find the rules that define what 'hatches blown open' means in game terms.

If you can not we have to fall back on the dictionary definition of 'hatches blown open' and I would then expect you to use explosives or compressed air to get your Drop Pod hatches to be 'blown open' upon landing.

Or we can realize that this part of the sentence is fluff. They mix Fluff with rules all of the time.

 Sigvatr wrote:

5.7 The 'petals' of a Drop Pod are not taken into
account for disembarkement, LOS or cover
purposes.

I think you'll find that ruling is talking about the open doors being completely ignored.

When the doors are opened, that's the standard way of playing the pod: disembarking is still measured from the main hull of the pod, and the open doors are ignored for all in-game purposes.

....are people seriously claiming that "blown open doors" does not mean that they are open? I mean...really.

 Sigvatr wrote:
....are people seriously claiming that "blown open doors" does not mean that they are open? I mean...really.

No, they're saying that it's a fluff explanation for what happens when the pod lands. It doesn't require you to actually open the doors, any more than you need to open the doors on a land raider for the models inside to disembark despite that being what would happen fluffwise.

 Sigvatr wrote:
....are people seriously claiming that "blown open doors" does not mean that they are open? I mean...really.

1) It is not "blown open doors"

2) There are no rules for 'hatches are blown' (Which is what the Codex SM says P.69) then yes, the doors do not have to be opened as it mentions nothing about the hatches or doors being opened.

P.S. the Poll asks "Can a Drop Pod be deployed with the doors closed to both completely block line of sight and allow the crew to disembark?"

Clearly the RAW says yes, yet many many people say no in this poll. I wonder how many other house rules people play by considering about 70% of the people said "No, it cannot be used to completely block LOS" which of course is incorrect by the RAW.

Nm, I just did a forum search (aka google XXX + dakkadakka) and saw the "arguments" brought up.

I don't want to get such discussions starting again.

I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Why does modelling the doors closed put anyone "into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus."?

Must all vehicles be modeled with open doors? If not why should only certain vehicles have their doors modeled open?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Nm, I just did a forum search (aka google XXX + dakkadakka) and saw the "arguments" brought up.

I don't want to get such discussions starting again.

I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Red's a good color on me. And there's a word for people without beards: lady.

Caboose:
"I don't see your point here... Of course you're allowed to pod in next to mine and place your units however you want. And if you play your doors open, then by all means feel free to shoot."

My point being if your going to try and take advantage of a rule where it clearly does not apply, then don't whine if someone figures out a way to use your own 'interpretation' against you.

"Only thing douchey here would be your attitude... "
Yeah....because being clever enough to out-douche someone who is being a total D-Bag is.....what?

dkellyj wrote:
Caboose:
"I don't see your point here... Of course you're allowed to pod in next to mine and place your units however you want. And if you play your doors open, then by all means feel free to shoot."

My point being if your going to try and take advantage of a rule where it clearly does not apply, then don't whine if someone figures out a way to use your own 'interpretation' against you.

"Only thing douchey here would be your attitude... "
Yeah....because being clever enough to out-douche someone who is being a total D-Bag is.....what?

Didn't realize that tactics was a form of douchery. I'll see your douche and raise you an out-douchery.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Why does modelling the doors closed put anyone "into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus."?

Must all vehicles be modeled with open doors? If not why should only certain vehicles have their doors modeled open?

Are all vehicles open-topped? Do all vehicles have that prominent doors? Where does it state that a Rhino's /Land Raider's doors are blown open upon disembarking?

I just can't understand that some people seriously claim that the doors do not open upon landing given the wording we get in the codex. I just...don't get it. Anyway, the topic's been discussed a LOT and it's down on opinions. Just keep the golden rule in mind: listen to your TO / ref. And if playing with friends: clear the issue before it comes up.

Done.

dkellyj wrote:
My point being if your going to try and take advantage of a rule where it clearly does not apply, then don't whine if someone figures out a way to use your own 'interpretation' against you.

This still makes no sense. Nobody has claimed that the pod's LOS blocking only works one way. So your claim of 'out-douching' is nothing of the sort. You're seeing it as cleverly defeating a shady tactic... while those arguing in favour of the pod blocking LOS will simply see it as the game working as it is supposed to: If something blocks LOS, then it blocks LOS.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I also remember sth. about a doors + 1'' rule somewhere...recently read about it...will try to dig it up.

I'm on the side of them not blocking LOS, mainly because they are open-topped, supposed to open and (keep your crying to yourself) it's an official rule on EU tournaments:

Rulings on ambiguous rules made by tournamements are not 'official' since they apply to that tournament, and that tournament only. in that sense they are simply house rules, and house rules are just another way of saying 'How I would Play It'.
The only time a rule is 'official' in any capacity whatsoever is when it is printed in an official publication by GW, or the FAQ/errata for those publications.
Until an Errata or FAQ answers the question definitively either way, then the only sources for the rules are the BRB, the expansions, and the Codices.

madtankbloke wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I also remember sth. about a doors + 1'' rule somewhere...recently read about it...will try to dig it up.

I'm on the side of them not blocking LOS, mainly because they are open-topped, supposed to open and (keep your crying to yourself) it's an official rule on EU tournaments:

Rulings on ambiguous rules made by tournamements are not 'official' since they apply to that tournament, and that tournament only. in that sense they are simply house rules, and house rules are just another way of saying 'How I would Play It'.
The only time a rule is 'official' in any capacity whatsoever is when it is printed in an official publication by GW, or the FAQ/errata for those publications.
Until an Errata or FAQ answers the question definitively either way, then the only sources for the rules are the BRB, the expansions, and the Codices.

Technically speaking, the FAQs themselves are houserules - GW's house rules.

[quote=The Shrine of Knowledge]The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I just can't understand that some people seriously claim that the doors do not open upon landing given the wording we get in the codex.

Some of the misunderstanding might be coming from the fact that nobody is claiming that.

The disagreement is simply over whether it means that the doors on the model need to be opened, or whether that's just fluff. Infantry don't have to be positioned in a running pose when they perform a 'Run' move. Deep Striking models don't actually have to plummet from orbit. And vehicle doors don't actually have to open in order for the models inside to disembark.

TLOS gets my vote. True line of site Is a core rule and unless another rule specifically says to ignore it, it stays in play.

The drop pod model is just a bad design with bad instructions. I put together a few of those models and understand why some people glue the doors shut due to the frustration of lining them up.

On a side note what about the forge world drop pod mini which has a solid interior that can't be seen through?

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

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

I can disembark fine with the doors closed, However the Stormbolter (standard) can not draw LOS.

Do you flip open your Rhino door when you get out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Why does modelling the doors closed put anyone "into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus."?

Must all vehicles be modeled with open doors? If not why should only certain vehicles have their doors modeled open?

Are all vehicles open-topped? Do all vehicles have that prominent doors? Where does it state that a Rhino's /Land Raider's doors are blown open upon disembarking?

I just can't understand that some people seriously claim that the doors do not open upon landing given the wording we get in the codex. I just...don't get it. Anyway, the topic's been discussed a LOT and it's down on opinions. Just keep the golden rule in mind: listen to your TO / ref. And if playing with friends: clear the issue before it comes up.

Done.

/undone.

Not all open topped Vehicles are "open"
Most vehicles do have prominent doors
Thats a nice piece of fluff there, is there anything in the actual rules for Drop Pod Deployment?

The poll avg is RAW wrong, which is hilarious. However it's HIWPI.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Why does modelling the doors closed put anyone "into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus."?

Must all vehicles be modeled with open doors? If not why should only certain vehicles have their doors modeled open?

Are all vehicles open-topped?

Open topped vehicles are not required to be modeled with open doors, unless you have a page and graph that contradicts this statement.

Do all vehicles have that prominent doors?

I am unsure what "prominent doors" has to do with, well, anything.

Where does it state that a Rhino's /Land Raider's doors are blown open upon disembarking?

It doesn't, and neither does the Drop Pod doors.

The rule states "'hatches are blown" Codex SM P.69 Not 'doors are blown open'

That part is fluff, there are no rules that require an open topped vehicle to open its doors any more than there is for a non open-topped vehicle.

IamCaboose wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Caboose:
"I don't see your point here... Of course you're allowed to pod in next to mine and place your units however you want. And if you play your doors open, then by all means feel free to shoot."

My point being if your going to try and take advantage of a rule where it clearly does not apply, then don't whine if someone figures out a way to use your own 'interpretation' against you.

"Only thing douchey here would be your attitude... "
Yeah....because being clever enough to out-douche someone who is being a total D-Bag is.....what?

Didn't realize that tactics was a form of douchery. I'll see your douche and raise you an out-douchery.

Well, that was my entire point. If someone is going to be a DB and bend rules to fit the specific way they put a model together, they should not whine when someone comes along and outplays them using their own rules against them.

dkellyj wrote:
Well, that was my entire point. If someone is going to be a DB and bend rules to fit the specific way they put a model together, they should not whine when someone comes along and outplays them using their own rules against them.

You keep saying that, despite the response to your DB 'counter' being that it is perfectly acceptable within the rules.

Nobody who is arguing in favour of the closed pod blocking LOS is whining about that working against them.

Consider this: You model yours with hatches closed and claim it Blocks LoS.
I build mine with hatches open (or not even installed; ie: blown off) and claim it only provides a cover save.
You pod in a unit somewhere mid field, with the bulk of your army in the deployment zone, and disembark. You then claim that my Plasma Dev Squad may not shoot at a Terminator unit in your deployment zone because the Pod is now blocking my LoS. I then drop a pod next to your unit and deploy my unit so your pod is between my unit and your deployment area.
I then shoot your guys through my open pod (say with AP3 Vengeance rounds from SG) and grant you a cover save only...killing your whole squad on failed saves.
When you then try to shoot my unit from your deployment zone I then claim YOUR RULE that your closed hatch pod blocks your LoS and you can't shoot me. And since your Pod blocks LoS your charging Terminator Squad can't assault me either until you work around your own pod and get LoS.

Regardless, in the Codex on pg. 69 under "TRANSPORT" the description is rather clear what happens. Trying to claim that your pod's HATCHES (NOT DOORS!!!!) remount themselves is purely playing WAAC. Regardless how someone misbuilds the model for whatever reason (the instruction sheet NEVER has you gluing the hatches shut. It does show you gluing the structural ribs in place with the doors in the open position).
Note that all other SM transports the term "door" is not used. They are "access points" and have their own rules for disembarking. If the Pods Hatches were intended to close and make the pod blocking LoS, they would have called them Access Points (5 of them) and used the same rules as a Rhino access point.
(EDIT) They would have also made the DP weapon an external mount in that case. The fact the pods weapon (including upgraded Deathwind launcher) are internal clearly indicates the intent of how the model should be played (hatches open).

dkellyj wrote:
Consider this: You model yours with hatches closed and claim it Blocks LoS.
I build mine with hatches open (or not even installed; ie: blown off) and claim it only provides a cover save.
You pod in a unit somewhere mid field, with the bulk of your army in the deployment zone, and disembark. You then claim that my Plasma Dev Squad may not shoot at a Terminator unit in your deployment zone because the Pod is now blocking my LoS. I then drop a pod next to your unit and deploy my unit so your pod is between my unit and your deployment area.
I then shoot your guys through my open pod (say with AP3 Vengeance rounds from SG) and grant you a cover save only...killing your whole squad on failed saves.
When you then try to shoot my unit from your deployment zone I then claim YOUR RULE that your closed hatch pod blocks your LoS and you can't shoot me. And since your Pod blocks LoS your charging Terminator Squad can't assault me either until you work around your own pod and get LoS.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If my pod is blocking LOS, I wouldn't be trying to shoot through it in the first place.

Trying to claim that your pod's HATCHES (NOT DOORS!!!!) remount themselves is purely playing WAAC.

I have no idea what this even means. What do you mean by 'remounting' the doors? (it makes no difference what you call them...)

Regardless how someone misbuilds the model for whatever reason (the instruction sheet NEVER has you gluing the hatches shut. It does show you gluing the structural ribs in place with the doors in the open position).

Leaving the doors shut when you deploy the pod does not require them to be glued.

If the Pods Hatches were intended to close...

Nobody has said that they are intended to close. They have just pointed out that there is no actual requirement to open them.

... and make the pod blocking LoS, they would have called them Access Points (5 of them) and used the same rules as a Rhino access point.

Open topped vehicles don't have access points.

 insaniak wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Consider this: You model yours with hatches closed and claim it Blocks LoS.
I build mine with hatches open (or not even installed; ie: blown off) and claim it only provides a cover save.
You pod in a unit somewhere mid field, with the bulk of your army in the deployment zone, and disembark. You then claim that my Plasma Dev Squad may not shoot at a Terminator unit in your deployment zone because the Pod is now blocking my LoS. I then drop a pod next to your unit and deploy my unit so your pod is between my unit and your deployment area.
I then shoot your guys through my open pod (say with AP3 Vengeance rounds from SG) and grant you a cover save only...killing your whole squad on failed saves.
When you then try to shoot my unit from your deployment zone I then claim YOUR RULE that your closed hatch pod blocks your LoS and you can't shoot me. And since your Pod blocks LoS your charging Terminator Squad can't assault me either until you work around your own pod and get LoS.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If my pod is blocking LOS, I wouldn't be trying to shoot through it in the first place.

Trying to claim that your pod's HATCHES (NOT DOORS!!!!) remount themselves is purely playing WAAC.

I have no idea what this even means. What do you mean by 'remounting' the doors? (it makes no difference what you call them...)

Regardless how someone misbuilds the model for whatever reason (the instruction sheet NEVER has you gluing the hatches shut. It does show you gluing the structural ribs in place with the doors in the open position).

Leaving the doors shut when you deploy the pod does not require them to be glued.

If the Pods Hatches were intended to close...

Nobody has said that they are intended to close. They have just pointed out that there is no actual requirement to open them.

... and make the pod blocking LoS, they would have called them Access Points (5 of them) and used the same rules as a Rhino access point.

Open topped vehicles don't have access points.

Insaniak is on the ball today.

68% of the poeple that voted say you can't block LOS. I think were done here.

I would like to start off by saying that GW should have FAQ'd this a LONG time ago. I also understand that the model can be a real PITA to put together, and many players would rather just glue the doors to the body and call it a day instead of trying to fiddle around with the inside bitz. Personally, I usually play it however the opponent has it modeled, and honestly, just blow it up first and then nuke the squad inside Some can make the argument that gluing the doors closed constitutes modeling for advantage, and to be honest, against some opponents I've felt the same thing. However, people using the model to block line of site is no different than someone using a rhino or land raider to do the same. Lesson here? Blow up the drop pod first.

RAW I say it blocks line of sight and you are under no obligation to lower the doors.

I don't really care if my opponent wants to play that way, or treat them as open when closed or what, but if they did choose to play that they block LOS, I would insist you either open all the doors, or none of them, so you can't drop them to block LOS while opening half the pod to let it's weapon system fire.

Again, a few hours past and more posts to look through but that can wait till I have time.

I just wanted to quickly say that I have thought on one of the two questions put forth by myself and decided I have an answer. Yes, rules can exist in the same sections as fluff thanks to the way Game Workshop writes. That just makes things far more confusion, so why would I have ever thought they would do it any other way. Frankly, the explanation that they are really green-skins so the rules do not have to follow what we would consider to be logic is adequate.

I still consider 'hatches blown' a rule, just one I have no real clue how to properly interpret as it is poorly written.

If something is written in such a way that it can change the outcome of the game it needs to be taken seriously. You can not just decide that a game altering part of any rule book can be ignored as 'fluff.' As this sentence has the possibility of changing the outcome of the game, it can not just be waved away. Sadly with how poorly written it is, if they had just stated open the hatches, it is not clear as to what it means. That leads to individual interpretations and with no way to determine exactly who is correct until we get a FAQ related to it which clearly is going to be never.

In the end, this is going to come down what the players, or tournament organizers, decide this sentence means.

 General_Chaos wrote:
68% of the poeple that voted say you can't block LOS. I think were done here.

You don't think that one in three players disagreeing is sufficient cause for discussion?

 insaniak wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Consider this: You model yours with hatches closed and claim it Blocks LoS.
I build mine with hatches open (or not even installed; ie: blown off) and claim it only provides a cover save.
You pod in a unit somewhere mid field, with the bulk of your army in the deployment zone, and disembark. You then claim that my Plasma Dev Squad may not shoot at a Terminator unit in your deployment zone because the Pod is now blocking my LoS. I then drop a pod next to your unit and deploy my unit so your pod is between my unit and your deployment area.
I then shoot your guys through my open pod (say with AP3 Vengeance rounds from SG) and grant you a cover save only...killing your whole squad on failed saves.
When you then try to shoot my unit from your deployment zone I then claim YOUR RULE that your closed hatch pod blocks your LoS and you can't shoot me. And since your Pod blocks LoS your charging Terminator Squad can't assault me either until you work around your own pod and get LoS.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If my pod is blocking LOS, I wouldn't be trying to shoot through it in the first place.

Just showing how to take advantage of someone elses rules interpretation.

Trying to claim that your pod's HATCHES (NOT DOORS!!!!) remount themselves is purely playing WAAC.

I have no idea what this even means. What do you mean by 'remounting' the doors? (it makes no difference what you call them...)

First, it does matter what you call them. Doors open and close. Hatches do not. The Codex is very specific about calling this a hatch, and a normal entry/exit on a Rhino/LR an Access Point. It is what makes the 2 units different.
The Codex states the Hatches are blown (and don't be ignorant...we ALL know exactly what that means). They are explosively removed allowing instant egress.

Regardless how someone misbuilds the model for whatever reason (the instruction sheet NEVER has you gluing the hatches shut. It does show you gluing the structural ribs in place with the doors in the open position).

Leaving the doors shut when you deploy the pod does not require them to be glued.
Not doors. HATCHES. The language is specific in the Codex and key to how the pod is played. A "door" may be opened and shut as needed. A hatch is either in place or removed. The Pod lands and "blows its hatches"...they are removed.

If the Pods Hatches were intended to close...

Nobody has said that they are intended to close. They have just pointed out that there is no actual requirement to open them.

So if you don't open them how do you disembark? Playing them as if they were in place (blocking LoS) means they had to open to let you out, then close again to block LoS. That is NOT the Codex description of what happens.

... and make the pod blocking LoS, they would have called them Access Points (5 of them) and used the same rules as a Rhino access point.

Open topped vehicles don't have access points.

And neither do drop pods. They have hatches with their own unique rule in the codex. The Hatches are blown and all models must disembark. No models may re-embark.

There is no 'neither' about it. Drop pods don't have access points because they are open topped vehicles. Having the doors closed doesn't change that.

 insaniak wrote:

 General_Chaos wrote:
68% of the poeple that voted say you can't block LOS. I think were done here.

You don't think that one in three players disagreeing is sufficient cause for discussion?

this is no discussion now, all points have been made, now it's turned into many of the "rules" debates where people just keep repeating themselves over and over just to get the last word in, some how thinking that makes them right and that will sway everyone to their corner.

 insaniak wrote:
There is no 'neither' about it. Drop pods don't have access points because they are open topped vehicles. Having the doors closed doesn't change that.

Not quite. It is the act of blowing the hatches that causes the vehicle to COUNT AS being open topped.
C:SM; pg69: Once deployed the Drop Pod is no longer a sealed environment and is therefore counted as being open topped.
Drop Pods do not have the "Open Top" rule, they merely count as being open topped. A huge difference.

The issue arises that if the had just called it open top from the beginning, then you would be allowed to assault from a drop pod like Orks from a Trukk. GW does not want that, else they would have given the pod the Assault Vehicle USR (like the FW Dred-Pod).
The order of operations by the rules:
The pod lands, scatter is determined for final resting place.
The hatches are blown (the "doors" are opened).
The unit disembarks per the 6th ed BRB,
The pod is then treated as open top with regard to damage results.

Since the hatches are now gone (all of them) your pod does not block LoS.
Just as the drawing on pg.69 shows. If you build it closed (as I do because I hate all those open petals getting in the way of the playing board) then just draw the LoS through the pod. If the unit is masked by the pod it gets a standard cover save.


Now, if you want to be cheesy about it, you put your pod on some sort of scenic base to raise it up a 1/4-1/2 inch. Then you fully build every little harness and internal bit. Go the extra mile and put 3-4 space marines in the harness to add more bulk to the interior (making it more thematic). Now you actually have so much intervening junk on the inside you rules-lawyer your opponent that he can't actually see strait through the pod, but only at a high angle where the only LoS he will have is to something on the 3rd floor of a ruin all the way across the board. Don't forget to add a spacer to lower the Storm Bolter for additional WAAC Cheese.

dkellyj wrote:
Not quite. It is the act of blowing the hatches that causes the vehicle to become open topped.

No, it's open topped because the rules say it is open topped. The part about blowing the hatches is a fluff explanation of why this occurs.

The issue arises that if the had just called it open top from the beginning, then you would be allowed to assault from a drop pod like Orks from a Trukk. GW does not want that, else they would have given the pod the Assault Vehicle USR (like the FW Dred-Pod).

The what now...?

You can't assault from it because the rules say you can't assault from it. The reason that the vehicle is considered to be open topped has absolutely no bearing on that.

And your 'order of operations' is wrong. The pod is considered open topped once it is deployed. The unit disembarks immediately after the pod is deployed. So the pod is already considered open topped before the unit disembarks. If it wasn't, you would have no way to disembark, since it has no access points.

Since the hatches are now gone (all of them) your pod does not block LoS.

Except that the LOS rules don't care if a piece of fluff says that a vehicle opens its doors. They just tell us to look at the model. If the model has the doors up, those doors will block LOS.

Just as the drawing on pg.69 shows.

If you're using that drawing as proof of how the pod is placed on the board, you also apparently have to light it on fire and drop it from a height.

There are 6 pictures of the actual drop pod model in the marine codex, and 3 of them (including one of the pod sitting on the table) have the doors up.

 General_Chaos wrote:
68% of the poeple that voted say you can't block LOS. I think were done here.

Well yea, considering that 68% if the people got the rules incorrect, I would say we are done.

Models Block Line of Sight. 68% of the people think they do not block Line of Sight. Clearly the rules prove them wrong.

 insaniak wrote:
No, it's open topped because the rules say it is open topped. The part about blowing the hatches is a fluff explanation of why this occurs.

No, the Codex (the rules) says it COUNTS AS open topped. That is different than having the Open Top USR.

The what now...?

You can't assault from it because the rules say you can't assault from it. The reason that the vehicle is considered to be open topped has absolutely no bearing on that.

You cant Assault from it because it does not have the "Assault Vehicle" or the "Open Top" USRs.

And your 'order of operations' is wrong. The pod is considered open topped once it is deployed. The unit disembarks immediately after the pod is deployed. So the pod is already considered open topped before the unit disembarks. If it wasn't, you would have no way to disembark, since it has no access points.

Wrong. Something physical has to occur to both disembark AND start counting as being open topped. That thing is the hatches blowing off (opening since they hinged them on the model). And again, the pod does not have access points. The Codex is specific that they are hatches. The language, the words used, matter.

Except that the LOS rules don't care if a piece of fluff says that a vehicle opens its doors. They just tell us to look at the model. If the model has the doors up, those doors will block LOS.

Assuming the model was built correctly. The instruction sheet does not tell you to glue the doors shut. In fact they clearly show the final major assembly, the 5 ribs, being assembled with the petals open. If I have a Land Raider and over time the front ramp wont stay closed (normal wear and tear) are you now going to claim the ability to shoot the transported squad through the open door? Or that it now has some arbitrary lesser FA value?
Of course not...its an abstraction. The same with the pods. Regardless of being built open or closed, you abstract the model as open and not blocking LoS. The same way you abstract ten 8' tall supermen jamming themselves in a vehicle smaller than a Chimera, which holds a dozen normal sized people.

If you're using that drawing as proof of how the pod is placed on the board, you also apparently have to light it on fire and drop it from a height.

Now your just being obtuse.

There are 6 pictures of the actual drop pod model in the marine codex, and 3 of them (including one of the pod sitting on the table) have the doors up.

Of course they show pics with the hatches closed. That's just showing you painting examples. Something to catch your eye and demonstrate paint schemes. As for the one on the table (pg107) that's a display board, not an actual game board. If you look at the actual game board shots in the beginning of the BRB you find every pod has hatches open.

dkellyj wrote:
If you look at the actual game board shots in the beginning of the BRB you find every pod has hatches open.

Which, of course, means nothing. The pictures in the book are not rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 General_Chaos wrote:
68% of the poeple that voted say you can't block LOS. I think were done here.

Well yea, considering that 68% if the people got the rules incorrect, I would say we are done.

Models Block Line of Sight. 68% of the people think they do not block Line of Sight. Clearly the rules prove them wrong.

This isn't productive Deathreaper. Please add something helpful to the discussion if you're going to post in the thread.

Generally speaking, with most rules calls in the community, the majority interpretation rules. Lord knows I've been unhappy with that system sometimes, but it's what mature adults do. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but continuing to post that everyone is wrong, just wrong, isn't helping the discussion.

It is productive because maybe people will realize that True Line of sight is actually a rule.

The 68% seem to be ignoring the rule that states you need to have True Line of Sight to be able to fire upon a unit...

The question of "Can a Drop Pod be deployed with the doors closed to both completely block line of sight and allow the crew to disembark" has a clear RAW answer, that answer is "Yes, it can be used to completely block LOS.". Anyone that answers "No, it cannot be used to completely block LOS." is incorrect as far as the RAW is concerned.

No matter how accurate you think you are, even if you are actually correct, doggedly repeating the same arguments (the majority of respondents are wrong because of true line of sight) doesn't help. It doesn't persuade those who disagree with you, and at best serves to alienate those who are on the fence.

At the VERY worst, it derails the discussion, leads to personal arguments, and gets the thread locked.

If you have additional information to contribute, then by all means, have on! If not, then you've already made several coherent, lucid arguments, which will speak more strongly if they are not repeated over and over again.

Except there is only one true answer here, and it has been given. Playing otherwiase requires a houserule
All this thread proves is the number of people who dont "GET" TLOS, 15 years in

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except there is only one true answer here, and it has been given. Playing otherwiase requires a houserule

If we are playing blindly RAW, in a vacuum, I agree.

This issue's inclusion into many (if not all) large event FAQs suggests 2 things
1) A strict RAW reading permits the doors to stay up, or at least leaves open a reasonable possibility for such. Strong enough that they wanted to include guidelines in the FAQ
2) The strict RAW permissive-reading is unsatisfying to people writing event FAQs

I think a player's position on this issue is greatly influenced by the point of view they approach the question. RAW vs HIWPI

So could you even drop 1 or 2 doors to let the bolter fire and leave one up to block LOS say from the quad gun to your squad?

dkellyj wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
There is no 'neither' about it. Drop pods don't have access points because they are open topped vehicles. Having the doors closed doesn't change that.

Not quite. It is the act of blowing the hatches that causes the vehicle to COUNT AS being open topped.
C:SM; pg69: Once deployed the Drop Pod is no longer a sealed environment and is therefore counted as being open topped.
Drop Pods do not have the "Open Top" rule, they merely count as being open topped. A huge difference.

Absolutely wrong. Counts as must be the same as is.

The issue arises that if the had just called it open top from the beginning, then you would be allowed to assault from a drop pod like Orks from a Trukk. GW does not want that, else they would have given the pod the Assault Vehicle USR (like the FW Dred-Pod).

Page 82 says they do have the Assault Vehicle USR.

The order of operations by the rules:
The pod lands, scatter is determined for final resting place.

Yes.

The hatches are blown (the "doors" are opened).

Where are the rules that define this?

The unit disembarks per the 6th ed BRB,

Sure.

The pod is then treated as open top with regard to damage results.

Even if there was an order of operations to this, this would be the incorrect place for it.
The rule says once deployed - meaning it happens immediately after scattering.

Since the hatches are now gone (all of them) your pod does not block LoS.

No as there's no rule that states they're gone.

Just as the drawing on pg.69 shows. If you build it closed (as I do because I hate all those open petals getting in the way of the playing board) then just draw the LoS through the pod. If the unit is masked by the pod it gets a standard cover save.

Cite permission to ignore the LoS rules please. A page would suffice.

Now, if you want to be cheesy about it, you put your pod on some sort of scenic base to raise it up a 1/4-1/2 inch. Then you fully build every little harness and internal bit. Go the extra mile and put 3-4 space marines in the harness to add more bulk to the interior (making it more thematic). Now you actually have so much intervening junk on the inside you rules-lawyer your opponent that he can't actually see strait through the pod, but only at a high angle where the only LoS he will have is to something on the 3rd floor of a ruin all the way across the board. Don't forget to add a spacer to lower the Storm Bolter for additional WAAC Cheese.

You mean modeling for advantage? Yeah, no.

dkellyj wrote:
No, the Codex (the rules) says it COUNTS AS open topped. That is different than having the Open Top USR.

This distinction actually works against your argument.

From a rules point of view, 'counts as open topped' and 'is open topped' amount to the same thing. If it counts as being open topped, then it follows all of the same rules as an actual open topped vehicle would.

From a model point of view, if the doors are all open the pod model is open topped... so there is no reason for it to need to count as open topped. The only reason the rules would need to say that it counts as open topped (rather than just is open topped) is if it actually isn't, but we are supposed to pretend that it is.

Oh, and 'open topped' is a type of vehicle, not a USR.

You cant Assault from it because it does not have the "Assault Vehicle" or the "Open Top" USRs.

If it counts as open topped, then it has the Assault Vehicle rule. The disembarking models can't assault because the Drop Pod Assault rule says they can't.

Wrong. Something physical has to occur to both disembark AND start counting as being open topped. That thing is the hatches blowing off (opening since they hinged them on the model). And again, the pod does not have access points

OK. So if the pod doesn't count as open topped until the models are out, how do they get out?

The Codex is specific that they are hatches. The language, the words used, matter.

Exactly what difference do you think it makes if we call them 'doors' or 'hatches'...?

Assuming the model was built correctly. The instruction sheet does not tell you to glue the doors shut. In fact they clearly show the final major assembly, the 5 ribs, being assembled with the petals open. If I have a Land Raider and over time the front ramp wont stay closed (normal wear and tear) are you now going to claim the ability to shoot the transported squad through the open door? Or that it now has some arbitrary lesser FA value?
Of course not...its an abstraction. The same with the pods. Regardless of being built open or closed, you abstract the model as open and not blocking LoS. The same way you abstract ten 8' tall supermen jamming themselves in a vehicle smaller than a Chimera, which holds a dozen normal sized people.

Yes, it's an abstraction. But it's an abstraction that doesn't care if the model is built correctly. LOS in 40K uses the actual physical profile of the model on the table. Nowhere in the LOS rules, or the open topped rules, are we told that LOS past an open topped vehicle should assume that you can see through the vehicle even if you can't actually do so.

And, once again, leaving the doors closed does not require the model to be built incorrectly, since the doors are hinged.

Now your just being obtuse.

You're the one who presented that drawing as evidence of how the pod is deployed. There are two pods in that picture... If the picture is going to be evidence of how the rules work, you can't just arbitrarily ignore one of them.

Mythra,

If the interpretation that the doors do not need to be opened is correct then yes. There would be nothing preventing you from opening a few of the doors, and leaving the other ones closed. Literally exploiting the rules so you get the best of both words, like the best of any rule lawyering that never should be seen on the table top.

Keep in mind, trying this will not get you any friends and you will face a lot of resistance, even if it is technically correct.

JinxDragon wrote:
Keep in mind, trying this will not get you any friends and you will face a lot of resistance, even if it is technically correct.

Just going by the results of this poll, nearly one in three people think that the doors being up is fine. So 'not getting you any friends' is a bit of an exaggeration. You're not going to have to look too hard to find another player who thinks it works the same way you do.

Realistically, if you're one of the (currently) 67% who think that the pod doors shouldn't block LOS, then you have a roughly 50/50 chance of your opponent thinking that they do.

Every one knows that when a Drop pod Lands, its doors open and the Marines Get out. And every one Knows that gluing the Doors Shut and using it to block Line of Site, is a douche Rule lawyer move that wont win any friends.

However they are right. their are no rule about the doors having to be modeled as open when on the table. And also the only way to argue this is to get an event organizer to rule on it in a tournament. Or roll on it with your friend you are playing against to save argument.

It will NEVER be resolved in this thread unless GW decide to release a FAQ about it, on the weight of 6 pages of a thread arguing about it.

What really kicked this off, was a Black Templar player using the rules to stay inside the drop pod for a turn. And yes according to that codex they can. But he also mentioned being able to shoot from it as it is classed as open topped. And then assault from it the next turn.

And that is a real douche move, as yes, any units aboard an open topped unit uses any part of the hull to measure range from. And unfortunately, draw line of site from. You could argue that he would have to prov his models inside the pod have LOS but then so would everyone with a Vehicle that allows shooting from its passengers. And lets face it, you wont be getting 10 Dark Eldar warrior's onto a Raider. So again there is no way to rule against it. Unless you are playing house rules or the such.

This thread is just the same argument every other post. With a rule lawyer filling in the posts between with actual Rules. That I'm afraid, don't actually state that you cant have them permanently closed.

So just be happy in the fact that someone wasted £20 on a model, that they incorrectly built, just to have a tiny square on the battle field act as blocking line of site.

In Truth it doe's not matter if they huddle their troops to hide them out of LOS, Then it makes them easier to Pie Plate or Bale flame to death.

I don't know there Insaniak. A number of the unique, as in not the same poster posting, responses on the 'doors can stay close' side of the debate can be boiled down to 'only if they leave all the doors up.' I don't think they represent a small minority in that 1/3ish group either, but we have no way to be certain. It does show that you would find less people then 1 in 3 whom are comfortable letting you open only the door which blocks your weapon system from firing.

cerbrus2 wrote:
Every one knows that when a Drop pod Lands, its doors open and the Marines Get out. And every one Knows that gluing the Doors Shut and using it to block Line of Site, is a douche Rule lawyer move that wont win any friends.

Because nothing adds constructively to a discussion like insulting, broad generalisations.

I've explained earlier in the thread why I prefer to go with the 'doors up block LOS' interpretation, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with being a rules lawyer. I consistently score at the top of the field in sports in the tournaments I play in, and anyone who has ever played against me casually knows just how seriously I take (or rather, don't take) the game.

But by all means continue to assume that it has something to do with wanting to be unpleasant to those I'm playing against.

What really kicked this off, was a Black Templar player using the rules to stay inside the drop pod for a turn. And yes according to that codex they can. But he also mentioned being able to shoot from it as it is classed as open topped. And then assault from it the next turn.

Er... whether or not BT can technically stay inside their pod has no bearing on whether or not the door block LOS. I think you're confusing two different discussions here.

So just be happy in the fact that someone wasted £20 on a model, that they incorrectly built, just to have a tiny square on the battle field act as blocking line of site.

Do I really need to point out yet again that leaving the doors closed doesn't require the model to be built incorrectly...?

Insaniak, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
It is not worth my time or effort on this weekend to go round and round with you over rule-lawyering MFA tricks.

Well you can play it however you want but I will say these three things;
1. Hiding an assault unit behind it to avoid the built in "equalizing" factor of the rules (you have to take a round of shooting to the face for not having to walk across the board) is a douche move.
2. If you tried that with me and had your doors permanently glued shut I would say "yep, it does block LOS and your guys inside cant get out.....good job"
3. Play in house how you want, but dont count on your tactics revolving around this move, because go to most local events and def at major events (Novacon, Adepticon, etc) have already ruled that the doors open immediately upon landing and that they do not block LOS (i.e. if you glued them shut, ALOT of leway is going to be given to your opponent for targeting). You can look the respective FAQs up online.

I love these types of rules discussions because it humors me just how many people out there really have to try to look for any loophole to win with versus just trying to win through effective generalship.

cerbrus2 wrote:
Every one knows that when a Drop pod Lands, its doors open and the Marines Get out. And every one Knows that gluing the Doors Shut and using it to block Line of Site, is a douche Rule lawyer move that wont win any friends.

This is thoroughly unhelpful cerbrus. Please don't resort to mud-slinging. We understand that you feel strongly about the issue, but other people feel equally strongly that they are in the right. Kindly try to keep it civil here, please.

The problem is people are arguing that the doors have to be open, and as such are saying that they do not block LOS. A number of people (it seems) voted this way as well. However, the poll asks that if a drop pod is deployed with doors shut (whether our not it is illegal has nothing to do with it) do the doors block LOS?
My question for those who claim they do not block LOS, does a tank block LOS for its sponsons? If so, why does one thing block LOS and not the other (I'm looking for an actual rule, not "the hatches are blown on the drop pod").

 quickfuze wrote:
2. If you tried that with me and had your doors permanently glued shut I would say "yep, it does block LOS and your guys inside cant get out.....good job"

Why can't the guys get out?

Do all vehicles need to have functioning doors for the transported unit to be able to disembark?

I did not see that rule in the BRB, can I get a citation for where that is in the book, Page and Graph will suffice.

 quickfuze wrote:
I love these types of rules discussions because it humors me just how many people out there really have to try to look for any loophole to win with versus just trying to win through effective generalship.

Seriously, I wish people would stop trolling with comments like this.
Read the damn tenets. Understand that people have discussions here. Understand that frequently the conclusions reached have literally nothing to do with how those people actually play the game. I couldn't care less how someone chooses to play their pods - I just don't. Even at tournaments. Pretending that I have some donkey-cave motivation just because I discuss actual rules instead of what you pretend they say is insulting and I'm tired of it.

As a Tyranid player I can guarantee that I'll never play with my SM Drop Pods doors closed.

 quickfuze wrote:
Well you can play it however you want but I will say these three things;
1. Hiding an assault unit behind it to avoid the built in "equalizing" factor of the rules (you have to take a round of shooting to the face for not having to walk across the board) is a douche move.
2. If you tried that with me and had your doors permanently glued shut I would say "yep, it does block LOS and your guys inside cant get out.....good job"
3. Play in house how you want, but dont count on your tactics revolving around this move, because go to most local events and def at major events (Novacon, Adepticon, etc) have already ruled that the doors open immediately upon landing and that they do not block LOS (i.e. if you glued them shut, ALOT of leway is going to be given to your opponent for targeting). You can look the respective FAQs up online.

The 'can't disembark' fallacy has already been addressed ad nauseum.

For your first point, using a drop pod doesn't require your troops to stand out in the open on the turn they arrive, particularly with 6th edition's 6" disembarking. A smart player is going to be dropping his pod near cover and running them in out of the way anyway, so being able to hide behind the pod (which is likely to just have you further away from the enemy and thus minimise your chances of actually getting into assault next turn) really isn't that much of a help.

And playing in a tournament, of course you're going to be playing by their rules. That applies to any contentious rules issue.

I love these types of rules discussions because it humors me just how many people out there really have to try to look for any loophole to win with versus just trying to win through effective generalship.

Just to add to my previous post on this, I would point out that my current army is Space Wolves, and contains no drop pods. My other commonly used armies right now are Orks and Necrons. Neither of which contain Drop Pods. So my argument in this thread does very, very little to help me win games.

Rigeld2,

Hell most of the time the discussions here do not even come to a consensus. This is why the best advise this forum will ever give is 'talk to whom you are playing about it, or the tournament organizers.' Yet we still get so many people arguing as if Games Workshop is reading this, which clearly they are not or the FAQ's would be much better, and thier personal interpretation will be errata in if they can just beat their opponents into submission.

JimSolo,

We might have to accept that every point of value has been said and this thread is long past the point of letting it die. It now is a round about of the same tired arguments being put forth and people simply insulting each other. The only problem with that, given how divided this topic is, it will revive itself within 24 hours of being closed....

I have received a few good insights from a handful of people here whom are interested in the topic, even if they are unyielding to even entertain the opposing view points. Guess that is to be expected, if you think you are right then you probably should argue to the best of your ability. Still if I can be swayed in some regards, though not all, then at least some good came from it to me.

Man, some people just seem to be actively looking for things to get offended over, just like the guy responsible for the fact that I have six drop pods, five of which have the doors glued shut. When I got my first pod, I built it with the harnesses in, but used it almost exclusively for dreads. Had one opponent who had a fething for real _fit_ that I used a drop pod that the dread 'could NOT fit in.'

So to make sure I never had to deal with his kind again, every subsequent pod I built had the doors closed. It's handy being able to drop LOS blocking vehicles almost will, and so I lose a couple of storm bolter shots. So what? Also has saved me from every having to paint a pod interior again, which was kind of a pain.

Wow Jones, just wow. Did you point out there was no way for even a standard marine squad to fit inside, well not without cramming them in all different ways and breaking them in the process. That central terminal and harnesses take up a great deal of space!

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,

Hell most of the time the discussions here do not even come to a consensus. This is why the best advise this forum will ever give is 'talk to whom you are playing about it, or the tournament organizers.' Yet we still get so many people arguing as if Games Workshop is reading this, which clearly they are not or the FAQ's would be much better, and thier personal interpretation will be errata in if they can just beat their opponents into submission.

That's just not true. Many threads come to a rules consensus, with a few that come down to rules vs HYWPI (like this one).
But that's irrelevant. Trolling like that is never warranted.

I was meaning the more heated discussions, the people asking for clarification of a single rule that we can easily answer shouldn't count but correct, they do make up the majority.

Still I do like this forum, I have been learning a great deal about the game. Every time I try and answer a question or put forth an argument I keep reading and re-reading the rules relevant. This has helped me realize oversights I have made in the past, helped me get a better understanding on how these rules and even had a few errors in my own interpretations pointed out and corrected.

So all in all, great forum and even the debates can be fun.

Ok, a new way.

If some one has glued or if they have indeed left the doors closed. Is this not considered cheating as they have shrunk the size of there models foot print on the table because they have not opened the Model to its fullest extent. Because the rules from how i gather mean you have to place the drop pod without it encroaching on any units of scenery. And as such would count as Modelling for advantage, (even though some people don't glue the doors, but leaving them up is the same difference, you have still positioned the model that way), Is this not the same as changing the size of a Models base? And if that is the case does this not force the doors to be opened, and thus stopping the whole LOS through closed doors argument. as the doors have to be opened.

Honest question.

dkellyj wrote:
Insaniak, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
It is not worth my time or effort on this weekend to go round and round with you over rule-lawyering MFA tricks.

I'm not asking you to 'go round and round'... Just to explain how you arrived at your point of view. Because right now, it doesn't make a lot of sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

cerbrus2 wrote:
If some one has glued or if they have indeed left the doors closed. Is this not considered cheating as they have shrunk the size of there models foot print on the table because they have not opened the Model to its fullest extent.

Given that the pod with the doors open is generally played as the doors being ignored and all measurement being to the main hull, no, not really.

 insaniak wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Insaniak, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
It is not worth my time or effort on this weekend to go round and round with you over rule-lawyering MFA tricks.

I'm not asking you to 'go round and round'... Just to explain how you arrived at your point of view. Because right now, it doesn't make a lot of sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

cerbrus2 wrote:
If some one has glued or if they have indeed left the doors closed. Is this not considered cheating as they have shrunk the size of there models foot print on the table because they have not opened the Model to its fullest extent.

Given that the pod with the doors open is generally played as the doors being ignored and all measurement being to the main hull, no, not really.

Then if the doors when opened are ignored then Why are they not ignored wile closed as well? And wile i hate doing this. But is there a rule that states that the doors are ignored when open. Other wise like a lot of some of the arguments on here, There is no rule to say it does. and so can be Lawyerd in such a way as to use the MFA argument. because the doors are in fact counted in the foot print. Again only an honest question.

No, there is no specific rule that says to ignore the doors when they are open. There is a grey area in the rules about just how the doors should be treated, and whether or not they should be considered part of the hull or just 'decorative elements' but the common consensus is that they should be ignored, else the pod's footprint is too large for it to be used practically on any table that actually has sufficient terrain on it, and the carried unit's disembarking radius is just insane.

The reason this applies when the doors are down, but not when they are up is because the doors being down is the entire problem that this convention was created to address.

But without trying to seem like a rule lawyer my self. Then there are no rules saying that the doors are ignored and as such, anybody who leaves them closed after deployment. Or those who have glued them shut. Are there for MFA. To 1. Gain an advantage of a LOS blocking. And 2. Gaining an advantage by being able to place the model in a smaller area of terrain.

And that's the problem with both sides of this argument. And why this thread will continue for even more pages still. Because there is no clean cut rule. Due to GW rule writing. The same as most other threads on this section of the forum.

Maybe the admin should add the random roll forum add on for threads like this. I will leave my points at that. As clearly this is a case of rolling on it, with friends or fallowing house rules. As no actual solid solution will be found here.

No, that's incorrect.
The rules absolutely cover LOS through doors.
Whether or not you play as they're ignored is another matter entirely.

Space Marine drop pods are not designed to only "Partly open." It doesn't make sense from a tactical standpoint, if they didn't open properly it blocks your ability to get to the enemy.

That being said, I think the spirit of the drop pod is to allow LoS. That's only my opinion, though

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's incorrect.
The rules absolutely cover LOS through doors.
Whether or not you play as they're ignored is another matter entirely.

That was not the Question, yes LOS rules are correct the doors will block LOS. But there is no rule stating that the doors must be ignored when placing a model. So by leaving them up or gluing them up, is there for MFA. Thus forcing the doors to be put in the downed position, making the entire argument about LOS through doors irreverent, as the doors have to be layed flat. And as of the Deep strike Rules, the models must be placed in such away that it does not touch any terrain. And not opening the doors on the drop pod after deployment would be the same as deep striking a unit of terminators on Smaller bases, People would soon start Shouting MFA.

And again im not saying that is the way of it. Im just throwing a question into the masses. to ponder.

Im all for the spirit of the game rather than trying to fined loop holes. Hell i even open my landraider doors and rhino doors when deploying troops as it makes nice pics for Bat-reps. Ide be more peed about some one not opening the doors on there drop pod because it ruins the look of my battle field.

I model the pods with no harnesses in them.

I hold the console in the middle with a magnet so I can remove it if I drop a dreadnaught.

I do not model for advantage but for some hope of believing those models fit in there unless they were packed by IKEA or freeze dried.

My pods would have probably 10% block line of sight if doors open.

The bigger problem is I have to tell my opponent to ignore the doors or my pod is triple it's size and stay away 1".

RAW doors block los

However, I would suggest discussing drop pods with your opponent before the game, if they plan on playing it that way, you're free to play someone else, possibly a sane individual who isn't actively trying to do something incredibly sketchy. The rules also allow people to be huge donkey-caves when it comes to things like which unit is in which transport, again RAW they can act like donkey-caves and not communicate any information you request. At the end of the day, find regular opponents who aren't douchebags and a lot of the fringe issues in the game won't matter.

RAW is useful but it will not save you. There's a reason TO's and event organizer tweak things or add house rules and its usually for silly stuff like this. Does anyone remember dreadknights in stormravens?

I don't have any drop pods. I play GKs, Nids, and Necrons. That being said and rules aside I have a problem with pods not being to open or close certain doors. In one of the books I read it mentioned going to collect drop pods afterwards to be used again so if the doors couldn't be opened or closed it seem awkward to pick up the drop pods again.

My other problem is the level of tech in the far future. Why would you even design a pod that couldn't open or close doors? There would be no reason I could imagine. It would be like a marine lander that once the front gate was down it could never be closed again. There would be times when you would want to keep one of the doors shut to give your troops cover. Even if one of the space marines had to lift the door so it was closed -- it doesn't seem beyond a super human.

I really have no problem with in the far future your drop pod having the ability to open or close certain doors. The RAW really seems to go with this as there is no rule not allowing to open or close the doors on model that can have open or closed doors and reason would point that way too.

Sorry you've seen so many threads about this Jinx. I, unfortunately, haven't ever seen this thread before, since joining Dakka almost four years ago. Even so, among the threads that are repeated over and over again, I rarely see one with a poll. I like knowing if a rules issue is a landslide opinion (like the allies and transports issue) or more close, like this one. I find it useful to know when I can safely dismiss the minority opinion, or when I actually need to worry about it coming up in a tournament (like this issue).

I'm suprised you've never seen one, I consider it one of the hottest RAW topics out there. I'm suprised we havent actually gotten an FAQ reguarding the door issue, though I do feel that people are being a bit nit picky about what is fluff and what is rule. But to be fair, GW should have picked up that fluffy rule wording doesn't work out well for the rest of the community at large.

Paitryn wrote:
I'm suprised you've never seen one, I consider it one of the hottest RAW topics out there. I'm suprised we havent actually gotten an FAQ reguarding the door issue, though I do feel that people are being a bit nit picky about what is fluff and what is rule. But to be fair, GW should have picked up that fluffy rule wording doesn't work out well for the rest of the community at large.

That's not correct though. You need to differentiate the internet forums and actual games. YMDC has two ways of working:

a) #1: question asked #2: answer #3: "Yes, #2 is correct" #4: "yes, #2 is correct", topic dies after ~5 replies....or

b) #1: question asked, #2: answer provided, #3: Hmm...that's how I see it., #4: I disagree, see it's.... ....and at this point, peopel start throwing terms like "RAW" or "RAI" around, often not knowing what they mean and "try" to "prove others wrong" which results in an elaborated way of ye good ol' "I AM RIGHT LOL" "NO I AM RIGHT LOL STFU NOOB" "HAHAH THIS IS RAW LOLOLO" "I IKE PIEZ" etc. Next step are insults, flames and a mod closing the thread.

In the actual offline world, those issues would *never* come up. In all my years, this was a problem *once* and it was solved by RAW. Literal RAW as in Rules As Written...the opponent showed him the paragraph about doors being blast open and both immediately agreed. Problem solved.

Plus: always keep in mind that every tournament and normal game follows RAI, not RAW most of the time. People use common sense when playing. Rules discussions on internet forums aren't the go-to place if you need help with a debatable issue, all you will get is more obtuse opinions. Your first and last place to get such info will always be your gaming group or your referee / TO. Every other opinion, especially those repeatedly stating they're right by saying...they're right, is void in actual games.

Sigvatr, you left out option c, which is that the discussion continues in a relatively civil fashion until people get bored with it and wander off (which happens more often than people seem to realise) or people start wandering in insisting that further discussion is pointless due to their clearly only being one 'correct' way to read the rules.

Issues that have one clear, correct answer don't tend to spawn 7 pages of discussion, so posts like that ultimately serve no purpose other than to rile people up. If you're not interested in participating in the discussion, there is no reason to keep posting in the thread.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In the actual offline world, those issues would *never* come up. In all my years, this was a problem *once* and it was solved by RAW. Literal RAW as in Rules As Written...the opponent showed him the paragraph about doors being blast open and both immediately agreed. Problem solved.

1) That is not "solved by RAW", that is fluff that you used to figure out how you would play it.

2) It does not even say 'doors being blast open' it says 'Hatches are blown' (Note these are two different things it says nothing about opening the doors in the actual rule).

I is something I considered too.

Doors up also allow the model to move closer, assuming it scatters the right way, to enemy units then it would down. The guidance system ensures you want to scatter into the enemies ranks, and leaving the door up or ignoring them for measurements let you get closer still. Of course, didn't care to go into that debate in depth as this has gone 7 pages on just 'can the doors be left up' alone....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jim,

I don't remember stating I have seen this thread many times, I'm only a few months into the game myself. I might of implied it, I might not of meant to, I can't say for sure. One of those little things, I don't even know what I am doing! No wonder Choas forces seems to be the only ones that treat me well.

Sometime when I don't have a solid answer or am starting to form arguments on something for myself I do see what other people have written. Not just on Dakka dakka, even though it is by far the best forum, but in other places as well. Google is your friend, well it tells you it's your friend. It seems this is a very hotly debated topic throughout the 40K game base, and that is reflected across multiple forums. Maybe I was thinking on those times.

In any case, you are right though as polls are a good way to determine what the majority option is.

JinxDragon wrote:
Doors up also allow the model to move closer, assuming it scatters the right way, to enemy units then it would down.

Under the normal convention that the open doors don't count for anything, no, it doesn't.

Can you point me to the section in the drop pod rules which states the doors are decorative for the purpose of measuring and only measuring?

I point this out because measuring from a vehicles hull allow you to ignore a lot of things. While that does not state door, per say, it does state that you can ignore 'decorative' parts of the vehicle in question. I am assuming you are considered the doors to be simply decorative in the state of them being open. I have no real problem with this interpretation, if they are decorative then they are decorative. Causes a few problems, but they are easily resolved by allowing models that would be 'squished' by the doors to be positioned on top of them or agreements that the doors can remain closed to prevent terrain being damage.

Yet that raises an interesting situation, if they are decorative then do they block line of sight?

The line of sight section of the book contains very similar exceptions determining LOS to an individual model. That section includes all the same parts which are provided as examples of decoration on a vehicle when we are measuring to and from them. Understandable why they are ignored, they do not want impressive models to be at a disadvantage simply because they are larger models then the similar ones, when left unadorned.

Still that raises a third thing to consider, does this 'flair' block line of sight if is in between the targeted unit and the shooter. There is nothing I can see in the LOS section that states you can ignore flair on intervening models. By a Rules as Written interpretation you can hide models behind the wings of a larger monstrous creature for the purpose of blocking line of sight. As long as the flair is large enough, and agreed to be appropriate flair and not Modeling for Advantage, then you could use it to block line of sight without having a penalty to that unit being easier to target.

It just highlights the broken logic of Game Workshop rules. You couldn't target through a monstrous creature with large decorative wings, because all you can see is the wing and not the models behind it. Yet at the same time you can't target the monstrous creature because all you see is the wing, and that isn't included when you consider if you have line of sight. Given all the other logic breaking rules, I have to say this is probably 'working as intended.'

Of course all this doesn't answer what I consider to be the core of the matter: The whole debate over if you can even leave the doors up in the first place. If you are playing with closed doors interpretation then you still can consider them to be part of the hull without issue. They are closed and do not get in the way of measuring to begin with.

Decorative elements can still block LOS, you just ignore them for LOS to the model (similar to Wings on a DP or Flyrant).

Yep, that is my interpretation of Rules as Written in all that babble I put forth. After all, if Games Workshop loves anything almost as much as it loves money then it has to be making logic cry. The fact you can not target something because a wing blocking your view and at the same time not target the wing itself... well, take that logic.

Yeah, this is the first time I've ever heard of something being ignored for one LOS purpose but not another. I think everyone I've ever played has played where if it's an element you can't measure to, then it also doesn't block LOS to other models. If I'm being honest, it never occurred to me that people would do one but not the other. Hrmmm...

 Jimsolo wrote:
Yeah, this is the first time I've ever heard of something being ignored for one LOS purpose but not another. I think everyone I've ever played has played where if it's an element you can't measure to, then it also doesn't block LOS to other models. If I'm being honest, it never occurred to me that people would do one but not the other. Hrmmm...

I'm confused. What purpose is it being ignored for and when is it not ignored?

I treat the doors the same way I treat the wings on FMCs - you can't draw LOS to them but they still block LOS to other models.

It's ignored for measuring purposes (you can't measure to the tip of the drop pod doors, you have to get all the way to the hull).

Or the aforementioned wings. You ignore them for the purposes of drawing LOS to the mini they are on, but the claim on the table is that they can still block LOS. That seems odd to me.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It's ignored for measuring purposes (you can't measure to the tip of the drop pod doors, you have to get all the way to the hull).

And this has what to do with LOS?

My problem isn't with people saying that you should treat the doors as open. My problem is with people claiming that the doors do not block LOS. Especially since the poll question is (basically) do the DP doors block LOS and approximately 2/3 of the voters say they do not. Yet I guarantee if I were to try to draw LOS through the hull of a Land Raider with a sponson weapon I would immediately be called on it.

Edit: Sorry you edited your post whlie I was replying.

In regards to wings, they are treated just like a banner on a model and per page 8, while they block LOS they cannot be used to draw LOS to the model. I agree from a real-life standpoint that it can be silly.

Sorry for not being clear (and editing the post...I was trying to add clarity )

The common convention is that you cannot draw line of sight TO downward-deployed pod doors. (You have to draw LOS all the way to the pod.) The minority argument is that those same doors that you ignore for LOS purposes (when drawing LOS to the pod) will not be ignored when drawing LOS through the pod. And I don't really understand that.

I don't have my book on my (sorry ) but does page 8 really specify both of those things? (That the banners/wings/etc both are not counted for establishing LOS to the model AND that banners/wings/etc DO count for establishing LOS through/over the model?)

Yes, page 8 does establish both of those facts.
It tells us we can only draw LOS to a models body (ignoring wings, etc) and it defines TLOS. Since there's no exception to allow for ignoring wings, etc then there is no exception.

I see what you're saying, but the lack of an exclusion from the TLOS rule isn't what I meant (my bad for not being clear enough ). Does page 8 explicitly state that the parts of the model which you cannot draw line of sight to still block line of sight to other models?

 Jimsolo wrote:
I see what you're saying, but the lack of an exclusion from the TLOS rule isn't what I meant (my bad for not being clear enough ). Does page 8 explicitly state that the parts of the model which you cannot draw line of sight to still block line of sight to other models?

No.
It says to use TLOS. Does a models wing block line of sight? I know my Flyrants wings are not transparent.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The common convention is that you cannot draw line of sight TO downward-deployed pod doors. (You have to draw LOS all the way to the pod.) The minority argument is that those same doors that you ignore for LOS purposes (when drawing LOS to the pod) will not be ignored when drawing LOS through the pod. And I don't really understand that.

It's because you're lookign at two completely different situations.

The doors when they are down are ignored because the alternative creates silliness. If you allow LOS to the open doors, then you're treating them as a part of the hull and so models would also be able to disembark from them. If you disallow disembarking from the outstretched doors, then you also have to remove them from LOS consideration in the interests of fairness.

When the doors are up, there is no reason to do this. By trying to ignroe the doors for LOS in that situation, you're changing the LOS rules for no good reason, and just creating a situation where players have to try to extrapolate what can and can't be seen through the pod without actually being able to see it.

Essentially, the pod with the doors up is free to follow the actual rules as written. You measure to the hull, and the physical parts of the pod block LOS as per the normal LOS rules.
With the pod doors down, convention says to modeify the rules slightly in the interests of keeping the pod playable, because playing by the RAW is awkward, and potentially renders the pod useless, particularly if you are using more than one or two of them.

I don't have my book on my (sorry ) but does page 8 really specify both of those things? (That the banners/wings/etc both are not counted for establishing LOS to the model AND that banners/wings/etc DO count for establishing LOS through/over the model?)

An exception to the LOS rules is created for certain parts of the model so that they don't count for drawing LOS to the model. No such exception is made for the model blocking LOS... so these parts still block LOS as normal.

It isn't so much that the rules allow them to block line of sight, it is more that the rules establish an exception for using them to target the model in question. So it isn't so much a stated in the rules in that exact wording, but it is derived from the lack of a rule giving you permission to ignore wings to trace line of sight to other models. One of those 'follow these basic rules, except in this one instance' sort of thing that you will find throughout the books and codex.

While it doesn't make logical sense that it works both ways, depending on if your targeting the model in question or models behind it, that is how it works.

Well then, I learned something today.

It's rare that I find some aspect of the 40k rules that I can't justify in my mind to make it make sense, but this one qualifies. Oh well. It's a game, after all, not a simulation. I can deal.

Roll a d6

Lungpickle wrote:
Roll a d6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54VJWHL2K3I

Wow! A lot of talk on here but not a lot logical discussion to support the pro or anti perspective.

I play DPs in lists composed of 4 to 10 pods and always ensure that the doors are modeled such that they can be deployed. If a DP were ot have the doors glued in the shut position then the unit is unable to deploy. Reasons being are two-fold;

1) The model kit instructs the door pins to be free of glue, the model is intended to have doors that open. There shouldn't need to be a rule in the book to explain that the doors are to opened the model kit covers this with the instuctions.
2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing. The event of a hatch failure would create the situation of a DP with doors in the closed position. In that case, the weapon mount inside would not only be unable to fire but the unit inside would be unable to deploy.

You can argue rules all day long on this and complain how GW srewed up the wording on how a toy model is unclear. However, if anyone of my opponents were to try and play his DPs with closed doors, claim blocking LOS, and credit GW with faulty rules to justify it I would tell him to hit the bricks. Just my opinion and position.

meh, reason one is rather shaky on it's own. Assembly instructions =/= rules. reason 2 is unfounded and circular.

IMO the best reason (other that practical game balance/MFA/Consensus ones) for requiring the doors to open is the StormBolter. I know of no hull or turrent mounted weapon that is inside the hull.

also - I was sorely temped to link that d6 video, but was trying to stay on task.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
W
2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing.

That is not what the entry in theSM Codex says.

"Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers..." P.69 SM Codex (Emphasis mine)

"the hatches are blown", not blown open, just blown.

please get the quote correct.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Wow! A lot of talk on here but not a lot logical discussion to support the pro or anti perspective.

I play DPs in lists composed of 4 to 10 pods and always ensure that the doors are modeled such that they can be deployed. If a DP were ot have the doors glued in the shut position then the unit is unable to deploy. Reasons being are two-fold;

1) The model kit instructs the door pins to be free of glue, the model is intended to have doors that open. There shouldn't need to be a rule in the book to explain that the doors are to opened the model kit covers this with the instuctions.
2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing. The event of a hatch failure would create the situation of a DP with doors in the closed position. In that case, the weapon mount inside would not only be unable to fire but the unit inside would be unable to deploy.

You can argue rules all day long on this and complain how GW srewed up the wording on how a toy model is unclear. However, if anyone of my opponents were to try and play his DPs with closed doors, claim blocking LOS, and credit GW with faulty rules to justify it I would tell him to hit the bricks. Just my opinion and position.

1)Free of glue meaning they can be open or tada Closed. Otherwise how do those pesky SM's get out of their Rhinos.

2)Common sense does not apply to WH40k.
Nothing states if a door does not open a unit may not disembark.

If they're not glued, you open them. If they're glued, disembark as normal, and the pod can block LOS. This goes both ways though - shooting with the pod's weapon follows the TLOS rules (i.e., it cannot draw LOS to anything if the doors are closed).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
W
2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing.

That is not what the entry in theSM Codex says.

"Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers..." P.69 SM Codex (Emphasis mine)

"the hatches are blown", not blown open, just blown.

please get the quote correct.

Why bother blowing the hatches open rather than unseal them?

I think the main argument I see for drop pods being open and not wholly LoS blocking is that they're designed as lightning strike craft. It doesn't make sense to throw down your drop pods and have them sit there to be shot to pieces with men inside. In fact this, to my knowledge, has never been portrayed in any 40k media.

As well, given the nature of the Drop Pod navigation system (which is disabled on landing and immediately moves to targeting functions), it seems only logical from the fluff that the doors are blown open automatically (as the machine spirit seems to no longer handle the basic operations of the pod, aside from weapons systems.

It's possible that a flaw could keep a drop pod's side from opening correctly, but given the possibility of scatter, it makes no military sense to have certain doors not open while others do.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact

Not only common sense, it's RAW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact

Not only common sense, it's RAW.

Find the rule saying the doors must be opened

Page and graph will suffice.

 Hashbeth wrote:

I think the main argument I see for drop pods being open and not wholly LoS blocking is that they're designed as lightning strike craft. It doesn't make sense to throw down your drop pods and have them sit there to be shot to pieces with men inside. In fact this, to my knowledge, has never been portrayed in any 40k media.

I think you've missed the point of the discussion slightly.

Nobody is contesting the idea that the drop pod's doors open to allow the troops to disembark. The argument its simply that there is no more reason, rules wise, that this has to be portrayed by open doors on the model than there is any other transport vehicle. Fluff wise, the assault ramp on the land raider has to open to let the troops out... But that doesn't mean that you physically have to open that ramp.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact

Not only common sense, it's RAW.

Find the rule saying the doors must be opened

Page and graph will suffice.

Quoted multiple times in this thread, it's in the Drop Pod's rules. Thanks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact

Not only common sense, it's RAW.

Find the rule saying the doors must be opened

Page and graph will suffice.

Fined the rules stating Doors must be ignored when placing the model. other wise by leaving the doors up you are MFA, as you are reducing the footprint size of the model. to enable you to place it on the board easier.

Oh that's right there isn't any.

Sigvatr - nope, no rules saying the doors must be opened. There is a piece of fluff saying the hatches are blown - if you are saying those are rules, I assume you attach small explosive bolts to your model? As simply lowering them does not fit the contextual meaning of "blown"?

Cerbrus - again, you are stating you must open the doors. Find a rule requiring that.

there isnt one. It isnt "modelling for advantage" to leave your stock assembled model with the doors closed on a drop pod any mroe than it is on a land raider.

You have zero rules support for your position.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigvatr - nope, no rules saying the doors must be opened. There is a piece of fluff saying the hatches are blown - if you are saying those are rules, I assume you attach small explosive bolts to your model? As simply lowering them does not fit the contextual meaning of "blown"?

Cerbrus - again, you are stating you must open the doors. Find a rule requiring that.

there isnt one. It isnt "modelling for advantage" to leave your stock assembled model with the doors closed on a drop pod any mroe than it is on a land raider.

You have zero rules support for your position.

I have the deep strike rules actually and the pods rules them selfs. Stating that the model must be placed on the table, and must not be placed on area terrain or with 1" of a enemy model. The doors are part of that model. By not opening the doors you are reducing the footprint of the model and thus MFA. You would be the first to moan if I put my terminators on 25mm bases so I can get a tighter and smaller circle formation in order to deep strike it in easier.

If you want to rule lawyer then so will I... Simple.

Themselves

Find a rule that you must OPEN the doors before placing the model. Page and graph will suffice

If you reread your posts you will notice a total lack of proof for the assertion you are making that you must open the doors. Note; "hatches are blown" is not "doors must be opened", before you attempt to try that failed argument out.

How is it "MFA" to use the stock model in a stock pose? Please explain

Finally: you may want to tone down the negatives you are throwing about others motives. I have simply asked you, as per the tenets of the forum that you are posting in, to back up your argument with a writtne rule. You have been unable to do so

Further refusal to provide the explicit rule stating "when placing the drop pod the doors must be opened out" (or some such rule) will be accepted as concession that you are making a HIWPI argument and not one based on rules.