So this situation came up in a recent Doubles Tournament this weekend
Im using my Space Marines and drop pod my Venerable Dread in a front of the Icarus Quad gun and Aegis line. I deploy my dread on the opposite side of the Drop Pod so Im not facing the Quad Gun thats obviously going to use Intercepter on it. So its Quad gun, drop pod, Dreadnaught in a line for the sake of argument and visualization. So my question then becomes can the Quad gun target/shoot at the Dreadnaught through the drop pod? Per the TO, they gave the option of having my Dread gain a 5+ Cover save and allowing the them to fire through the Drop at my Dread and as the game progressed, there were other incidents where the unit firing behind the Aegis line could only actually see units through the Drop Pod. Im just wondering if this clarification is correct.
The argument brought up by the player shooting through the Drop Pod of how the model is actually constructed came up cause in this case the doors of the drop pod were glued shut, where as in the fluff it says they are blown open so you can actually see throught the other side which is why they could shoot through it. But when then we discussed if a Rhino or Landraider were modelled with the Doors down and you see straight through to model on the other side, they said they couldnt shoot through the Rhino or Land Raider. Im just looking for alittle understanding incase this comes up again the future. Thanks in advance
drop pods do not block line of sight, once they hit the deck the doors are supposed to be open but the doors are to be ignored for purposes of measurements, LOS and other bits and bobs that involve the vehicle.
they were correct, your dread would recieve the 4+ for 25% (infantry would get the 5+) as your walker is a vehicle and gets the obscured rules for vehicles on the defence vs shooting attacks.
Since a drop pod really should be able to open my local gaming group always allows for LoS to be drawn through drop pods but, as should be obvious, anything you target through a drop pod will get a cover save, ususally we err on a better save. So for your example we would give the dreadnought a 3+ cover save.
nutty_nutter wrote: drop pods do not block line of sight, once they hit the deck the doors are supposed to be open but the doors are to be ignored for purposes of measurements, LOS and other bits and bobs that involve the vehicle.
they were correct, your dread would recieve the 4+ for 25% (infantry would get the 5+) as your walker is a vehicle and gets the obscured rules for vehicles on the defence vs shooting attacks.
Helio5287 wrote: The argument brought up by the player shooting through the Drop Pod of how the model is actually constructed came up cause in this case the doors of the drop pod were glued shut, where as in the fluff it says they are blown open so you can actually see throught the other side which is why they could shoot through it
No, that is not what the rules say at all. The Drop Pod entry notes that the hatches are blown. It does not say blown open anywhere, also that line is fluff and not a rule, unless we are expected to affix explosives or pneumatics to our drop pods to get the hatches "Blown"
Yes they do just like everything else in the game. Unless you found a rule stating otherwise, if so Citation please.
once they hit the deck the doors are supposed to be open
This has no basis in the rules. where does it say that the doors are supposed to be open?
but the doors are to be ignored for purposes of measurements, LOS and other bits and bobs that involve the vehicle.
Incorrect again, a Drop pod, like any other vehicle (Or model) will block Line of Sight to things behind the model if it actually blocks Line of Sight.
True Line of Sight is what we use to determine if something is visible to a firing model.
they were correct, your dread would recieve the 4+ for 25% (infantry would get the 5+) as your walker is a vehicle and gets the obscured rules for vehicles on the defence vs shooting attacks.
They were only correct if the dread was actually in Line of Sight.
If the dread was completely out of Line of Sight the gun emplacement would not have been able to fire at the dread at all.
The confusion stems from from the a quarter of a single sentence which states 'doors are blown.'
The side which argue that doors have to be open state that is part of a sequence of events and all steps have to be followed. The first is to place the model of the table, the second is to 'blow the hatches,' the third is to disembark your troops. As the line 'hatches blown' is a step in the sequence, an action has to be taken when you reach this step, and the only 'logical' conclusion to come is that action involves you opening the hatches/doors and putting them in the downward position. This would allow you to draw line of sight clean through the body of the model, with it being very likely that a bead can be drawn but a 25% obscured cover save will be granted.
The side which argues the doors do not have to be open state that the term 'blown open' does not give us any clear instructions to follow, and therefore can not be part of the sequence and is nothing more then 'fluff.' This is because the term 'blown hatches' does not actually contain any instructions detailing how to go about blowing hatches. It doesn't even mention the word open within the sentence in question! Even if it is a sequence of events, as there is no instructions telling the player to do X or Y, that step would simply be checked off as complete as soon as you come to it. Therefore the only thing directing if the doors are opened or closed is if the player places it on the table with them open or closed.
While I feel the 'doors open' is the intent, the 'door closed' side does have a very strong argument.
JinxDragon wrote: The confusion stems from from the a quarter of a single sentence which states 'doors are blown.'
The side which argue that doors 'have to be open' state that is part of a sequence of events. The first is to place the model of the table, the second is to 'blow the doors' which must clearly indicate they are opened, the third is to disembark your troops. In this interpretation you would be forced to have all four doors down, with line of sight then drawn through the body as it is unlikely to reach 100% obscured with such a deployment.
The side which argues the doors do not have to be open state that the term 'blown open' does not give us any clear instructions. The term 'blown hatches' does not tell us how to go about blowing hatches, it doesn't even mention the word open within the sentence in question. Because it lacks any instructions telling us what to do, technically there is no requirement that the doors have to be opened. Therefore you draw line of sight through the doors and failure to see the target prevents you from wounding it.
While I feel the 'doors open' is the intent, the 'door closed' side does have a very strong argument.
It does not say that though, it never mentions that the doors are blown...
It says the hatches are blown, which is fluff. it is not rule because we are not told to use explosives or Pneumatics to blow the hatches on the drop pod...
I agree with Jinx on this one. It is quite clear that RAI, the doors should be open. But unfortunately the shoddy writting by GW means the doors can remain closed per the RAW.
Now I wouldn't play a person twice that attempted to keep them closed and refused LoS through it....but that's just my preference. :-)
I am not a Space Marine player, but I am very fascinated by Drop Pods and their design.
Personally, I think it would be pretty awesome if the rules worked like this:
1. The controlling player places the drop-pod, determines scatter, etc.
2. The controlling player chooses which of the 5 doors will be open and which will remain closed. Any models in the way of an opened door should be placed on top of it. A door may not open if terrain blocks the door. At least one door must be chosen to be opened.
3. This configuration may not be altered in subsequent turns or phases. Closed doors will block LOS for both players attempting to fire through it, and the weapons inside the drop pod firing outward. A door must either be completely open or completely closed.
4. A unit embarked in the drop pod may disembark from any open door.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I agree with Jinx on this one. It is quite clear that RAI, the doors should be open. But unfortunately the shoddy writting by GW means the doors can remain closed per the RAW.
Now I wouldn't play a person twice that attempted to keep them closed and refused LoS through it....but that's just my preference. :-)
So you would not play a person twice that was following the True Line of Sight rules?
Interesting.
If they modeled the doors on their Land raider open and tried to shoot through the opening would you tell them they could not?
How is a Drop pod any different in this situation?
Per Drop Pod Assault from the Lucius pattern Drop Pods (please note that this is a FW unit and the following only applies to this unit):
Imperial Armour Apocalypse wrote:Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent.
So if the doors are glued shut, then their full extent is not moving them at all, since they can't move.
Good to have some guidance on the Forge World model anyway.
True, but I would consider that "modeling for advantage" since the assembled, nonconverted model has moveable doors and FW has FAQ the rules on that particular unit to state that the doors should be opened to thier fullest extent.
Per Drop Pod Assault from the Lucius pattern Drop Pods (please note that this is a FW unit and the following only applies to this unit):
Imperial Armour Apocalypse wrote:Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent.
So if the doors are glued shut, then their full extent is not moving them at all, since they can't move.
Good to have some guidance on the Forge World model anyway.
True, but I would consider that "modeling for advantage" since the assembled, nonconverted model has moveable doors and FW has FAQ the rules on that particular unit to state that the doors should be opened to thier fullest extent.
The FWFAQ has no bearing on this however since we're not using the Lucius pattern Drop Pods. I would love to know where it states that you are required to have your doors glue free. Seeing as how no rules have been broken we use TLoS to figure out that since we can't see the dread, we can not interceptor it.
wyomingfox wrote: True, but I would consider that "modeling for advantage" since the assembled, nonconverted model has moveable doors and FW has FAQ the rules on that particular unit to state that the doors should be opened to thier fullest extent.
First, that is not from an FAQ, that is the actual rule from the Drop Pod Assault wording for LDPs.
Second, as I mentioned, this applies only to the LDP and not other Drop Pods, until such a time GW says you must open the doors upon landing.
its considered modeling for an advantage denying your opened a chance to see threw your drop pod. Its like if i built 3 wraith knights and put them in a squatting position so you cant see behind them and its easier to hide him in cover and be able to block line of sight behind him. Also note that the TO ruled you could see threw them this is just for argument sake
MFA is when you do something knowing its going to impend your opponent(s). If you glue your hatches shut you know your opponent cannot shoot threw them. Hence MFA
Also he was still firing his weapons even though he said we couldnt see threw it.
RAW states the "hatches are blown" its up to the TO to decide the interpretation of the rules and us to follow them.
DeathReaper wrote: And it is not really MFA, as you can not shoot the weapon inside the pod with the doors closed...
In my experience, people who model the drop pod with the doors glued shut normally model the gun on the outside as well. Again, there isn't anything illegal in this practice but it does seem to support "modelling for advantage". You are correct that MFA is not RAW, but it is a common HYWPI no-no both in the FGS and the tournie scene.
And this is why I always discuss how DPs are going to work when my opponent runs them. If they want the doors to be ignored for everything including LOS through the model, that is fine. If they want to play TLOS, that's OK. If they want to treat the doors as hull then that means I can be a little bit further from the Pod and still wreck it.
JinxDragon wrote: Did DeathReaper just try to argue that, in face of a rule stating the doors are to be opened, he would still play such models with the doors closed?
Not sure what you are saying here, what does this mean: " in face of a rule stating the doors are to be opened" please clarify.
To attempt to head off the argument, we've already had a ten page argument about this. The result is that there is a very opinionated divide over this issue, with nearly two thirds of respondents feeling that the drop pod doors should be treated as open even if they have been glued shut. The 28% who feel that the pods should be able to still block LOS completely when glued shut (or left up if magnetized) are still, however, a significant minority, so it's an issue that bears clarifying with your opponent beforehand if either you or he play pods.
How would people feel if I was in a situation where I had a storm talon behind a storm raven, and with the raven in this position the talon does not have any LoS to lets say a helldrake. At the start of the shooting phase I reach over and open the front and rear hatch of the storm raven and now the Talon as true line of sight to 90% of the helldrake. Would the helldrake get a cover save, would the talon be allowed to fire at all?
DJGietzen wrote: How would people feel if I was in a situation where I had a storm talon behind a storm raven, and with the raven in this position the talon does not have any LoS to lets say a helldrake. At the start of the shooting phase I reach over and open the front and rear hatch of the storm raven and now the Talon as true line of sight to 90% of the helldrake. Would the helldrake get a cover save, would the talon be allowed to fire at all?
Well first, I would frown upon this as you are altering a model mid game. Now if the hatches had been open since the beginning of the game, that'd be different.
Anyway, since the Helldrake is not 25% obscured, it would not get a cover save.
Back on page one where someone pointed out the Lucius pattern Drop Pods have a rule forcing the doors to be opened to their fullest extent. I might not be quoting, but your reply was that if the doors are glued then the full extent is 'closed.' It seems you are arguing that you would still play with closed door drop pods even when faced with such rules, even going as far as to alter the clear design of the model so the rule would no longer effect it.
Back on page one where someone pointed out the Lucius pattern Drop Pods have a rule forcing the doors to be opened to their fullest extent. I might not be quoting, but your reply was that if the doors are glued then the full extent is 'closed.' It seems you are arguing that you would still play with closed door drop pods even when faced with such rules, even going as far as to alter the clear design of the model so the rule would no longer effect it.
Well considering the rule is:
"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent." (IA: Apoc book)
If the full extent of the doors is 0 degrees open because of the way the model is assembled, then the rule has been followed 100%
I play by True Line of Sight. If the doors are closed and are required to be "opened to their full extent." and that full extent is not able to be opened because of the model assembly, then yes I will follow the rules and no models would be able to trace Line of Sight through something opaque such as drop pod doors.
Back on page one where someone pointed out the Lucius pattern Drop Pods have a rule forcing the doors to be opened to their fullest extent. I might not be quoting, but your reply was that if the doors are glued then the full extent is 'closed.' It seems you are arguing that you would still play with closed door drop pods even when faced with such rules, even going as far as to alter the clear design of the model so the rule would no longer effect it.
Well considering the rule is:
"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent." (IA: Apoc book)
If the full extent of the doors is 0 degrees open because of the way the model is assembled, then the rule has been followed 100%
I play by True Line of Sight. If the doors are closed and are required to be "opened to their full extent." and that full extent is not able to be opened because of the model assembly, then yes I will follow the rules and no models would be able to trace Line of Sight through something opaque such as drop pod doors.
I actually have the instructions for my Lucius Pod still. One line of the instructions say "Do not glue the doors shut". That's exact, including the underline.
Though I think the rules are ambiguous in regards to if you have to assemble the pod with the doors moveable, or not. The instructions only list for assembly with moving doors though.
If the full extent of the doors is 0 degrees open because of the way the model is assembled, then the rule has been followed 100%
I play by True Line of Sight. If the doors are closed and are required to be "opened to their full extent." and that full extent is not able to be opened because of the model assembly, then yes I will follow the rules and no models would be able to trace Line of Sight through something opaque such as drop pod doors.
So if you cant open the doors your models cant get out.
Also i dont know if you play at tournaments but if a TO rules one way you follow it theres no if and or buts.
Nettik189 wrote: There isnt multiple rules for one model depending how its modeled.
No, there isn't.
There is however, a difference in the way models function depending on how they are built. A kneeling marine has different LOS to a standing one, despite supposedly being the same thing. A Battle Wagon blocks LOS differently depending on where you choose to put the turrets. Likewise, a Drop Pod with doors closed blocks LOS to a Pod with the doors open.
So if you cant open the doors your models cant get out.
There is no requirement in the rules to physically open a transport vehicle's doors in order for the models to disembark.
DJGietzen wrote: At the start of the shooting phase I reach over and open the front and rear hatch of the storm raven...
There is no rule that would allow you to do this.
Thats my point, there is no rule to allow you to open the doors on a drop pod either. "The hatches are blown" does not necessarily mean open the doors on the model. In fact it can only mean its occupants must disembark immediately and may not embark again.
Opeing the doors ona model to get better line of sight is not permissible in this rule set, even if the doors are designed to be open.
DJGietzen wrote: Thats my point, there is no rule to allow you to open the doors on a drop pod either. "The hatches are blown" does not necessarily mean open the doors on the model. In fact it can only mean its occupants must disembark immediately and may not embark again.
Opeing the doors ona model to get better line of sight is not permissible in this rule set, even if the doors are designed to be open.
That's not really the issue though. The rules don't allow you to open the doors during the game. There is no problem with building your pod, or your Storm Raven, or your Land Raider, or whatever, with the doors open. Or closed... whichever floats your boat..
I still want to see a Drop Pod modelled where the doors actually blow open...
The challenge has been laid down Gentlemen.
The winner gets these 5 smiley Ork emoticons
Back on page one where someone pointed out the Lucius pattern Drop Pods have a rule forcing the doors to be opened to their fullest extent. I might not be quoting, but your reply was that if the doors are glued then the full extent is 'closed.' It seems you are arguing that you would still play with closed door drop pods even when faced with such rules, even going as far as to alter the clear design of the model so the rule would no longer effect it.
Well considering the rule is:
"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent." (IA: Apoc book)
If the full extent of the doors is 0 degrees open because of the way the model is assembled, then the rule has been followed 100%
I play by True Line of Sight. If the doors are closed and are required to be "opened to their full extent." and that full extent is not able to be opened because of the model assembly, then yes I will follow the rules and no models would be able to trace Line of Sight through something opaque such as drop pod doors.
I actually have the instructions for my Lucius Pod still. One line of the instructions say "Do not glue the doors shut". That's exact, including the underline.
Though I think the rules are ambiguous in regards to if you have to assemble the pod with the doors moveable, or not. The instructions only list for assembly with moving doors though.
and what page of the BRB says that, or is it in the codex?
grendel083 wrote: I still want to see a Drop Pod modelled where the doors actually blow open...
Except it says the Hatches are blown. It does not say blown open...
Bulldogging wrote: I actually have the instructions for my Lucius Pod still. One line of the instructions say "Do not glue the doors shut". That's exact, including the underline.
Though I think the rules are ambiguous in regards to if you have to assemble the pod with the doors moveable, or not. The instructions only list for assembly with moving doors though.
and what page of the BRB says that, or is it in the codex?
Third line under ASSEMBLY at 30 seconds from the instructions that ship with the model.
Of note to this discussion is another poll from the past. It is worth noting that 72% of poll respondents felt that assembly instructions were not binding game rules.
Jimsolo wrote: Of note to this discussion is another poll from the past. It is worth noting that 72% of poll respondents felt that assembly instructions were not binding game rules.
In most cases, I would agree, especially for an Ork Wartrukk. However, when the instructions explicitly forbid you from doing so, and the rules accompanying the model hinge on it, they should be relevant.
grendel083 wrote: When dealing with drop pods you really need to set up some house rules.
They're just too messy otherwise.
There is nothing messy about the drop pod rules at all, unless you are trying to infer rules from some of the fluff written in the drop pod entry. Model embark and disembark from a drop pod just like they do from any other vehicle or building, from one of the doors/hatches. The doors/hatches do not need to open or close on the model, and no precedence for forcing a player to open doors on their model exists. This is a case of some people mistaking fluff for rules and running with it.
The most important thing to remember is the most simple. This edition uses true line of sight to determine if one unit can see/target another. If a land raider was modeled with open doors to show off the inside of the model then line of sight could be drawn through those doors. If a drop pod is modelled with open doors then line of sight can be drawn through it. The only real difference for the drop pod is that it's weapon system is inside the vehicle, meaning that it can not draw line of sight if the doors are closed.
I will point out another instance of where fluff cannot be used to rules.
My Necron Doom Scythes state in the fluff text for the death ray that its basically turret mounted(dont have the book on me as im at work) but in the terms of the game and the rules, its not a turrent and therfor only gets a front fire arc on it.
Due to this I will say that the doors do not have to be blown open, surely the models inside would be able to choose which door they go out of? leaving some closed to gain extra cover? To me that seems perfectly legitimate and fluff wise makes more sense then all the doors blowing open. If you look at the centre console of a drop pod(i know only the infantry ones) there is alot of buttons on there for the commander and I believe he would be able to choose which ones open.
So using the example of the Necron Doom Scythe, id say you have a TLOS and if not all the doors are open, then he cant get a bead on you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What the man above me said too!
augustus5 wrote: The only real difference for the drop pod is that it's weapon system is inside the vehicle, meaning that it can not draw line of sight if the doors are closed.
Doesn't that seem like a clear indication of intent? Namely, the intent for the drop pod doors to be played in the open position?
Saltis wrote: I will point out another instance of where fluff cannot be used to rules.
My Necron Doom Scythes state in the fluff text for the death ray that its basically turret mounted(dont have the book on me as im at work) but in the terms of the game and the rules, its not a turrent and therfor only gets a front fire arc on it.
Due to this I will say that the doors do not have to be blown open, surely the models inside would be able to choose which door they go out of? leaving some closed to gain extra cover? To me that seems perfectly legitimate and fluff wise makes more sense then all the doors blowing open. If you look at the centre console of a drop pod(i know only the infantry ones) there is alot of buttons on there for the commander and I believe he would be able to choose which ones open.
So using the example of the Necron Doom Scythe, id say you have a TLOS and if not all the doors are open, then he cant get a bead on you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What the man above me said too!
The reason why this question has not died long ago and is still debated, is because while the term "The hatches are blown" is very fluffy, it is sitting in the middle of rules. If it said that in the fluff section, this would have been put to rest already. Since it is in the rules section, but asking us to do something we can't just seems confusing if viewed by pure RAW (unless we are required to literally blow the hatches, thus we need small solenoids to pop the hatches off.)
This is why the Forgeworld Lucius Pattern Drop Pod is worded to say the doors need to be completely opened to their full extent and their instructions say they can not be glued.
On that note, has anyone here purchased the new Space Marine 6e Codex?
If you have, please look at the Drop Pod section and inform us if the rules for Drop Pods have changed.
Saltis wrote: I will point out another instance of where fluff cannot be used to rules.
My Necron Doom Scythes state in the fluff text for the death ray that its basically turret mounted(dont have the book on me as im at work) but in the terms of the game and the rules, its not a turrent and therfor only gets a front fire arc on it.
Due to this I will say that the doors do not have to be blown open, surely the models inside would be able to choose which door they go out of? leaving some closed to gain extra cover? To me that seems perfectly legitimate and fluff wise makes more sense then all the doors blowing open. If you look at the centre console of a drop pod(i know only the infantry ones) there is alot of buttons on there for the commander and I believe he would be able to choose which ones open.
So using the example of the Necron Doom Scythe, id say you have a TLOS and if not all the doors are open, then he cant get a bead on you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What the man above me said too!
The reason why this question has not died long ago and is still debated, is because while the term "The hatches are blown" is very fluffy, it is sitting in the middle of rules. If it said that in the fluff section, this would have been put to rest already. Since it is in the rules section, but asking us to do something we can't just seems confusing if viewed by pure RAW (unless we are required to literally blow the hatches, thus we need small solenoids to pop the hatches off.)
This is why the Forgeworld Lucius Pattern Drop Pod is worded to say the doors need to be completely opened to their full extent and their instructions say they can not be glued.
On that note, has anyone here purchased the new Space Marine 6e Codex?
If you have, please look at the Drop Pod section and inform us if the rules for Drop Pods have changed.
Not really. It does mention you don't lose a hull point for the immobilised result. Only relevant is;
blah blah capacity is this. once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must disembark. blah blah can not re-embark.
Jimsolo wrote: Of note to this discussion is another poll from the past. It is worth noting that 72% of poll respondents felt that assembly instructions were not binding game rules.
In most cases, I would agree, especially for an Ork Wartrukk. However, when the instructions explicitly forbid you from doing so, and the rules accompanying the model hinge on it, they should be relevant.
The instructions that come with a model are not rules.
Besides you do not have to glue them shut to keep them closed, you can paint them shut/use rubber cement/use actual cement/use putty and achieve the same effect. So even if the FW instructions are meant to be rules (And nothing says they are) then they do not restrict you form doing any of these other things...
DJGietzen wrote: Thats my point, there is no rule to allow you to open the doors on a drop pod either. "The hatches are blown" does not necessarily mean open the doors on the model. In fact it can only mean its occupants must disembark immediately and may not embark again.
Opeing the doors ona model to get better line of sight is not permissible in this rule set, even if the doors are designed to be open.
That's not really the issue though. The rules don't allow you to open the doors during the game. There is no problem with building your pod, or your Storm Raven, or your Land Raider, or whatever, with the doors open. Or closed... whichever floats your boat..
Its exactly the issue. When you put the drop pod in reserves with the doors closed you don't have permission to open them when the model hits the table. All this talk about creating an advantage by gluing the doors shut and not allowing for presumed line of sight and no one seems to realize that opening the doors would in fact be a house rule.
You have no more permission to open the doors on a drop pod mid game then you do on a storm raven. Once you presume the doors can open and close whats to prevent the doors from opening and closing as the controlling player sees fit?
DJGietzen wrote: Its exactly the issue. When you put the drop pod in reserves with the doors closed you don't have permission to open them when the model hits the table
Sorry, but that is ridiculous. It's like arguing that if your dreadnought is stored in your case with the arms separate, you can't put them on when you want to use it.
Whether or not the doors are open when the model in reserves makes absolutely no difference. Once the model is actually put in play there is no permission to alter it, but there is no rule that deals with what a model looks like before it is actually in use.
(Again, this is a pure RAW argument)
No, it isn't. There is absolutely zero basis in written rules in that argument.
augustus5 wrote: The only real difference for the drop pod is that it's weapon system is inside the vehicle, meaning that it can not draw line of sight if the doors are closed.
Doesn't that seem like a clear indication of intent? Namely, the intent for the drop pod doors to be played in the open position?
I think there is a clear intent. The weapon is mounted inside the vehicle, it is clearly meant to be fired. The problem is that, unlike 4th edition, which included rules that helped dictate LOS, 6th edition uses very strict true LOS. If you can not draw LOS on the table, you can not target a unit. There are no rules about how to interpret seeing through a model or obstruction.
I would not have any problems playing in a tournament or with a group of gamers that house-ruled pods and said that they are invisible for the purposes of drawing LOS. But if it is not discussed before a game starts, and at some point a dispute comes up, I would feel like siding with the RAW interpretation of true LOS.
So let me get this straight. I can arm my DP with a deathwind launcher, and position it so that when it lands, I can open the 2 doors that would block the DW launchers LOS, but I can leave the other 3 doors closed so that my disembarking unit is blocked from your LOS.
Where is the disadvantage here? This is strict modeling for advantage. My DW launcher can see your units while you cannot see my disembarked unit.
Now if MFA is not a rule, can I bring a single drop pod made from 5 drop pods all glued together to form a giant pod?
Or how about a single pod made by gluing 5 pods in a line, with 3 doors a piece to block LOS, while using the rest of the doors to extend this line? Can I make the line big enough to block off your entire deployment zone, or my own deployment zone?
Seems like a sound tactic. Take a giant wall DP and a bunch of jump troops. Your opponent cannot contest your objectives, meanwhile you can have your jump troops leap over the wall on turn 5 to contest all of theirs. Shake hands, Good Game, you win the tourney.
scorpio2069 wrote: So let me get this straight. I can arm my DP with a deathwind launcher, and position it so that when it lands, I can open the 2 doors that would block the DW launchers LOS, but I can leave the other 3 doors closed so that my disembarking unit is blocked from your LOS.
Where is the disadvantage here? This is strict modeling for advantage. My DW launcher can see your units while you cannot see my disembarked unit.
Now if MFA is not a rule, can I bring a single drop pod made from 5 drop pods all glued together to form a giant pod?
Or how about a single pod made by gluing 5 pods in a line, with 3 doors a piece to block LOS, while using the rest of the doors to extend this line? Can I make the line big enough to block off your entire deployment zone, or my own deployment zone?
Seems like a sound tactic. Take a giant wall DP and a bunch of jump troops. Your opponent cannot contest your objectives, meanwhile you can have your jump troops leap over the wall on turn 5 to contest all of theirs. Shake hands, Good Game, you win the tourney.
You can do anything you want until your opponent calls a TO and he tells you otherwise. You can even play with a kitbashed monster made from 2 Terivgons and a Carnifex with your own custom statistics..
Well if the TO says that it is a strict RAW tourney, then the MC could not be used due to there being no rules letting you use the custom stats.
As for the giant DP, or even using that kitbashed model as a Giant Tervigon, or Carnifex, or even a Tyrannofex, it should be legal as long as your are using a granted RAW stat line. Actually you can even use that beast as a termagant since there is no rule telling you what base a termagant has to use.
DJGietzen wrote: Its exactly the issue. When you put the drop pod in reserves with the doors closed you don't have permission to open them when the model hits the table
Sorry, but that is ridiculous. It's like arguing that if your dreadnought is stored in your case with the arms separate, you can't put them on when you want to use it.
No, its like arguing that you can't change the dreadnoughts arms during the game.
Whether or not the doors are open when the model in reserves makes absolutely no difference. Once the model is actually put in play there is no permission to alter it, but there is no rule that deals with what a model looks like before it is actually in use.
Once the game has started there is no permission to alter your models. Models go into reserves as part of the game. My statement could have been if the doors on the drop pod are closed on turn 1 you don't have permission to open then on turn 3.
(Again, this is a pure RAW argument)
No, it isn't. There is absolutely zero basis in written rules in that argument.
Yes, yes it is. We agree that the RAW give no permission to alter the model during the game. The argument is that there is no permission in the RAW. The idea that something is not allowed by RAW is not a RAW argument because its not in the written rules is "ridiculous".
scorpio2069 wrote: Well if the TO says that it is a strict RAW tourney, then the MC could not be used due to there being no rules letting you use the custom stats.
As for the giant DP, or even using that kitbashed model as a Giant Tervigon, or Carnifex, or even a Tyrannofex, it should be legal as long as your are using a granted RAW stat line. Actually you can even use that beast as a termagant since there is no rule telling you what base a termagant has to use.
So am I correct on this?
You miss the point here. You can do whatever you want as long as the person playing you agrees, or the TO , if its a tournament says its legal. A TO can even tell you that you cannot do something that is Legal, since it is his tournament.
As far as your giant drop pod goes, go for it. I think it would be really cool to see you make one.
scorpio2069 wrote: So let me get this straight. I can arm my DP with a deathwind launcher, and position it so that when it lands, I can open the 2 doors that would block the DW launchers LOS, but I can leave the other 3 doors closed so that my disembarking unit is blocked from your LOS.
Where is the disadvantage here? This is strict modeling for advantage. My DW launcher can see your units while you cannot see my disembarked unit.
Yes, restricting a turret weapon to a 60 degree fire arc is clear modelling for advantage...
rigeld2 wrote: The game uses TLOS so if you glued to doors up they shouldn't be able to draw LoS.
There is a very common house rule, however, to treat the Drop Pod as open even if glued shut.
Drop pods are open topped, and if you land, the doors are popped to allow the contents to disembark. Regardless of gluing the doors closed, you can draw LOS through it (albeit granting a cover save).
If someone was to cheese me by saying they hadn't popped the doors then I would counter saying that the doors are either all open or all closed, if closed, you can't deploy, therefore the contents are destroyed.
Haven't got BRB on hand, but goes something like this.. if for any reason a model cannot disembark from a transport vehicle, the entire unit counts as destroyed.
rigeld2 wrote: The game uses TLOS so if you glued to doors up they shouldn't be able to draw LoS.
There is a very common house rule, however, to treat the Drop Pod as open even if glued shut.
Drop pods are open topped, and if you land, the doors are popped to allow the contents to disembark. Regardless of gluing the doors closed, you can draw LOS through it (albeit granting a cover save).
If someone was to cheese me by saying they hadn't popped the doors then I would counter saying that the doors are either all open or all closed, if closed, you can't deploy, therefore the contents are destroyed.
Haven't got BRB on hand, but goes something like this.. if for any reason a model cannot disembark from a transport vehicle, the entire unit counts as destroyed.
So if I don't open the hatches on a Landraider, the Terminators cannot disembark?
Wasnt this clarified a while ago by GW? Units can obviously see through a DP but the unit on the other side gets a cover save. Even if the doors are glued shut, it is assumed to be open on impact.
rigeld2 wrote: The game uses TLOS so if you glued to doors up they shouldn't be able to draw LoS.
There is a very common house rule, however, to treat the Drop Pod as open even if glued shut.
Drop pods are open topped, and if you land, the doors are popped to allow the contents to disembark. Regardless of gluing the doors closed, you can draw LOS through it (albeit granting a cover save).
Please quote a rule, not an opinion.
If someone was to cheese me by saying they hadn't popped the doors then I would counter saying that the doors are either all open or all closed, if closed, you can't deploy, therefore the contents are destroyed.
You also require your opponents to open Rhino/Land Raider doors?
Haven't got BRB on hand, but goes something like this.. if for any reason a model cannot disembark from a transport vehicle, the entire unit counts as destroyed.
It's like you're misapplying a rule or something...
Skabfang wrote:Drop pods are open topped, and if you land, the doors are popped to allow the contents to disembark.
The first part of that statement is a rule. The second is fluff.
There is no requirement anywhere in the 40K rules for a vehicle to physically open its doors in order for models to disembark from it.
Regardless of gluing the doors closed, you can draw LOS through it (albeit granting a cover save).
The LOS rules disagree.
If someone was to cheese me by saying they hadn't popped the doors then I would counter saying that the doors are either all open or all closed, if closed, you can't deploy, therefore the contents are destroyed.
And unless you can provide a rule that requires the doors to be open, you would be in the wrong here.
Haven't got BRB on hand, but goes something like this.. if for any reason a model cannot disembark from a transport vehicle, the entire unit counts as destroyed.
The is dealing with model placement, not opening the doors. Otherwise, you've going to have the same issue with anyone wanting to deploy from any transport vehicle with doors.
Col. Dash wrote:Wasnt this clarified a while ago by GW?
Yes. They wrote LOS rules that tell you to bend down and have a look at the placement of the actual models on the table.
That's how LOS has worked for 20 years now.
Units can obviously see through a DP but the unit on the other side gets a cover save. Even if the doors are glued shut, it is assumed to be open on impact.
The thing is, even with the doors open, it is possible for a model to be completely hidden from view by the gubbins inside the pod. With the doors open, it's easy enough to determine that. With the doors closed, how do you tell if a model is visible or not?
The simple answer is to just follow the actual rules of the game, which tell you that if you can't see the target, you can't shoot at it. There is no rule that tells us to treat a model on the table as anything other than what is on the table for LOS purposes.
RAW: if your doors are glued shut, you cant see through a pod.
RAI and the only way to play it without being an ass: Pod does not block line of sight, and only provides a 5+ cover to units behind it.
Eihnlazer wrote: RAI and the only way to play it without being an ass: .
That sort of comment adds nothing constructive to the discussion.
Throughout 4th edition (or at least the part of it before I gave up on the game in disgust and waited for 5th) I played a gunline marine army in pods. My LOS-blocking pods were generally far more of a hindrance to me than to my opponent.
This idea that people only use closed pods to garner better cover for their own models is a gross generalisation. Nobody should be considered an 'ass' for preferring to play by the actual rules when there is no particularly compelling reason to do otherwise.
This is how I play my drop pods and how I tell my opponents before we play. When they land all the hatches open or count as in case they are glued. Because I'm pretty sure space marines are not going to wait in single file line to get out and start killing some xenos or traitors. And that's how I treat a lot of rules.
As for land raiders and rinhos they can open their doors to let them out and close em again so to me it doesn't matter if they are glued they can still disembark normally( just added this for the people that are using land raiders and rinhos as examples too)
Blown = fully expanded or opened (this one of its many past participle meanings)
Blown in this context is being used as an adjective describing what is happening to the door..
Combined knowledge :
The door in the floor or ceiling is fully extended or opened
BUT this is in the fluff not rules so it might as well say a nasty one eyed pirate folds one corner and squeezes each passenger out then hides in a sock.
I had the same issue with a fella stating you can't see through a pod but attempt to shoot. I informed him he needs to choose one or the other, either no los so no shooting, or counts as open and can shoot, he chose to not blos.
Since then we have ruled they are always open, interestingly fw implicitly states the doors are open, regardless of the model.
To be honest the word blown is used in the correct context and with the correct intent. Its 100% obvious that when a sealed drop pod lands all the doors are opened and cannot be re sealed during the fight.... The argument lies with GW not covering the obvious behaviour in its rule section only in fluff which certain characters will use to there advantage and others will sit around having a friendly chat and then make an educated decision either way.
Its not an argument about pods and los its an argument about fluff and rules IMO.
And the fact that it's difficult to tell what you can see when there's a door in the way. "Pretending" you have LoS when you don't isn't something covered in the rules.
kranki wrote: To be honest the word blown is used in the correct context and with the correct intent. Its 100% obvious that when a sealed drop pod lands all the doors are opened and cannot be re sealed during the fight.... The argument lies with GW not covering the obvious behaviour in its rule section only in fluff which certain characters will use to there advantage and others will sit around having a friendly chat and then make an educated decision either way.
Its not an argument about pods and los its an argument about fluff and rules IMO.
But it should not be an "argument about fluff and rules" because the two are clearly different things.
Formosa wrote: Since then we have ruled they are always open, interestingly fw implicitly states the doors are open, regardless of the model.
That is not what the FW rules actually say though...
Since the latest book and horus heresy ones, yes it does
Really? where is this quote does it say that: "Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent." (IA: Apoc book)?
Note: it never says "the doors are open, regardless of the model." never even hints at it.
If the full extent of the doors is 0 degrees open because of the way the model is assembled, then the rule has been followed 100%
If it's glued shut the doors cannot be "opened" at all therefore the rule has not been followed even remotely, therefore the only way to follow the rule is they must be considered open to the full extent possible by the model.
Either way from my example this person was trying to eat his cake and have it, its either no los and no shooting or considered open and can shoot, tlos works both ways.
Formosa wrote: If it's glued shut the doors cannot be "opened" at all therefore the rule has not been followed even remotely, therefore the only way to follow the rule is they must be considered open to the full extent possible by the model.
You've added the bolded words.
And yes - if they're glued shut they've still been opened to their full extent - their full extent just happens to be not at all. Or, if you still disagree with that - glue them so that all doors are open 1 degree. They're opened to their full extent.
Eihnlazer wrote: RAI and the only way to play it without being an ass: .
That sort of comment adds nothing constructive to the discussion.
Throughout 4th edition (or at least the part of it before I gave up on the game in disgust and waited for 5th) I played a gunline marine army in pods. My LOS-blocking pods were generally far more of a hindrance to me than to my opponent.
This idea that people only use closed pods to garner better cover for their own models is a gross generalisation. Nobody should be considered an 'ass' for preferring to play by the actual rules when there is no particularly compelling reason to do otherwise.
It's only playing by the actual rules if you model your pods shut and insist that they be treated as such.
I don't think your two sides are ever going to agree.
The drop pod is quite honestly the worst model GW makes from a rules perspective. It's the only one that can be modeled different ways that impact the game so significantly differently. It's the only one that you're supposed to ignore parts of once it's deployed. I can't think of a single other model that you're supposed to pretend isn't there, either for LOS purposes when closed, or for positioning other models (when open).
The only real answer is come to an agreement with your opponent in a friendly game, or do what the TO says in a tournament.
We just use them as open. I just bought my first one the other day. I haven't built it yet but I did glance over it. It says not to glue the doors. Some guys do for easy storage or whatever but looking at all the pictures in the rule book as well as reading the rules makes it pretty clear how to us them. This whole argument seems really silly and an excuse to have an argument for the sake of an argument. Why cant we just have fun and play? Why do you have to make everything a pain?
wowsmash wrote: We just use them as open. I just bought my first one the other day. I haven't built it yet but I did glance over it. It says not to glue the doors. Some guys do for easy storage or whatever but looking at all the pictures in the rule book as well as reading the rules makes it pretty clear how to us them. This whole argument seems really silly and an excuse to have an argument for the sake of an argument. Why cant we just have fun and play? Why do you have to make everything a pain?
1) It is "make[ing] everything a pain" to discuss the Rules as Written? 2) The pictures in the book are not rules. 3) It is an argument because some people break the Line of sight rules by saying they can see through a closed Drop Pod, which is not the case. 4) There are other ways to get the doors to stay closed other than gluing the doors. you could cement them, or paint them shut, or green stuff Etc...
Stormbreed wrote: Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while playing a game based on imagination is always a great read while at work!
That is because fluff is not rules, unless you think the doors should have Explosives, Pneumatics, or similar affixed to them and a trigger to make the blowing the hatches happen...
wowsmash wrote: We just use them as open. I just bought my first one the other day. I haven't built it yet but I did glance over it. It says not to glue the doors. Some guys do for easy storage or whatever but looking at all the pictures in the rule book as well as reading the rules makes it pretty clear how to us them. This whole argument seems really silly and an excuse to have an argument for the sake of an argument. Why cant we just have fun and play? Why do you have to make everything a pain?
1) It is "make[ing] everything a pain" to discuss the Rules as Written?
2) The pictures in the book are not rules.
3) It is an argument because some people break the Line of sight rules by saying they can see through a closed Drop Pod, which is not the case.
4) There are other ways to get the doors to stay closed other than gluing the doors. you could cement them, or paint them shut, or green stuff Etc...
Stormbreed wrote: Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while playing a game based on imagination is always a great read while at work!
That is because fluff is not rules, unless you think the doors should have Explosives, Pneumatics, or similar affixed to them and a trigger to make the blowing the hatches happen...
Even before I changed my post, I did say it is a "Great" read at work, I don't think anything should have Explosives in a game with fragile models, that would just be silly.
sangheili wrote:As for land raiders and rinhos they can open their doors to let them out and close em again...
What makes you assume that Drop Pods can't do the same...?
kranki wrote:Blown = fully expanded or opened (this one of its many past participle meanings)
In the context here, it can also just mean that the sealed doors are rapidly unsealed.
But the meaning of the word 'blown' is completely irrelevant, since the reference to the hatches being blown is fluff. There is no listed game effect for 'blown hatches'... and so we follow the normal vehicle rules, which list no requirement to physically open vehicle doors in order for models to disembark.
wowsmash wrote: This whole argument seems really silly and an excuse to have an argument for the sake of an argument. Why cant we just have fun and play? Why do you have to make everything a pain?
Two things
1 - my quote about blown was taken from an actual dictionary definition your definition is complete fiction, your definition would only work if was written the hatch seals were blown then the noun would be the word seals and the adjective meaning unsealed.
2 - I also end that exact post making the point that fluff means jack all.
My post was to settle the earlier debate about drop pods not having doors but hatches and that blown doesn't mean opened, which I try and prove that in this context it means exactly that.
PS - fluff ain't rules I agree but it should aid in making informed decisions based all the facts IMO.
Stormbreed wrote: Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while playing a game based on imagination is always a great read while at work!
That is because fluff is not rules, unless you think the doors should have Explosives, Pneumatics, or similar affixed to them and a trigger to make the blowing the hatches happen...
Stormbreed wrote: Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while interpreting the meaning of the word "Open" is always a fun read while at work!
DeathReaper, I would recommend using square brackets ([ ]) or something similar, when you alter a direct quote from someone to avoid confusion.
I understand the wish to shorten a quote so you can be more direct to a point, but it seems disingenuous or rude to just alter it to suit your own purpose without noting.
Except DR did not alter the quote. Stormbreed changed the post after DR quoted him.
Stormbreed wrote: Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while playing a game based on imagination is always a great read while at work!
That is because fluff is not rules, unless you think the doors should have Explosives, Pneumatics, or similar affixed to them and a trigger to make the blowing the hatches happen...
Stormbreed wrote: Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while interpreting the meaning of the word "Open" is always a fun read while at work!
DeathReaper, I would recommend using square brackets ([ ]) or something similar, when you alter a direct quote from someone to avoid confusion.
I understand the wish to shorten a quote so you can be more direct to a point, but it seems disingenuous or rude to just alter it to suit your own purpose without noting.
Except DR did not alter the quote. Stormbreed changed the post after DR quoted him.
If the sentence about "the hatches are blown" wouldnt be fluff (whicht it is!) but rules (which it is not!) that would automatically mean that space wolves drop pods have permission to be glued shut. No mention of blowing the hatches in the space wolves drop pod rules.
Your not allowed to model for advantage. Its clear enough the doors are supposed to be open. If I cant see you through my open door drop pod then I have no line of sight then I cant fire. Since you have modified your drop pod ie glued the doors there's no way to tell if I would have line of sight there for +5 cover. I agree with the TO. Your opponent shouldn't be penalized for you building your model differently then instructed.
I keep hearing this, but is that actually a rule? Page number?
Its clear enough the doors are supposed to be open.
As they are on Land Raiders, Rhinos, and several other vehicles. Is it modelling for advantage if your opponent chooses to selfishly glue his land raider doors shut so you can't see through it? Seriously now, this is about the weakest argument possible.
Though I agree with you wowsmash, unfortunately there are no hard rules to make it definitive. GW eventually wrote rules for different weapon mountings on vehicles maybe on day they will sort out the doors open or closed conundrum but don't hole your breath
We all know GW are terrible at writing rules. Using that to justify this kind of nonsense is ridiculous. If you brought this to game night and tried this argument I would laugh all the while looking for someone else to game against.
RAW, the drop pod doors don't need to be open and have no permission to be opened during a game. True, the model is designed with a hinged door that can open and close, but so is the Storm Raven. True the transport capacity rule for the drop pod (not, not the drop pod assault rule) states that the 'hatches are blown' but this statement has no more impact on the game then the storm raven's transport capacity telling us that a dreadnought is carried in the rear grapple.
RAW, you can't assume line of sight. Either you can see something or you can't.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
immediately afterward (codex Inquisition) we'll be seeing the Forgeworld forces of the space marines and inquisition to update all those rules as well.
Also, while written to be polite, the sentence that says "while this should be considered official, check with your opponent" in the Forgeworld books is being changed.
So if that's true we can use that FWFAQ about drop pods I think.
"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent."
I'd say that is "all the way down" and it is supported by the GW fluff as well.
Stormbreed wrote: So if that's true we can use that FWFAQ about drop pods I think.
"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent."
I'd say that is "all the way down" and it is supported by the GW fluff as well.
First, that is not an FAQ. I don't know where people are getting "this is from a FAQ" from, but, eh.
Second, if the doors are glued shut, then the full extent of opening would be 0 degrees open.
If the rules for the LDP said
" Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened all the way."
there would be an argument.
kranki wrote: My post was to settle the earlier debate about drop pods not having doors but hatches and that blown doesn't mean opened, which I try and prove that in this context it means exactly that..
Drop pods do not have "Hatches" by your definition.
hey if people wanna glue their pods shut, by all means, block LOS with it...
blocks the LOS on the storm bolter inside the pod too, so it can never fire if your doors are glued shut..
RAI is 100% that the doors must count as open, and is not unclear, in the slightest... the FWFAQ and the models description, as well as the assembly instructions all say the doors open.
I dont see any fluff that says "neener neener, you cant see me" nor is there a defeacto RAW restriction on assembling models in such a was as to be game altering.
RAW speaking, doors closed or open are completely unaddressed, except for FW where they are explicitly open,
when RAW is neither for, nor against, either side, that is generally where RAI comes into play, and since this is a MFA question, people wont even agree that there is such a thing as MFA sometimes, so gonna be a loooooong thread.
TLDR: every tourney/friendly game I been too treats it as open.
easysauce wrote: hey if people wanna glue their pods shut, by all means, block LOS with it...
blocks the LOS on the storm bolter inside the pod too, so it can never fire if your doors are glued shut..
RAI is 100% that the doors must count as open, and is not unclear, in the slightest... the FWFAQ and the models description, as well as the assembly instructions all say the doors open.
I dont see any fluff that says "neener neener, you cant see me" nor is there a defeacto RAW restriction on assembling models in such a was as to be game altering.
RAW speaking, doors closed or open are completely unaddressed, except for FW where they are explicitly open,
when RAW is neither for, nor against, either side, that is generally where RAI comes into play, and since this is a MFA question, people wont even agree that there is such a thing as MFA sometimes, so gonna be a loooooong thread.
TLDR: every tourney/friendly game I been too treats it as open.
See, this I agree with. What I don't agree with is the "RAW the doors must open. If you don't open them (or seal them, or have a scratch built that does not have movable doors) you are modelling for advantage and are a cheater."
I have no problems playing either way, though almost everyone I play with treats the doors as being open.
easysauce wrote: hey if people wanna glue their pods shut, by all means, block LOS with it...
blocks the LOS on the storm bolter inside the pod too, so it can never fire if your doors are glued shut..
RAI is 100% that the doors must count as open, and is not unclear, in the slightest... the FWFAQ and the models description, as well as the assembly instructions all say the doors open.
I dont see any fluff that says "neener neener, you cant see me" nor is there a defeacto RAW restriction on assembling models in such a was as to be game altering.
RAW speaking, doors closed or open are completely unaddressed, except for FW where they are explicitly open,
when RAW is neither for, nor against, either side, that is generally where RAI comes into play, and since this is a MFA question, people wont even agree that there is such a thing as MFA sometimes, so gonna be a loooooong thread.
TLDR: every tourney/friendly game I been too treats it as open.
See, this I agree with. What I don't agree with is the "RAW the doors must open. If you don't open them (or seal them, or have a scratch built that does not have movable doors) you are modelling for advantage and are a cheater."
I have no problems playing either way, though almost everyone I play with treats the doors as being open.
If there is a FWFAQ saying they must be open, and FW is not accepted into GW, we may have to change that feeling however. I was assuming based on the quotes earlier there actually is a FAQ, but I can't find it either.......
The point I was making is that the doors are open when they land, you draw line of sight through the pod. (this was confirmed by friendly GW employees at a recent tournament).
I think you missed my thinly veiled sarcasm revolving around disembarkation.
My point is, if you try to cheat me by saying i can't draw LOS through your pod, I'll use your same BS reasons to use another rule saying your POS dreadnaught cannot disembark, therefore is destroyed.
Both remarks are wrong.. hence my classification as thinly veiled sarcasm.
Skabfang wrote: The point I was making is that the doors are open when they land, you draw line of sight through the pod. (this was confirmed by friendly GW employees at a recent tournament).
I think you missed my thinly veiled sarcasm revolving around disembarkation.
My point is, if you try to cheat me by saying i can't draw LOS through your pod, I'll use your same BS reasons to use another rule saying your POS dreadnaught cannot disembark, therefore is destroyed.
Both remarks are wrong.. hence my classification as thinly veiled sarcasm.
Except in one situation you are following the rules by not being able to draw LOS through a pod if its doors are shut. The other is blatent cheating not letting a unit disembark if the doors on the model are not open, as the disembarkation rules make not mention of doors open or closed, just access points...
Skabfang wrote: The point I was making is that the doors are open when they land, you draw line of sight through the pod. (this was confirmed by friendly GW employees at a recent tournament).
And the point being made in return is that you have this backwards.
If the doors are open, then you can draw LOS through the pod. If the doors are closed, there is no rule that tells us to pretend that they are open.
GW employees are not a source of 'official' rules, unless they happen to work in the development studio... and even then, they have been known to think that the rules function differently to what they actually wrote in the book (see KFF and vehicle saves in 4th and 5th edition...) Regular store employees have no 'official' training in the rules of the game... they're just going off their own knowledge of the rules, just like the rest of us.
My point is, if you try to cheat me by saying i can't draw LOS through your pod, I'll use your same BS reasons to use another rule saying your POS dreadnaught cannot disembark, therefore is destroyed.
The problem with that approach is that the former is based on actual rules, while your claim that the passengers can't disembark is not.
The doors being open or closed will have an impact on how the pod blocks LOS, because the LOS rules work by looking at the actual model on the table. It will have absolutely no effect on disembarking, because there is no requirement in the rules to open doors on the model in order for passengers to disembark.
@DeathReaper - the doors on a drop pod seem to be part of the floor which is why whoever originally wrote the drop pod background used the term hatches and not doors I assume.
Is it possible for someone to post the page number that says you must not open hatches, doors or windows on models during a game?
kranki wrote: @DeathReaper - the doors on a drop pod seem to be part of the floor which is why whoever originally wrote the drop pod background used the term hatches and not doors I assume.
Ahh, well they are a part of the side of the pod, not the floor/bottom.
Is it possible for someone to post the page number that says you must not open hatches, doors or windows on models during a game?
Nope, not possible, it does not exist.
On the other hand there are not any rules that say you must/can open hatches, doors or windows on models during a game either. So that does not exist as well.
kranki wrote:Is it possible for someone to post the page number that says you must not open hatches, doors or windows on models during a game?
No. Nor is it possible to post the page that says that you can't replace your rhino with a predator in turn 3, or the one that says that you can't declare yourself the winner by dropping your pants and running counter-clockwise around the table 3 times.
The rules tell us what we can do. If the rules don't say that something can be done, then that is something that can not be done.
Formosa wrote: Closed is not open rigel it's as simple as that
But you do realize that does not matter at all right?
"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent." (IA: Apoc book)
If they are modeled in such a way as they can not move and they are closed, then that is literally their full extent of open.
Zero degrees open is "their full extent." on a model with static closed doors.
Although I agree with your sentiment here in terms of RAW, we do have a rule in the book in regards to glued turrets on vehicles and that you may treat them as if they were unglued for their full extent when firing at units.
Now, you may not want to use this and you may not think its relevant but I thought I would just throw it into the discussion since we do have another area of the game that deals with glued parts that are supposed to move.
So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...
Also I am not arguing against the fact closed drop pods are blocking TLOS, they 100% are. My argument is against people can't accept that fluff does have an impact on the interpretation of rules and I can see due to the fluff why the TO came to his decision.
kranki wrote: So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...
Also I am not arguing against the fact closed drop pods are blocking TLOS, they 100% are. My argument is against people can't accept that fluff does have an impact on the interpretation of rules and I can see due to the fluff why the TO came to his decision.
Fluff has played into the rules, such as the Necron flyer debate and when it explodes, what happened to the passengers. Us sane folks knew they walked on without taking damage because they were never technically in there per the fluff.
It gets FAQd... HUZZAH!
Rationality applied into RAI saves the day 99.9% of the time. The doors are supposed to open. If folks want to whine about it, then let them, but the fluff shows them open, the games show them as open, etc. etc. etc. Again, if you feel so inspired to play like that in a game then you're doing it wrong.
I think it's funny how people are pointing to the new FW rules as proof that LOS is not blocked by a drop pod. Have you ever seen one of the original FW pods?
Look, open the doors, and LOS is still blocked. If you're going to quote FW rules, you should be using the FW model, and making it so it doesn't block LOS when opened would clearly be modelling for advantage.
Redbeard wrote: I think it's funny how people are pointing to the new FW rules as proof that LOS is not blocked by a drop pod. Have you ever seen one of the original FW pods?
Look, open the doors, and LOS is still blocked. If you're going to quote FW rules, you should be using the FW model, and making it so it doesn't block LOS when opened would clearly be modelling for advantage.
Thats a good find actually. Also this one seems to be able to block a good amount of LOS with the doors open.
I'm not going to weigh in on the RAW or RAI argument here at all, but HIWPI is with the doors open, this is mainly because its the predominant way that its played where I play my games. To say the truth, even if I want to play it with doors closed I don't think I would be allowed to as GW staf would overule me.
In what world are you playing that GW "staff" (glorified minimum wage shop clerks) can overrule how you and an opponent play a game?
RAW - once I deploy my pod, your models cannot come within an inch of it, right? If I open the doors, I create a line that's impassable, but allows me to shoot over it?
I don't see anywhere that indicates that these doors don't count as part of the model. Maybe I'm missing something - is that written anywhere? If not, do you really want all these open doors all over the place?
Redbeard wrote: In what world are you playing that GW "staff" (glorified minimum wage shop clerks) can overrule how you and an opponent play a game?
Since its their store and I play by their rules or not get to play at all. The store where I play its pretty much the staff gets the final say on rule disputes between players. We do get to present our cases on the rules, but the staff get the final say in what way the rule goes.
In terms of the drop pod I play it with doors open anyway, since this is the norm in my area.
RAW - once I deploy my pod, your models cannot come within an inch of it, right? If I open the doors, I create a line that's impassable, but allows me to shoot over it?
Like I said, I'm not throwing anything into a RAW or RAI debate on this one.
I don't see anywhere that indicates that these doors don't count as part of the model. Maybe I'm missing something - is that written anywhere? If not, do you really want all these open doors all over the place?
Its not been that much of a problem really. Thtas just the way we play in our location. You may see it as a house rule or a store rule and thats fine. I just play the games and don't cause a lot of fuss. For me to argue with everybody down at my store in regards to how drop pods work it would just leave me as the unpopular guy at the store. I just want to play some games in the end.
Redbeard wrote: I think it's funny how people are pointing to the new FW rules as proof that LOS is not blocked by a drop pod. Have you ever seen one of the original FW pods?
Look, open the doors, and LOS is still blocked. If you're going to quote FW rules, you should be using the FW model, and making it so it doesn't block LOS when opened would clearly be modelling for advantage.
Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.
We all know how drop pods work. Arguing otherwise just comes across as being contrarion in nature. Some things just make sense.
So many drop pod discussions, let's add in the "it still mishaps if you land on a unit regardless of IGS!" argument to really set the tone.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I agree with Jinx on this one. It is quite clear that RAI, the doors should be open. But unfortunately the shoddy writting by GW means the doors can remain closed per the RAW.
Now I wouldn't play a person twice that attempted to keep them closed and refused LoS through it....but that's just my preference. :-)
So you would not play a person twice that was following the True Line of Sight rules?
Interesting.
If they modeled the doors on their Land raider open and tried to shoot through the opening would you tell them they could not?
I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.
Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.
Your argument here seems to be, "Since it doesn't help my argument, I am going to ignore a key piece of evidence".
We all know how drop pods work. Arguing otherwise just comes across as being contrarion in nature. Some things just make sense.
We all know how lots of things work. We also know that how you'd expect them to work may not be the way they work in a game. Games have rules, and often those rules don't make sense. That doesn't mean they're not rules. It doesn't make sense that I can know within a thousandth of an inch, whether my gun with a 120" range needs to advance a touch to be in range, but that a unit of genestealers ten feet away from you might trip on their shoelaces and fail that charge. Arguing for sense in 40k is futile, the entire system is nonsensical.
It's an amusing thread, because of the number of imaginary restraints you guys keep throwing up. You have to open the doors? You can ignore the existence of models with filled-in interiors? You can ignore the open doors for purposes of movement? Gluing your doors shut is "modelling for advantage" (tell that to all my rhinos and land raiders). Hogwash all of it.
Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.
Your argument here seems to be, "Since it doesn't help my argument, I am going to ignore a key piece of evidence".
We all know how drop pods work. Arguing otherwise just comes across as being contrarion in nature. Some things just make sense.
We all know how lots of things work. We also know that how you'd expect them to work may not be the way they work in a game. Games have rules, and often those rules don't make sense. That doesn't mean they're not rules. It doesn't make sense that I can know within a thousandth of an inch, whether my gun with a 120" range needs to advance a touch to be in range, but that a unit of genestealers ten feet away from you might trip on their shoelaces and fail that charge. Arguing for sense in 40k is futile, the entire system is nonsensical.
It's an amusing thread, because of the number of imaginary restraints you guys keep throwing up. You have to open the doors? You can ignore the existence of models with filled-in interiors? You can ignore the open doors for purposes of movement? Gluing your doors shut is "modelling for advantage" (tell that to all my rhinos and land raiders). Hogwash all of it.
I find your reasoning to be equally "hogwash" as you put it. Your using poorly worded rules to game the system and make the game unfun and honestly a waste of everyone's time. Either way this discussion is pointless. Good day. O and happy Halloween.
"Unfun"? I don't follow. Why is it any more or less fun to be able to draw unlimited line of sight through an object?
There's an entire other thread that says 6th ed is more fun when there are more LOS blockers involved. Oh no, someone might have to move a model to see past a drop pod!
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.
But that's just it, RAI is truly unknowable, unless you were the one that designed the rules.
So we follow RAW or we make house rules and speculate on what RAI is, though that is just an opinion.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.
But that's just it, RAI is truly unknowable, unless you were the one that designed the rules.
So we follow RAW or we make house rules and speculate on what RAI is, though that is just an opinion.
You are correct. RAI being truly unknowable is a fact. But sometimes it seems more obvious than others as to which side the devs were leaning, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that with the model presented like it is and the fluff written the way it is and all of the supporting data on how the Drop Pods looks when deployed(pictures, etc)...that it is clear the intention in this case? Maybe you don't see it like I do, but I think it is quite obvious.
But if I'm playing a person who can open the hatches on his Drop Pod, they aren't glued shut, and decides to leave them closed on a Pod in one game to block LoS and opens them in others....that is not a person I would play twice. Again...personal preference.
You are correct. RAI being truly unknowable is a fact. But sometimes it seems more obvious than others as to which side the devs were leaning, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that with the model presented like it is and the fluff written the way it is and all of the supporting data on how the Drop Pods looks when deployed(pictures, etc)...that it is clear the intention in this case? Maybe you don't see it like I do, but I think it is quite obvious.
I'm not convinced. One, I don't trust any picture as far as rules are concerned. If you look at any codex, you'll see pictures of units with illegal weapon options, you'll see pictures of units with too few (or too many) members.
Furthermore, if I look at pictures, I don't think I recall a single picture that has a guy standing on a drop-pod door when opened. So, that does tend to support the idea that you can't just ignore open doors because that seems convenient.
In addition, I've seen plenty of pictures of rhinos, land raiders, and other vehicles with open doors. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone requiring their opponent to open these doors in play, or accusing them of MFA for gluing them shut. Like the Drop Pod, both the Land Raider and the Rhino have detailed interiors. I've also never heard of anyone demanding to be allowed to draw line-of-sight through their opponent's rhino as if the doors were open.
Again, the original drop pod model blocked LOS whether the doors were open or not. Most people glued them shut because the doors are so unwieldy in play.
kranki wrote: So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...
No, that's what we've been saying all along. It's not a new argument.
kranki wrote: So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...
No, that's what we've been saying all along. It's not a new argument.
Insaniak has it 100%.
This is because of the way True Line of Sight works.
An infantry model that is standing up will interact differently than one in a prone position, yet they have the exact same stats (The IG Snipers is what I am referencing) No one calls MFA on a unit of Prone IG snipers holding an objective in area terrain completely out of LoS because they are prone. or having the doors on any other vehicle glued shut. Yet it is some huge deal for drop pod doors to be closed and block Line of Sight, when the rules tell us they do exactly that.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.
But that's just it, RAI is truly unknowable, unless you were the one that designed the rules.
So we follow RAW or we make house rules and speculate on what RAI is, though that is just an opinion.
I don't like this argument at all. The argument that says that in order to know intent we must talk to original creator/designer. Its a non-sequitur, there are many things we can determine the intention of or design of without having to talk to those originally involved.
Archaeologists dig things up all the time and can easily identify function/intention. They don't have to actually talk to those involved in order to find out. They know that Aztecs used to sacrifice humans on alters to appease the sun god. They didn't actually have to talk to the Aztecs in order to find that out. They used logic, evidence and common sense to come to that conclusion.
Please bear in mind that I am not disagreeing with your conclusion with the drop pod. It may work the way you state. I just think that telling people that "intent is unknownable" is not a good argument in itself or even fruitful towards the discussion of the topic. We all make conclusions based on the rules without having to talk to any designers about it.
A good example of this is the other thread where we are discussing using the multiple wounds rule to determine how grav weapons wound mixed armour saves. We don't know what the designers have to say on this but we reach a conclusion based on logic and common sense.
You are correct. RAI being truly unknowable is a fact. But sometimes it seems more obvious than others as to which side the devs were leaning, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that with the model presented like it is and the fluff written the way it is and all of the supporting data on how the Drop Pods looks when deployed(pictures, etc)...that it is clear the intention in this case? Maybe you don't see it like I do, but I think it is quite obvious.
I'm not convinced. One, I don't trust any picture as far as rules are concerned. If you look at any codex, you'll see pictures of units with illegal weapon options, you'll see pictures of units with too few (or too many) members.
Furthermore, if I look at pictures, I don't think I recall a single picture that has a guy standing on a drop-pod door when opened. So, that does tend to support the idea that you can't just ignore open doors because that seems convenient.
In addition, I've seen plenty of pictures of rhinos, land raiders, and other vehicles with open doors. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone requiring their opponent to open these doors in play, or accusing them of MFA for gluing them shut. Like the Drop Pod, both the Land Raider and the Rhino have detailed interiors. I've also never heard of anyone demanding to be allowed to draw line-of-sight through their opponent's rhino as if the doors were open.
Again, the original drop pod model blocked LOS whether the doors were open or not. Most people glued them shut because the doors are so unwieldy in play.
For some people it all comes down to the position of the guns. The guns are supposed to be glued inside the drop pod and how do they shot out if the doors are closed. Don't get me wrong here you have made some very good points. Perhaps the player can choose whether he wants it open or not. I don't know. All I know is its a model with a lot of confusion attached to it.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.
But that's just it, RAI is truly unknowable, unless you were the one that designed the rules.
So we follow RAW or we make house rules and speculate on what RAI is, though that is just an opinion.
I don't like this argument at all. The argument that says that in order to know intent we must talk to original creator/designer. Its a non-sequitur, there are many things we can [try to] determine [through educated guesses of] the intention of or design of without having to talk to those originally involved.
Archaeologists dig things up all the time and can easily identify function/intention. They don't have to actually talk to those involved in order to find out. They know that Aztecs used to sacrifice humans on alters to appease the sun god. They didn't actually have to talk to the Aztecs in order to find that out. They used logic, evidence and common sense to come to that conclusion. [And that may or may not be what happened, we can not know for sure what the Aztecs were doing, the evidence points that way but it is just an educated guess]
Please bear in mind that I am not disagreeing with your conclusion with the drop pod. It may work the way you state. I just think that telling people that "intent is unknownable" is not a good argument in itself or even fruitful towards the discussion of the topic. We all make conclusions based on the rules without having to talk to any designers about it. [And some are correct while others are not]
A good example of this is the other thread where we are discussing using the multiple wounds rule to determine how grav weapons wound mixed armour saves. We don't know what the designers have to say on this but we reach a conclusion based on logic and common sense. [And none of the conclusions in that thread are RAW, they may not even be RAI, we just do not know for sure]
You are correct. RAI being truly unknowable is a fact. But sometimes it seems more obvious than others as to which side the devs were leaning, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that with the model presented like it is and the fluff written the way it is and all of the supporting data on how the Drop Pods looks when deployed(pictures, etc)...that it is clear the intention in this case? Maybe you don't see it like I do, but I think it is quite obvious.
I'm not convinced. One, I don't trust any picture as far as rules are concerned. If you look at any codex, you'll see pictures of units with illegal weapon options, you'll see pictures of units with too few (or too many) members.
Furthermore, if I look at pictures, I don't think I recall a single picture that has a guy standing on a drop-pod door when opened. So, that does tend to support the idea that you can't just ignore open doors because that seems convenient.
In addition, I've seen plenty of pictures of rhinos, land raiders, and other vehicles with open doors. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone requiring their opponent to open these doors in play, or accusing them of MFA for gluing them shut. Like the Drop Pod, both the Land Raider and the Rhino have detailed interiors. I've also never heard of anyone demanding to be allowed to draw line-of-sight through their opponent's rhino as if the doors were open.
Again, the original drop pod model blocked LOS whether the doors were open or not. Most people glued them shut because the doors are so unwieldy in play.
For some people it all comes down to the position of the guns. The guns are supposed to be glued inside the drop pod and how do they shot out if the doors are closed. Don't get me wrong here you have made some very good points. Perhaps the player can choose whether he wants it open or not. I don't know. All I know is its a model with a lot of confusion attached to it.
(Added the Red)
He does not shoot if he does not have Line of SIght to the target, it is as simple as that.
A lot of people are starting to throw mud in this thread. Lets try and remember not every one here who is arguing what is technically correct is arguing how they would play it or what they think the intended rules are.
RAW: The doors need to either start open or start closed. They don't go back and forth and "the hatches are blown" is not permission to open then after the pod as been deployed. If the doors are closed you should not assuming what line of sight should be, This includes models firing from one side of the pod to the other, or the storm bolter hanging in the middle of the pod.
RAI: "the hatches are blow" and the idea that its an open topped vehicle conveys the intent the models doors should open and not do much to block line of sight. Trouble with this is this phrase predates the drop pod model (and its movable doors) and doesn't mean squat if the doors can't open (because they have been glued shut for any reason) or the model does not have doors (only two drop pods in my play group are actually GW models. The rest are made of plasticard and predate the GW models). Intent is always a guessing game and should probably never be taken as fact.
HIWPI: The closed doors block line of sight for everything but the pod itself. The is based on the fact that the majority of the pods in my group don't have doors or storm bolters on them. We like the idea that to storm bolters pops up out of a hatch on a pintle and fires at what ever it wants.
A few words on Modeling for advantage. I've never come across a non standard model that has both advantages and disadvantages when compared it its official cousin. Some times the advantages are more numerous and sometimes they are only advantages for one particular strategy. A drop pod with open doors won't block line of sight as much but a drop pod with closed doors will have a much smaller disembark footprint. On more then one occasional been put in a real jam because my 10 man squad getting out of a drop pod can't go where I want because the drop pod scattered into some weird terrain feature. If my doors had opened I would have had over twice as much space to put my squad.
kranki wrote: So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...
No, that's what we've been saying all along. It's not a new argument.
Except me, I actually think the doors open/closed decision need to be made fore deployment when you pick your models.
Thanks for adding the red lines in but I think those statements are a bit redundant. Afterall it could be claimed that we are all brains in a VAT and that everything around us doesn't actually exist. Of course we have very little evidence to actually suggest this but who knows, it could still be true. Right? Once again I will refer to logic and common sense being used to find intent/design of things. You may want to radically claim that these things cannot be found with any degree of confidence but I believe otherwise.
He does not shoot if he does not have Line of SIght to the target, it is as simple as that.
Well I would have to say that part should be a given if indeed those rules are the rules being played.
DarthOvious wrote: I don't like this argument at all. The argument that says that in order to know intent we must talk to original creator/designer. Its a non-sequitur, there are many things we can determine the intention of or design of without having to talk to those originally involved.
Can we? How? We can look at a rule and determine what it says. But how do we know, without talking to the original writer, that what made it onto the page is what he actually intended?
As an example... A rapid fire weapon fires 2 shots at half range. We know that the rules say this... but we have absolutely no way of knowing that the writer intended for this to be the case. He might have meant for them to fire 3 shots, but made a typo that wasn't caught until it was too late. We can assume that he write what he meant, but we have no way of proving it.
As a result, when most people say 'RAI' what hey actually mean, whether they realiase it or not, is actually 'RAITTM'... or 'Rules As I Think They Meant'...
The RAI waters are muddied even further by the way GW resolves rules issues. While they will sometimes rule in favour of what they originally wanted, there have been plenty of cases where they have gone with RAW instead in order to cause less confusion, even though that results in something working differently to how they originally intended.
So the end result is that even if we do decide that we are absolutely, unequivocably certain about the RAI on an unclear rule, that still doesn't tell us how the game is actually, right now, 'supposed' to be played.
.
Archaeologists dig things up all the time and can easily identify function/intention. They don't have to actually talk to those involved in order to find out. They know that Aztecs used to sacrifice humans on alters to appease the sun god. They didn't actually have to talk to the Aztecs in order to find that out. They used logic, evidence and common sense to come to that conclusion.
They came to a conclusion that fits the evidence. That doesn't mean that they were correct. However well informed they think they are, they're still ultimately just guessing.
The guns are supposed to be glued inside the drop pod and how do they shot out if the doors are closed.
They don't.
Just as they don't shoot if the player chooses to deploy the pod behind tall terrain that completely blocks LOS to the rest of the battlefield.
They came to a conclusion that fits the evidence. That doesn't mean that they were correct. However well informed they think they are, they're still ultimately just guessing.
And sometimes they reverse themselves because the evidence support guessing the opposite.
DarthOvious wrote: I don't like this argument at all. The argument that says that in order to know intent we must talk to original creator/designer. Its a non-sequitur, there are many things we can determine the intention of or design of without having to talk to those originally involved.
Can we? How? We can look at a rule and determine what it says. But how do we know, without talking to the original writer, that what made it onto the page is what he actually intended?
As an example... A rapid fire weapon fires 2 shots at half range. We know that the rules say this... but we have absolutely no way of knowing that the writer intended for this to be the case. He might have meant for them to fire 3 shots, but made a typo that wasn't caught until it was too late. We can assume that he write what he meant, but we have no way of proving it.
As a result, when most people say 'RAI' what hey actually mean, whether they realiase it or not, is actually 'RAITTM'... or 'Rules As I Think They Meant'...
The RAI waters are muddied even further by the way GW resolves rules issues. While they will sometimes rule in favour of what they originally wanted, there have been plenty of cases where they have gone with RAW instead in order to cause less confusion, even though that results in something working differently to how they originally intended.
So the end result is that even if we do decide that we are absolutely, unequivocably certain about the RAI on an unclear rule, that still doesn't tell us how the game is actually, right now, 'supposed' to be played.
.
Archaeologists dig things up all the time and can easily identify function/intention. They don't have to actually talk to those involved in order to find out. They know that Aztecs used to sacrifice humans on alters to appease the sun god. They didn't actually have to talk to the Aztecs in order to find that out. They used logic, evidence and common sense to come to that conclusion.
They came to a conclusion that fits the evidence. That doesn't mean that they were correct. However well informed they think they are, they're still ultimately just guessing.
The guns are supposed to be glued inside the drop pod and how do they shot out if the doors are closed.
They don't.
Just as they don't shoot if the player chooses to deploy the pod behind tall terrain that completely blocks LOS to the rest of the battlefield.
Thanks for the clarrification. I don't really want to get involved any more than this. I think we just have a different way of seeing what type of confidence we have in some things.
insaniak wrote: The RAI waters are muddied even further by the way GW resolves rules issues. While they will sometimes rule in favour of what they originally wanted, there have been plenty of cases where they have gone with RAW instead in order to cause less confusion, even though that results in something working differently to how they originally intended.
Sometimes, even GW doesn't know what they want/intended and flip-flop on the rules. Such as Shadow in the Warp affecting things in boxes.
If this stems from "problems" with the model, I can understand. It should be FAQd for sure. But briefly here's a tutorial on my drop pod WIP project for my Salamanders. I feel your pain (at a 2+), but I think it's from how precisely the model's pieces fit together rather than a real lack of quality. Can't believe I'm defending GW but there it is... Hah!
I am of the solid opinion that the people answering the Frequently Asked Questions don't even talk to the writers, editors or anyone else 'in the know' before they pen said answers....
Eihnlazer wrote: RAW: if your doors are glued shut, you cant see through a pod. [TLOS is all that matters]
RAI and the only way to play it without being an ass: Pod does not block line of sight, and only provides a 5+ cover to units behind it.
I have to agree with this person. No, I don't mean everyone who plays it the other way is an ass, but the other way is the only way that allows abuse. If I wanted to Model For Advantage, then clearly I would love it if drop pod doors could block LOS depending on how I deploy the pod. Hey, I want a complete LOS blocker? Leave all the doors up. I don't want to block LOS at all? Put all the doors down. Or maybe 3 up and 2 down would serve my purposes best. NO OTHER MODEL in the game allows this type of customization at deployment.
-Shrike- wrote: I don't understand why you can't leave some doors closed...
There's nothing to understand, the rules here are lacking to the extreme. I just find it lame and pretty distasteful that a model representing a vehicle that is supposed to fall from the sky and dump troops out can be deployed in so many different configurations depending on the circumstances to advantage the player who was smart enough to magnetize the doors.
Aijec wrote: WSYIWYG how does the Dread come out if the door can't open?
How do tac marines disembark from a rhino, if the door cannot open?
They shouldn't, but this is a game and I would gladly give my opponent that benefit because it doesn't change the gameplay in any way imaginable.
This is the same situation only the DP controlling player is trying to take advantage of my compliance and abuse it.
So you'll let Tac marines out of a Rhino with a glued door, but not out of a DP?
I'll always allow players to use their transports or whatever they have glued, I have no choice and neither do they. DP passengers must disembark.
I'll also always point out that the door's are blown and this will prevent any kind of abusive LOS gimmicks.
The difference is the weight of strategic importance, one blocks LOS which is a big deal, now his Dread charges and I have no option but to take it. (in this particular case)
The rhino's doors opening will never block LOS.
Keep in mind this is both ways, I play with a friend often who (for whatever reason) doesn't have bases on his Hammerheads and just sits them on the ground, they are hovering and do not block LOS completely but that isn't represented in the game because we are humans with limited budgets.
I love pointing that out to opponents and giving them the option to shoot under the tank if possible.
When a drop pod is deployed on the table, are all doors considered to be open for purposes of disembarkation and line-of-sight?
----------------(Yes or No)
Can a player elect to open one or more or none of the doors on a deployed drop pod in order to block line of sight?
----------------(Yes, a player can block LOS with closed doors, however it will effect how embarked models may disembark and it will affect LOS of any onboard weapon systems)
- - or - -
----------------(No, a drop pod's doors are all considered open. If the model or terrian does not allow this a cover save should be granted as when firing through an intervening unit (5+).
Do the doors on a deployed drop pod still count as part of the model for the purposes of disembarkation and minimal distance required for enemy models to stay away? That is, can an enemy can stand on a door and does disembarkation distance measurement start at the true drop pod pentagonal base, not the edge of the door?
-----------------(Yes or No)
I'd also like to point out that the picture of the FW Pod presented earlier in the thread is one of the few that blocks LOS while still blowing the doors.
"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent."
Most other pods FW presents are similar to the regular SM pods or block a small amount more.
The old codex seems to be pretty unequivocal on whether or not the doors stay open or closed. I don't have the new one with me at work, but yeah. Non issue.... hatches are open.
I'm curious if anyone has tried to use them as a mobile Aeigis that basically blocks assaults? If you have two pods land and the open doors touch each other. Does your opponent have to assault the pod before continue his or her movement/assault. That'd be a cool tactic. Making troops go around before they get to an objective... Do people already do this?
doktor_g wrote: I'm curious if anyone has tried to use them as a mobile Aeigis that basically blocks assaults? If you have two pods land and the open doors touch each other. Does your opponent have to assault the pod before continue his or her movement/assault. That'd be a cool tactic. Making troops go around before they get to an objective... Do people already do this?
Yikes. I wouldn't call that cool myself.
Oh well, this is why my drop pod doors magically disintegrate upon impact lol, then I don't have to worry (or rather don't make my opponent worry) about such shenanigans.
doktor_g wrote: The old codex seems to be pretty unequivocal on whether or not the doors stay open or closed. I don't have the new one with me at work, but yeah. Non issue.... hatches are open.
I'm curious if anyone has tried to use them as a mobile Aeigis that basically blocks assaults? If you have two pods land and the open doors touch each other. Does your opponent have to assault the pod before continue his or her movement/assault. That'd be a cool tactic. Making troops go around before they get to an objective... Do people already do this?
Spoiler:
That assumes you play the doors as part of the hull. That is almost universally not done and is pretty much a bad idea.
Aijec wrote:The difference is the weight of strategic importance, one blocks LOS which is a big deal, now his Dread charges and I have no option but to take it. (in this particular case)
If he has deployed a dreadnought behind a closed drop pod, it's not going to be too difficult for you to get out of charge range in the turn that he has to stand there before he can charge you, since his charge range is now reduced by (at minimum) the diameter of the pod.
doktor_g wrote:The old codex seems to be pretty unequivocal on whether or not the doors stay open or closed.
It wasn't. It had the same fluff comment about the hatches being blown, but ruleswise said nothing about having to open the doors on the model. And the pictures of the pod in the old codex were about 50/50 of pods with doors open and doors closed.
I'm curious if anyone has tried to use them as a mobile Aeigis that basically blocks assaults? If you have two pods land and the open doors touch each other. Does your opponent have to assault the pod before continue his or her movement/assault. That'd be a cool tactic. Making troops go around before they get to an objective... Do people already do this?
No. Most people ignore the open doors when measuring to the pod.
@insaniak: My post wasn't meant as a troll, but now I'm interested. Since I've never used a DP, does one disembark 3" from the edge of the hatch door, or 3" from the edge of the door threshold when you use them?
And I agree with the above, if that's not a customary drop pod tactic, I wouldn't use it.... I mean l like going "pew pew" more than winning... I play orks!
doktor_g wrote: @insaniak: My post wasn't meant as a troll, but now I'm interested. Since I've never used a DP, does one disembark 3" from the edge of the hatch door, or 3" from the edge of the door threshold when you use them?
And I agree with the above, if that's not a customary drop pod tactic, I wouldn't use it.... I mean l like going "pew pew" more than winning... I play orks!
Neither, models disembark up to 6 inches in open terrain, not up to 3 inches...
With that said, if you play the doors as hull then you measure from the doors. if not you measure from the "Fin" on the drop pod. It all depends on how you are playing the doors, but most people I have seen/heard play it that they ignore the doors for the purposes of disembarking and targeting.
This again................. This is why they need to FAQ the drop pod section in the rules to read like the Horus heresy book one does. "all doors are opened to their full extent". would stop all of the cheesy drop pod uses in games, by the rule lawyers.
cerbrus2 wrote: This again................. This is why they need to FAQ the drop pod section in the rules to read like the Horus heresy book one does. "all doors are opened to their full extent". would stop all of the cheesy drop pod uses in games, by the rule lawyers.
You know what else would be helpful?
If people stopped blaming the deficiencies in the rules on other players.
Personally I treat drop pods like any other vehicle. There's no requirement for the doors to open, and if closed, it blocks LoS in the same way as anything else. This does of course mean that the gun inside can't fire. I'd also happily play with the doors open, but what I wouldn't do is force someone who's drop pod doors are glued shut to play as if they were fully open, as determining line of sight and cover becomes a matter of guesswork, something I try to avoid.
doktor_g wrote: @insaniak: My post wasn't meant as a troll, but now I'm interested. Since I've never used a DP, does one disembark 3" from the edge of the hatch door, or 3" from the edge of the door threshold when you use them?
And I agree with the above, if that's not a customary drop pod tactic, I wouldn't use it.... I mean l like going "pew pew" more than winning... I play orks!
Neither, models disembark up to 6 inches in open terrain, not up to 3 inches...
With that said, if you play the doors as hull then you measure from the doors. if not you measure from the "Fin" on the drop pod. It all depends on how you are playing the doors, but most people I have seen/heard play it that they ignore the doors for the purposes of disembarking and targeting.
I've been playing that the unit cannot move out of base contact with drop pod because the deep strike rules say they cannot move after arriving. The forced disembark gives them permission to make a normal move but I don't see how a normal move for a model the arrived by deep strike can be anything but 0"
DJGietzen wrote: I've been playing that the unit cannot move out of base contact with drop pod because the deep strike rules say they cannot move after arriving.
They can not move other than to disembark.
The movement out to 6" away from the vehicle is a part of the disembarking process.
No, that is not at all Rules. That is fluff as there are no rules for having the "Hatches Blown"
In every 6th edition Codex I have read, a paragraph beginning with a bolded title and a colon (ex: Transport Capacity: ) has not one word of fluff written into it. Presumably, this means that every word in it is written rule.
Either 'hatches are blown' is intended as opening doors (not a huge leap of logic), or its the first time an editor has failed to maintain an established writing format (crunch only in said paragraphs).
No, that is not at all Rules. That is fluff as there are no rules for having the "Hatches Blown"
In every 6th edition Codex I have read, a paragraph beginning with a bolded title and a colon (ex: Transport Capacity: ) has not one word of fluff written into it. Presumably, this means that every word in it is written rule.
Either 'hatches are blown' is intended as opening doors (not a huge leap of logic), or its the first time an editor has failed to maintain an established writing format (crunch only in said paragraphs).
Check out page 81 and the Crash and Burn entry. The 1st sentence is "If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down onto the battlefield." If I treat every word in it is written rule am I to take it Games Workshop wants me to smash my model, light it on fire and scatter it over the table?
No, that is not at all Rules. That is fluff as there are no rules for having the "Hatches Blown"
In every 6th edition Codex I have read, a paragraph beginning with a bolded title and a colon (ex: Transport Capacity: ) has not one word of fluff written into it. Presumably, this means that every word in it is written rule.
Either 'hatches are blown' is intended as opening doors (not a huge leap of logic), or its the first time an editor has failed to maintain an established writing format (crunch only in said paragraphs).
Check out page 81 and the Crash and Burn entry. The 1st sentence is "If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down onto the battlefield." If I treat every word in it is written rule am I to take it Games Workshop wants me to smash my model, light it on fire and scatter it over the table?
Which would force you to buy a new model and paint for it, thus giving more money to GW. Are we sure this isn't what GW intended? At least their marketing wished it was.
Anyway, he specified Codex, not the BRB. I still need to read through my Codex to check this.
White Dwarf 346 from when drop pods were first released is an interesting read.
Now, I know that WD isn't an official codex, faq, errata or BRB so this annecdotal evidence means literally nothing.
I just thought it to be related and interesting enough.
It contains two battle reports containing drop pods.
Points of interest.....
Ultramarines Game 1: Pod deployed with it's doors down as far as possible. Doors are part way open where they land on terrain. Models stand on doors.
White Scars Game 2: Pod is deployed closed, It blocks Defilers' line of sight to the unit behind it. Pod shoots with it's doors closed.
It's strange (but not unexpected) that they would play it two different ways in the studio and certainly in the batreps.
It seems obvious that there was some confusion even at the point of release and in a situation where they probably could have spoken to the designer!
I also always thought it should be open. But for some reason yesterday I grabbed one of my pods and set it on the table with doors open and grabbed 5 terminators(on cork bases so they were higher) and put them behind it. And you coukdntbsee ther terminators. The harness and gun and everything inside the pod blocked LOS so it doesn't really matter to me now cuz either way you can't see through them
Aijec wrote: WSYIWYG how does the Dread come out if the door can't open?
How do 20 Orks come out of a Battlewagon's wheel?
Great point, not only would they not fit but it wouldn't even be close.
But that is the official model, and it has a transport capacity of 20. (I think)
If my opponent modeled a battle wagon to fit 20 boys bases I'd call him out for it immediately.
I am consistent with my rules, boys can embark even though they can't fit and leave likewise.
Dreads can't fit but can disembark likewise.
You can't say the doors aren't there one moment and suddenly the next they are not only there but block Los. What piece of terrain in the game blocks Los YET allows movement directly through it? (Non magical aside)
I'm being anal about this because it's a common enough occurrence, DP provides 5+, use LOS.
Do you play battle wagons, rhinos and drop pods as you suggested? How do you take transports? Lol
Aijec wrote: What piece of terrain in the game blocks Los YET allows movement directly through it? (Non magical aside)
A solid wall that is a part of a ruin does exactly this.
It will block Line of Sight as you can not see through a ruined wall that has no doors or windows on that side, but since ruins are difficult terrain your models may move through it with a Difficult Terrain test.
Farseer Pef wrote: In every 6th edition Codex I have read, a paragraph beginning with a bolded title and a colon (ex: Transport Capacity: ) has not one word of fluff written into it. Presumably, this means that every word in it is written rule.
Either 'hatches are blown' is intended as opening doors (not a huge leap of logic), or its the first time an editor has failed to maintain an established writing format (crunch only in said paragraphs).
Page 63 C:CSM. I'm pretty sure that what befalls Fabius Bike's enhanced warriors after the battle is that they go in the case/box they came out of.
That's the only 6th edition codex I have available, but your presumption is incorrect.
cerbrus2 wrote: This again................. This is why they need to FAQ the drop pod section in the rules to read like the Horus heresy book one does. "all doors are opened to their full extent". would stop all of the cheesy drop pod uses in games, by the rule lawyers.
You know what else would be helpful?
If people stopped blaming the deficiencies in the rules on other players.
Thats like blaming car Manufacturers, For road traffic accidents caused by drivers, just because there is a deficiency, doesnt mean you have to exploit it.
cerbrus2 wrote: Thats like blaming car Manufacturers, For road traffic accidents caused by drivers,
It's really not. The driver who has an accident while driving his car in a perfectly legal fashion is not the one at fault when an oversight by the manufacturer causes something screwy to happen.
just because there is a deficiency, doesnt mean you have to exploit it.
That's one way to look at it, certainly.
The other way to look at it is to point out that if it is legal within the rules and has been that way for 3 editions now, it's clearly not really an exploit. If it was, a writer who actually cares about their product would fix it.
GW have all the chances in the world to plug the holes in their rules. They choose not to. So it's left up to the players to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed. And when that happens, you're always going to get some disagreement as to whether a particular rules interaction is an exploit or perfectly acceptable.
If a player reads a rule and decides that it seems perfectly fine to play that way, and you disagree and think that the rules are clearly supposed to work another way... that doesn't make the other player a bad person, or mean that they are trying to 'exploit' the rules. If they see it as a valid way of playing, they're not going to see it as an exploit in the first place.
Aijec wrote: What piece of terrain in the game blocks Los YET allows movement directly through it? (Non magical aside)
A solid wall that is a part of a ruin does exactly this.
It will block Line of Sight as you can not see through a ruined wall that has no doors or windows on that side, but since ruins are difficult terrain your models may move through it with a Difficult Terrain test.
Absolutely correct and I am wrong, this is a special case and is specially stated in the rules. Unlike the rest of the thread's terrain.
If the hill is classed as difficult terrain, please explain why not.
Again, not suggesting that you should be able to... but the difficult terrain rules simply don't differentiate. If it's difficult terrain, you can walk through the pieces that make it up.
You cannot move through a door, it opens for gods sake.
And there's the issue in a nutshell.
Yes, fluffwise the guy moving through the door would open it. But so far as the rules are concerned, there is no need to physically open the door, or to have the door modelled open to begin with. Whether the door is open or closed, models can move through it.
Obviously they choose not to, but they are financial reasons to leave rules ambiguous.
Majority of 40k players are casual and they want a casual game.
GW have all the chances in the world to plug the holes in their rules. They choose not to.
Obviously they choose not to, but they are financial reasons to leave rules ambiguous.
Majority of 40k players are casual and they want a casual game.
This thread is ridiculous
No, any "financial reasons" are invented and easily disproved. GW would make far more money with well written rules.
Please explain how well written rules hurt casual players. You should probably PM though since it's off topic.
And yes, it's ridiculous that so many people get offended by discussing what the rules actually say (instead of what some people want them to say) in a rules forum on the internet.
No one required that you post in this thread, let alone read it.
Check out page 81 and the Crash and Burn entry. The 1st sentence is "If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down onto the battlefield." If I treat every word in it is written rule am I to take it Games Workshop wants me to smash my model, light it on fire and scatter it over the table?
Well the hobby would attract a lot more pyromaniacs.
