100971
Post by: sturgeondtd
I was playing a game this weekend, Necron v. Space Marines, and was using a Annihilation Nexus formation so I could use my dust collecting pie plate when my opponent landed a drop pod right in front of my Doomsday Ark. Once the doors were down his Iron Clad came out on the opposing side and sat there for a turn (after missing his melta shots). On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it. Not knowing what to cite, I went with it, but it kept being a problem as I was basically wedged in from that point on due to terrain, allowing him to run up a squad straight behind it to be out of sight. Essentially making my Ark a sitting duck without being able to shoot.
Can you shoot large/small blast weapons through drop pods? If so, what can I cite if my opponent contests it?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
sturgeondtd wrote:I was playing a game this weekend, Necron v. Space Marines, and was using a Annihilation Nexus formation so I could use my dust collecting pie plate when my opponent landed a drop pod right in front of my Doomsday Ark. Once the doors were down his Iron Clad came out on the opposing side and sat there for a turn (after missing his melta shots). On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it. Not knowing what to cite, I went with it, but it kept being a problem as I was basically wedged in from that point on due to terrain, allowing him to run up a squad straight behind it to be out of sight. Essentially making my Ark a sitting duck without being able to shoot.
Can you shoot large/small blast weapons through drop pods? If so, what can I cite if my opponent contests it?
If you have line of sight you can shoot.
No one will be able to tell you if your Doomsday Ark could or could not draw Line of Sight to any given squad that day, as we were not there.
Get down and trace Line of Sight and see for yourself.
large/small blast weapons are the same as any other weapons when it comes to Line of Sight. you actually have to try to trace Line of Sight and see for yourself if something is visible as a target.
Check the Line of Sight rules.
100971
Post by: sturgeondtd
You could see the models through it, however my opponent said that drop pods act as if they are solid and no matter what, you cannot see through it.
So does this mean I can shoot through it? What cover save would they get?
99970
Post by: EnTyme
The drop pod would have granted a 5+ cover save due to being an intervening model, but otherwise, True Line of Sight is all that is needed to target a unit. I've never seen a rule that state a drop pod always acts as a solid model. Never be afraid to ask for a rules reference.
100971
Post by: sturgeondtd
Do you know of anywhere I could site that would say this besides the general LOS portion of the BRB?
99970
Post by: EnTyme
sturgeondtd wrote:Do you know of anywhere I could site that would say this besides the general LOS portion of the BRB?
What other citation do you need? If you already have a rules quote, the burden is on your opponent to present a superseding rule.
100971
Post by: sturgeondtd
A specific citation is not necessary but it would be helpful to know if this is explicitly stated anywhere in the rule book. My opponent was trying to pull a bunch of stuff which caused me to have to go through the rule book and point to the rules for him, so if there is something that could, without a doubt, shut down his reasoning, that would be all the better.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
sturgeondtd wrote:A specific citation is not necessary but it would be helpful to know if this is explicitly stated anywhere in the rule book. My opponent was trying to pull a bunch of stuff which caused me to have to go through the rule book and point to the rules for him, so if there is something that could, without a doubt, shut down his reasoning, that would be all the better.
The True Line of Sight rules do just that.
if he still says that drop pods are solid, ask him to show you the rule that says that. (He will not be able to, as it does not exist in 40K).
97520
Post by: gdzilla
If it's any help... In tournaments drop pods doors are considered down even if they're glued shut, basically you ignore them. So they provide cover saves but you can see through them.
99
Post by: insaniak
 gdzilla wrote:If it's any help... In tournaments drop pods doors are considered down even if they're glued shut, ...
Or to be more precise: In tournaments that make that ruling, drop pod doors are considered down even if they're glued shut.
It's not a universal thing, although it is quite common.
73177
Post by: morganfreeman
More-over, if he shot at your Doomsday Ark with his dread's melta, but then said you couldn't see him to shoot, there are some serious shenanigans afoot.
90480
Post by: Righteousrob
Check the sm book. I think it's there. They are an open topped vehicle as well. So the doors stay opened. Not closed. You can see through but get a cover save.
99
Post by: insaniak
 morganfreeman wrote:More-over, if he shot at your Doomsday Ark with his dread's melta, but then said you couldn't see him to shoot, there are some serious shenanigans afoot.
Not necessarily. Due to vehicles drawing LOS from their weapons, it's entirely possible for one vehicle to be able to shoot another, while their target can't draw LOS to return fire.
Righteousrob wrote:Check the sm book. I think it's there. They are an open topped vehicle as well. So the doors stay opened. Not closed. You can see through but get a cover save.
There is nothing in the rules for open-topped vehicles that would require the pod's doors to be modelled in the open position.
You're possibly thinking of the line in the pod entry that refers to the hatches being 'blown'... but this is just fluff with no correllation to actual rules. There is no more requirement to open the doors on the drop pod than there is to open them on any other vehicle.
Of course, with the doors shut you'll have a hard time firing the pod's weapon... but that's a different matter entirely.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Righteousrob wrote:Check the sm book. I think it's there. They are an open topped vehicle as well. So the doors stay opened. Not closed. You can see through but get a cover save.
Open-Topped does not mean the unit gets to ignore the model for shooting through it, nor does it matter how it gets modeled (as Insaniak pointed out).
Open-Topped puts Entry Points as the entire hull, puts Fire Points for the entire hull and for full Transport Capacity, and makes the Vehicle a little easier to Explodes! (or in some cases, able to Explodes!). That is it.
74952
Post by: nareik
Your opponent was right that there are all sorts of worky bits inside the drop pod that could block a weapon attempting to shoot through, however the chances of the shot being blocked in this way is represented by the cover save given to troops hiding behind the drop pod.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
 insaniak wrote: gdzilla wrote:If it's any help... In tournaments drop pods doors are considered down even if they're glued shut, ...
Or to be more precise: In tournaments that make that ruling, drop pod doors are considered down even if they're glued shut.
It's not a universal thing, although it is quite common.
And not at all RAW.
RAW, as you know, goes by True Line of Sight.
I find playing a drop pods doors to be considered down even if they're glued shut, to be more problems than it solves, personally speaking of course.
73177
Post by: morganfreeman
insaniak wrote:
Not necessarily. Due to vehicles drawing LOS from their weapons, it's entirely possible for one vehicle to be able to shoot another, while their target can't draw LOS to return fire.
At least based on what the OP is saying, his opponent was saying that he flatly could not fire through the drop-pod because it was essentially solid, not because his weapons could specifically not draw LoS.
So essentially, again based on what the OP said, he fired his dread through it but then turned around and said the 'Cron player could not fire through the drop-pod because it was a vehicle.
91265
Post by: Glitcha
Game uses true line of sight. As long as you can see the dreadnought on the other side the doomsday arch can fire. The dreadnought would receive a 5+ cover save due to the intervening models rule. It is in the cover save section of the BRB.
Side note, if the drop pod doors do not open (glue shut) they are still believe to be in the down position when landing. There is a section in the rule book for modeling that talks about moving parts on a model and them being glue in position.
35714
Post by: gwarsh41
So back before the true line of sight, drop pods always granted a +5 save for shooting through them. They also had a rule that said the doors had to come down when they landed. Both of those are gone now.
I've seen people argue on the internet that they can glue their pod doors shut and use them as LoS blocking terrain because there is nothing in the BRB or codex that prohibits it. They use other vehicle doors being glued shut, and other vehicles blocking line of sight as their arguments.
Personally, I wouldn't play against those people, that is just trying too hard to ruin something that is, to me, a recreational activity.
In this case, get down low and look through the drop pod. I know some people who bring laser pointers. Line of sight is a pain sometimes.
99
Post by: insaniak
 Glitcha wrote:Side note, if the drop pod doors do not open (glue shut) they are still believe to be in the down position when landing. There is a section in the rule book for modeling that talks about moving parts on a model and them being glue in position.
Again, there is no such rule.
There is a section in the rulebook that talks about moving weapons on the model and what to do if they are glued in position. You're free to do whatever you want with doors.
 gwarsh41 wrote:So back before the true line of sight, drop pods always granted a +5 save for shooting through them.
40K has always had true line of sight, so I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
They also had a rule that said the doors had to come down when they landed.
No such rule has ever existed in 40K.
People have been making the claim that the pod rules require the doors to be open ever since the pod was introduced as an actual unit in the 4th edition codex... but it's always been based in the same bit of fluff, and not actually a requirement of the rules.
I've seen people argue on the internet that they can glue their pod doors shut and use them as LoS blocking terrain because there is nothing in the BRB or codex that prohibits it. They use other vehicle doors being glued shut, and other vehicles blocking line of sight as their arguments.
Personally, I wouldn't play against those people, that is just trying too hard to ruin something that is, to me, a recreational activity.
I'm lost... what is being 'ruined' by treating a LOS-blocking vehicle as if it blocks LOS...?
99970
Post by: EnTyme
insaniak wrote:I'm lost... what is being 'ruined' by treating a LOS-blocking vehicle as if it blocks LOS...?
Modeled as intended, it is not a LoS-blocking vehicle. It has gaps that can be shot through. Gluing the doors shut would fall under my description of MFA. I agree that this is not a person I would play against.
35714
Post by: gwarsh41
insaniak wrote: Glitcha wrote:Side note, if the drop pod doors do not open (glue shut) they are still believe to be in the down position when landing. There is a section in the rule book for modeling that talks about moving parts on a model and them being glue in position.
Again, there is no such rule.
There is a section in the rulebook that talks about moving weapons on the model and what to do if they are glued in position. You're free to do whatever you want with doors.
gwarsh41 wrote:So back before the true line of sight, drop pods always granted a +5 save for shooting through them.
40K has always had true line of sight, so I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
They also had a rule that said the doors had to come down when they landed.
No such rule has ever existed in 40K.
People have been making the claim that the pod rules require the doors to be open ever since the pod was introduced as an actual unit in the 4th edition codex... but it's always been based in the same bit of fluff, and not actually a requirement of the rules.
I've seen people argue on the internet that they can glue their pod doors shut and use them as LoS blocking terrain because there is nothing in the BRB or codex that prohibits it. They use other vehicle doors being glued shut, and other vehicles blocking line of sight as their arguments.
Personally, I wouldn't play against those people, that is just trying too hard to ruin something that is, to me, a recreational activity.
I'm lost... what is being 'ruined' by treating a LOS-blocking vehicle as if it blocks LOS...?
Check old oop codex under transport rules for drop pods.
You misunderstood that last sentence. What would ruin the game is facing an opponent who glues their doors shut and argues they are LoS blocking. Especially considering they will attempt to fire the weapons from within them. From your response I'm guessing your either looking for an internet argument, or glued the doors shut on your drop pods. For me, the game is about relaxing, not winning, which is why facing people who do this sort of stuff ruins the game, as they are just interested in winning. Its the same type of people who go into arguments with "the rules don't say I can't!" that ruin the hobby.
Common sense and good sportsmanship will go a lot further than reading between the lines and scheming up ways to win.
99
Post by: insaniak
 EnTyme wrote:Modeled as intended, it is not a LoS-blocking vehicle.
Modelled as 'intended', the doors are able to open and close.
If the doors are closed, there is no practical difference between a pod with the doors glued shut or a pod that just has them closed.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
EnTyme wrote: insaniak wrote:I'm lost... what is being 'ruined' by treating a LOS-blocking vehicle as if it blocks LOS...?
Modeled as intended, it is not a LoS-blocking vehicle. It has gaps that can be shot through. Gluing the doors shut would fall under my description of MFA. I agree that this is not a person I would play against.
Why?
Gluing the doors shut is easier for transport of the model, and the Storm Bolter can not shoot.
99
Post by: insaniak
It doesn't say what you're claiming.
Seriously, this has been getting brought up, and subsequently debunked, for over a decade now.
What would ruin the game is facing an opponent who glues their doors shut and argues they are LoS blocking.
But... if the doors are shut, they are LOS blocking. I don't understand the problem.
It's a much bigger problem to have the doors shut and treat the pod as still being open, because it's practically impossible to determine what should and should not be able to be seen through it.
For me, the game is about relaxing, not winning, which is why facing people who do this sort of stuff ruins the game, as they are just interested in winning.
That's a bit of a massive generalisation there.
I've come across quite a few players who glued the doors of their pods shut because they take up too much room on the table with them open, or because they flop about in transit.
For me, playing against those sorts of pods would be far more 'relaxing' just treating them as the actual model on the table, rather than trying to pretend that they can be seen through when they physically can't.
Common sense and good sportsmanship will go a lot further than reading between the lines and scheming up ways to win.
As does assuming that not everyone who does things differently to how you think they should be done is doing it solely to find some tricky way to scheme a win.
99970
Post by: EnTyme
 DeathReaper wrote: EnTyme wrote: insaniak wrote:I'm lost... what is being 'ruined' by treating a LOS-blocking vehicle as if it blocks LOS...?
Modeled as intended, it is not a LoS-blocking vehicle. It has gaps that can be shot through. Gluing the doors shut would fall under my description of MFA. I agree that this is not a person I would play against.
Why?
Gluing the doors shut is easier for transport of the model, and the Storm Bolter can not shoot.
You could also put a rubber band around the model and not have to worry about being accused of being a cheesemonger.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
EnTyme wrote: You could also put a rubber band around the model and not have to worry about being accused of being a cheesemonger.
I don't like ruining my paintjob thanks. And why is gluing the doors shut being a cheesemonger? It is not MFA, it is just putting the model together. It is not modifying the model to gain an advantage.
84364
Post by: pm713
You gain the advantage of LOS blocking you put where you like.
99
Post by: insaniak
pm713 wrote:You gain the advantage of LOS blocking you put where you like.
You get that with the doors closed regardless of whether or not they're glued that way...
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
If you have a problem with someone gluing the doors on their model and wanting to play their model according to the rules, with the advantages and disadvantages that entails, then I think the real issue is with you, not them.
My preferred way to play with my drop pods with the doors glued shut is to simply allow units being targeted with a drop pod between themselves and the firer to generally claim a 5+ cover save, while myself approximating range and line of sight for the storm bolter.
96583
Post by: SplinteredShield
Id actually be totally fine with someone gluing the doors of their drop pod shut. Considering it has no firing points it would mean to me that the storm bolter inside could also never draw line of sight and never fire. You wanna use it for LOS block you don't get to use it as a gun. When a unit disembarks from a transport that small there's a very small chance you wont be able to draw LOS somewhere on the squad and grant the +5 cover save even if they pull shenanigans
4543
Post by: Phydox
sturgeondtd wrote:I was playing a game this weekend, Necron v. Space Marines, and was using a Annihilation Nexus formation so I could use my dust collecting pie plate when my opponent landed a drop pod right in front of my Doomsday Ark. Once the doors were down his Iron Clad came out on the opposing side and sat there for a turn (after missing his melta shots). On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it. Not knowing what to cite, I went with it, but it kept being a problem as I was basically wedged in from that point on due to terrain, allowing him to run up a squad straight behind it to be out of sight. Essentially making my Ark a sitting duck without being able to shoot.
Can you shoot large/small blast weapons through drop pods? If so, what can I cite if my opponent contests it?
If he has los to you, you have los to him.
14
Post by: Ghaz
 Phydox wrote:sturgeondtd wrote:I was playing a game this weekend, Necron v. Space Marines, and was using a Annihilation Nexus formation so I could use my dust collecting pie plate when my opponent landed a drop pod right in front of my Doomsday Ark. Once the doors were down his Iron Clad came out on the opposing side and sat there for a turn (after missing his melta shots). On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it. Not knowing what to cite, I went with it, but it kept being a problem as I was basically wedged in from that point on due to terrain, allowing him to run up a squad straight behind it to be out of sight. Essentially making my Ark a sitting duck without being able to shoot.
Can you shoot large/small blast weapons through drop pods? If so, what can I cite if my opponent contests it?
If he has los to you, you have los to him.
insaniak wrote: morganfreeman wrote:More-over, if he shot at your Doomsday Ark with his dread's melta, but then said you couldn't see him to shoot, there are some serious shenanigans afoot.
Not necessarily. Due to vehicles drawing LOS from their weapons, it's entirely possible for one vehicle to be able to shoot another, while their target can't draw LOS to return fire.
90480
Post by: Righteousrob
If they say the doors are shut and block Los I say doors are shut you can't shoot the gun. Can you shoot through a Knights legs? I believe you can.
99
Post by: insaniak
Righteousrob wrote:If they say the doors are shut and block Los I say doors are shut you can't shoot the gun.
And you would be correct, as I pointed out right back at the start.
LOS works both ways.
Can you shoot through a Knights legs? I believe you can.
You can shoot between a Knight's legs, assuming nothing is blocking the space there. You can't shoot through them.
100043
Post by: arthorn
If the doors are shut you can't shoot through them he can't go out I would argue.
To be honest this is a typical tfg, he just wants to win and abuse rules and discussion.
Insoniak don't want to be rude but all your arguments make think you use this tactic and are happily defending it. Are you really believing this or do you just want to troll?
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
arthorn wrote:If the doors are shut you can't shoot through them he can't go out I would argue.
By that logic you can't go out any transport doors that are glued shut.
But the rules are clear the vehicle is open topped and so the entire hull counts as an access point, whether the doors open or not.
To be honest this is a typical tfg, he just wants to win and abuse rules and discussion.
I glue my drop pod doors shut. I'll go back to what I said above - clearly this is a problem with you, not me. I'm sorry you're forced to play in an environment where anything another player does that you disagree with you're forced to assume is WAAC TFG behaviour. That doesn't mean that's the case, though. There's an awful lot of convenience in gluing the doors shut, in the same way you would glue a rhino's or land raider's doors shut.
Insoniak don't want to be rude but all your arguments make think you use this tactic and are happily defending it. Are you really believing this or do you just want to troll?
You might want to check the little bit that comes under his user name on the side panel, the bit that reads [MOD]... try clicking it to see what his stance on trolling might be.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Ghaz wrote: Phydox wrote:sturgeondtd wrote:I was playing a game this weekend, Necron v. Space Marines, and was using a Annihilation Nexus formation so I could use my dust collecting pie plate when my opponent landed a drop pod right in front of my Doomsday Ark. Once the doors were down his Iron Clad came out on the opposing side and sat there for a turn (after missing his melta shots). On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it. Not knowing what to cite, I went with it, but it kept being a problem as I was basically wedged in from that point on due to terrain, allowing him to run up a squad straight behind it to be out of sight. Essentially making my Ark a sitting duck without being able to shoot.
Can you shoot large/small blast weapons through drop pods? If so, what can I cite if my opponent contests it?
If he has los to you, you have los to him.
insaniak wrote: morganfreeman wrote:More-over, if he shot at your Doomsday Ark with his dread's melta, but then said you couldn't see him to shoot, there are some serious shenanigans afoot.
Not necessarily. Due to vehicles drawing LOS from their weapons, it's entirely possible for one vehicle to be able to shoot another, while their target can't draw LOS to return fire.
morganfreeman wrote:At least based on what the OP is saying, his opponent was saying that he flatly could not fire through the drop-pod because it was essentially solid, not because his weapons could specifically not draw LoS.
So essentially, again based on what the OP said, he fired his dread through it but then turned around and said the 'Cron player could not fire through the drop-pod because it was a vehicle.
99
Post by: insaniak
arthorn wrote:If the doors are shut you can't shoot through them he can't go out I would argue.
There is no requirement in the rules for the doors on a transport model to physically move in order for embarked models to get out. It would cause all sorts of problems with most people's transport vehicles if there were.
To be honest this is a typical tfg, he just wants to win and abuse rules and discussion.
What abuse of the rules are you seeing here?
That's a serious question. Models that block LOS ... block LOS. It's that simple. Leaving the doors up on your drop pod is no more abusive than choosing the standing vs the kneeing legs for your Firewarriors or Astrimperial Guardiamsiumsmen.,
Insoniak don't want to be rude but all your arguments make think you use this tactic and are happily defending it. Are you really believing this or do you just want to troll?
I've been playing that vehicles block LOS for as long as vehicles have blocked LOS...
I 'sort of' use this tactic... I don't have any GW pods. Mine are made of industrial piping, and so don't have functional doors. Before that, I was using pods made of Pringles cans with foamcore fins added on, again without functional doors. Since 2004 I have received not one single complaint from an opponent that they couldn't see through my pods.
Honestly, this is made into a far bigger issue online that it ever is in real life. The simple fact is that even with the GW pod open, most of the time you can actually see sweet bugger-all through them, particularly if your opponent hugs them for cover. And your opponent dropping one down with doors closed and deploying the unit behind them is really no different, LOS-wise, to him running a rhino or razorback forward and deploying the unit behind them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  Charistoph wrote:
morganfreeman wrote:At least based on what the OP is saying, his opponent was saying that he flatly could not fire through the drop-pod because it was essentially solid, not because his weapons could specifically not draw LoS.
So essentially, again based on what the OP said, he fired his dread through it but then turned around and said the 'Cron player could not fire through the drop-pod because it was a vehicle.
The OP didn't say that he fired the dread's melta at the ark. Just that he fired it. Presumably it was at a different target.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
The rules via TLOS are pretty unambiguous - if you can see through a model to the target on the other side, you can shoot it.
If you can't see it, such as the doors to the pod being shut, you can't see it.
In the case of the OP, the arguement the opponent was offering is totally unsupported by the rules.
100971
Post by: sturgeondtd
This has been quite the interesting post, to clear up a few things
My opponent was new to the game and had a few things wrong rule wise (he did not have a rule book, but said he "memorized the rules" one such rule was saying that models with combi weapons can fire both weapons in succession) however I do not believe he was doing anyone of these in order to win or even cheat.
As far as the dread goes, he DID fire it's melta into my Ark (the front tip was NOT blocked by the pod when he did this), I was trying to pivot and shoot the low power blast through the drop pod, or shoot the flayers (weapons along the side of the ark, and thus requiring no pivot) through the pod into the dread. I asked if he would be ok with me shooting this way, since I could clearly see the dread through the pod, all doors were down, and this is when he said it does not make sense to allow my shot to be able to go through the pod.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
insaniak wrote:The OP didn't say that he fired the dread's melta at the ark. Just that he fired it. Presumably it was at a different target.
It sure seemed that way to me based on how he described the other guys reasoning.
sturgeondtd wrote:On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it.
In other words, the guy refused because the shot space was too small. Without it being open, there is no way to tell, especially when we don't know how high the DD Ark was sitting to be able to "see" its shot through.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
sturgeondtd wrote:This has been quite the interesting post, to clear up a few things
My opponent was new to the game and had a few things wrong rule wise (he did not have a rule book, but said he "memorized the rules" one such rule was saying that models with combi weapons can fire both weapons in succession) however I do not believe he was doing anyone of these in order to win or even cheat.
As far as the dread goes, he DID fire it's melta into my Ark (the front tip was NOT blocked by the pod when he did this), I was trying to pivot and shoot the low power blast through the drop pod, or shoot the flayers (weapons along the side of the ark, and thus requiring no pivot) through the pod into the dread. I asked if he would be ok with me shooting this way, since I could clearly see the dread through the pod, all doors were down, and this is when he said it does not make sense to allow my shot to be able to go through the pod.
If you do play him again, just go through the line of rules with him and point out that IF he wants to open the doors and use the pods weapon, then he must accept that true line of sight can be drawn through the pod
99
Post by: insaniak
Charistoph wrote:
In other words, the guy refused because the shot space was too small. Without it being open, there is no way to tell, especially when we don't know how high the DD Ark was sitting to be able to "see" its shot through.
See the clarification in the post above yours... The dread was shooting around the pod. The ark was shooting through it.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
insaniak wrote: Charistoph wrote:
In other words, the guy refused because the shot space was too small. Without it being open, there is no way to tell, especially when we don't know how high the DD Ark was sitting to be able to "see" its shot through.
See the clarification in the post above yours... The dread was shooting around the pod. The ark was shooting through it.
So we get to ignore the other person's reasoning just because? If he at least claimed the doors blocked it, I could see it, but saying the insides blocked it without opening it up? No.
Was he being That Guy? Maybe, maybe not. It can be very hard to tell with new players (or at least, ones who claim they are new). If it was a guy I know had been in the game for a long time, it would definitely be on the maybe side.
I have long ago made the determination that if I ever get Drop Pods, they are being built doorless, just to avoid this issue. They blow open anyway, mine can just blow all the way off.
99
Post by: insaniak
No. Why would we?
I think you're a little confused about who had said what in this thread.
In the example in the OP, the pod was open. The discussion on the effect of doors being closed came later.
102074
Post by: Oldmike
anyone that claims I can't shoot though the drop pod is MFA if the doors are up and a WAAC player in my mind.
I stop the game right there and pack up and get a new game as pods some turn one.
To claim it's the same as other doors is bull gak as other doors have no game effect. Also is the rule that says you ignore the doors on pods gone
99
Post by: insaniak
There was never a rule that said that you ignore the doors.
How is building the model as designed modelling for advantage?
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
The attached is from the Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force datasheet from the Kauyon and new Angels of Death supplements. You can't claim it's simply modelling for advantage when it's pretty clearly an accepted and officially endorsed way of assembling the model.
1
102074
Post by: Oldmike
insaniak wrote:There was never a rule that said that you ignore the doors.
How is building the model as designed modelling for advantage?
I can't find it so must be old it stated that you ignore the doors so you can walk on them and other such stuff.
The doors were designed to open to make them not do so so they can block los is MFA as they were meant to open
Automatically Appended Next Post:  Mr. Shine wrote:The attached is from the Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force datasheet from the Kauyon and new Angels of Death supplements. You can't claim it's simply modelling for advantage when it's pretty clearly an accepted and officially endorsed way of assembling the model.
They do a lot of stuff for art to claim it's for rules is BS but no worries to me you are TFG and I rather not play you or your ilk.
Drop pods were not designed to be deployed as LOS blockers
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
Oldmike wrote:The doors were designed to open to make them not do so so they can block los is MFA as they were meant to open
The doors were, clearly, also designed to close.
They do a lot of stuff for art to claim it's for rules is BS but no worries to me you are TFG and I rather not play you or your ilk.
Drop pods were not designed to be deployed as LOS blockers
So what rules are you basing the fact the doors must be open on? So far as I can tell you're basing it only on either your opinion, the instructions (which also aren't rules) or art. You've given no evidence whatsoever to show that drop pods are designed to have their doors open.
Really it seems obvious to me that you're TFG here - the one with the problem with not liking how the rules work and taking issue with how someone else chooses to model their models. So long as they're playing consistently within the rules you've got no right to assume they must be trying to win at all costs.
Indeed, if you'd even read the thread you'll have noted that I play allowing line of sight to be drawn through my glued-shut drop pod doors, with standard cover saves granted.
102074
Post by: Oldmike
Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods. The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
I'm sure there was an old faq that said the opening of doors was just a modelling feature and should not be used in games.
I'm having a hard time finding it though
14
Post by: Ghaz
Oldmike wrote:Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods. The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.
So the 'No Glue' icon means that the doors must be open? Then why not tell you to glue the doors open instead? By telling me not to glue the doors it seems to me that they want me to be able to move the doors if I wish.
102074
Post by: Oldmike
 jokerkd wrote:I'm sure there was an old faq that said the opening of doors was just a modelling feature and should not be used in games.
I'm having a hard time finding it though
I remember this also but can't seem to find it
99
Post by: insaniak
Oldmike wrote:Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods. The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.
The instructions tell you to not glue them so that they can be opened and closed.
The is nothing inherent about not gluing then that would require them to be placed on the table open.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldmike wrote: jokerkd wrote:I'm sure there was an old faq that said the opening of doors was just a modelling feature and should not be used in games.
I'm having a hard time finding it though
I remember this also but can't seem to find it
You can't find it because it doesn't exist.
5th edition told us to ignore 'decorative' parts of the vehicle for LOS purposes. Given that they make up the majority of its hull, though, it's hard to argue that the pod doors are just decorative.
Most players ignored the doors if they were open, though, as otherwise the pod has a stupidly large footprint.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
You're probably right. While I'm sure there is one, I'm much less sure it was an official publication. more likely a third party tournament FAQ
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
Oldmike wrote:Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods.
No, they were blanket statements describing me as that fething guy, with no qualification. If you'd read how I choose to play you'd have had no reason to describe me as such.
The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.
Do you mean the instruction booklet page I've attached below? It's all I could find doing a quick search online, but there doesn't appear to be a "no glue" icon I can see.
The doors open and close. You're claiming because they can open and close they should be opened, which is the same logic as claiming that because they open and close they should be closed.
Any other support you can come up with for your opinion being anything more than just your opinion?
1
99970
Post by: EnTyme
Mr. Shine wrote:Oldmike wrote:Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods.
No, they were blanket statements describing me as that fething guy, with no qualification. If you'd read how I choose to play you'd have had no reason to describe me as such.
The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.
Do you mean the instruction booklet page I've attached below? It's all I could find doing a quick search online, but there doesn't appear to be a "no glue" icon I can see.
The doors open and close. You're claiming because they can open and close they should be opened, which is the same logic as claiming that because they open and close they should be closed.
Any other support you can come up with for your opinion being anything more than just your opinion?
So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage.
14
Post by: Ghaz
EnTyme wrote:So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage.
The instructions he posted doesn't show an assembled model. Is it modeling for advantage then if he assembles the model?
99970
Post by: EnTyme
 Ghaz wrote: EnTyme wrote:So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage.
The instructions he posted doesn't show an assembled model. Is it modeling for advantage then if he assembles the model?
You're reaching.
14
Post by: Ghaz
No more than you are.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
EnTyme wrote: Mr. Shine wrote:Oldmike wrote:Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods.
No, they were blanket statements describing me as that fething guy, with no qualification. If you'd read how I choose to play you'd have had no reason to describe me as such.
The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.
Do you mean the instruction booklet page I've attached below? It's all I could find doing a quick search online, but there doesn't appear to be a "no glue" icon I can see.
The doors open and close. You're claiming because they can open and close they should be opened, which is the same logic as claiming that because they open and close they should be closed.
Any other support you can come up with for your opinion being anything more than just your opinion?
So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage.
That instruction book, does say to use glue on the doors...
It is not MFA to keep the doors closed, just as it is not MFA to open the doors.
99
Post by: insaniak
EnTyme wrote:
So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage
The instructions posted don't show the doors open. They show the doors being assembled. They're not really indicative of anything useful in determining if the doors are 'supposed' to be open or closed.
The model is designed to allow the doors to open and close. GW's own pictures of it tend to show them closed as often as open... the current webstore listing for the pod shows 4 pictures of it, 3 of which have the doors closed.
So if we accept that the doors are designed to be in either position, and that GW themselves don't seem to have a problem with them being closed, I'm really not seeing the issue here.
And that's not even getting into the discussion on whether or not something is 'modelling for advantage' if the player doesn't actually gain any advantage from it.
92798
Post by: Traditio
I think that the best way to approach this is through the rule of common sense.
How is a drop pod supposed to work?
You have a group of marines (or whatever else) embarked. Drop pod falls from the sky and hits the ground. Doors open. Marines charge out. The stormbolter within the drop pod then begins shooting.
By the rule of common sense, the doors don't BLOS, since they are presumed to be opened and to remain opened after disembarkation, whether or not the doors are glued shut for modeling purposes.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Traditio wrote:I think that the best way to approach this is through the rule of common sense.
How is a drop pod supposed to work?
You have a group of marines (or whatever else) embarked. Drop pod falls from the sky and hits the ground. Doors open. Marines charge out. The stormbolter within the drop pod then begins shooting.
By the rule of common sense, the doors don't BLOS, since they are presumed to be opened and to remain opened after disembarkation.
40k's rules do not operate on "common sense" based on what happens in a "real" battle, or LRBTs/Land Raiders/etc would be immobilized on a 2+ every time they try to move. All that matters is what the rules actually say, and there is no rule for "you can't see through this, but it doesn't block LOS". If the drop pod doors are modeled in the closed position then they block LOS, there is no exception to the standard rule that if you can't see through it you don't have LOS.
92798
Post by: Traditio
Peregrine wrote:40k's rules do not operate on "common sense" based on what happens in a "real" battle, or LRBTs/Land Raiders/etc would be immobilized on a 2+ every time they try to move. All that matters is what the rules actually say, and there is no rule for "you can't see through this, but it doesn't block LOS". If the drop pod doors are modeled in the closed position then they block LOS, there is no exception to the standard rule that if you can't see through it you don't have LOS.
Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.
Edit:
Furthermore, I'm not making an argument from what happens in a "real" battle or any such realism argument. I'm making the claim that, in point of fact, that is how the model is intended to operate. The fact that the doors are up is purely accidental to the modeling decision of the person who constructed the drop pod.
If it were modeled "correctly," the doors would basically hinge and be able to moved up or down depending on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside.
99
Post by: insaniak
Traditio wrote:
Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.
That's correct. And has been pointed out multiple times already.
77363
Post by: nutty_nutter
Traditio wrote:Peregrine wrote:40k's rules do not operate on "common sense" based on what happens in a "real" battle, or LRBTs/Land Raiders/etc would be immobilized on a 2+ every time they try to move. All that matters is what the rules actually say, and there is no rule for "you can't see through this, but it doesn't block LOS". If the drop pod doors are modeled in the closed position then they block LOS, there is no exception to the standard rule that if you can't see through it you don't have LOS.
Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.
Edit:
Furthermore, I'm not making an argument from what happens in a "real" battle or any such realism argument. I'm making the claim that, in point of fact, that is how the model is intended to operate. The fact that the doors are up is purely accidental to the modeling decision of the person who constructed the drop pod.
If it were modeled "correctly," the doors would basically hinge and be able to moved up or down depending on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside.
noone in this thread has said that they could....what is your point exactly?
92798
Post by: Traditio
insaniak wrote:That's correct. And has been pointed out multiple times already.
Doesn't that seem completely counter-intuitive?
Suppose I glue the doors shut: 1. to save space and 2. to prevent the model from breaking (and not for any modeling advantage).
Why should I be prevented from using the stormbolter simply because of an accidental modeling decision on my part?
It's stuff like this which completely breaks immersion and starts personal disputes.
Regardless of what RAW says, RAI and the rule of common sense (and epikeia, may I add) declare otherwise.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Traditio wrote:Peregrine wrote:40k's rules do not operate on "common sense" based on what happens in a "real" battle, or LRBTs/Land Raiders/etc would be immobilized on a 2+ every time they try to move. All that matters is what the rules actually say, and there is no rule for "you can't see through this, but it doesn't block LOS". If the drop pod doors are modeled in the closed position then they block LOS, there is no exception to the standard rule that if you can't see through it you don't have LOS.
Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.
This is absolutely true.
A drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter because it can never draw Line of Sight to anything.
Furthermore, I'm not making an argument from what happens in a "real" battle or any such realism argument. I'm making the claim that, in point of fact, that is how the model is intended to operate. The fact that the doors are up is purely accidental to the modeling decision of the person who constructed the drop pod.
If it were modeled "correctly," the doors would basically hinge and be able to moved up or down depending on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside.
Yes the doors can move. The doors being up or down absolutely do not depend on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside. It depends on if the player has the doors up or down.
Disembarking has nothing to do with the position of the doors.
99
Post by: insaniak
Traditio wrote:
Why should I be prevented from using the stormbolter simply because of an accidental modeling decision on my part?
Because your modeling decision results in the stormbolter not being able to draw LOS to anything.
It's stuff like this which completely breaks immersion and starts personal disputes..
Ultimately, it's no more 'immersion breaking' than guard heavy weapon teams crawling around the battlefield on their knees. Or being unable to target a dreadnought when all you can see is its banner while also being unable to draw LOS to the unit behind the dreadnought because of that same banner.
They're just side effects of a system that does a poor job of accounting for the fact that units are being represented by static models.
92798
Post by: Traditio
DeathReaper wrote:Yes the doors can move. The doors being up or down absolutely do not depend on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside. It depends on if the player has the doors up or down.
Disembarking has nothing to do with the position of the doors.
And this is why people should read the words in italics before they start applying rules. I quote:
"Crashing to the ground, the pods' hatches yawn wide, and the battle brothers inside charge forth to annihilate the foe" (C: SM, p. 158).
I also wish to point out that it clearly says, under unit type in the statline "open-topped." And the actual picture on p. 158 of the rulebook shows an open drop pod.
The assumption that the writers of the rules/makers of the model are making is that you've basically "hinged" your doors and made them able to open and close at will. The doors should be closed when they're off of the table. They should be closed when you put it on the table and roll scatter die. And you should then open the doors when you disembark your troops.
If the doors are glued shut, both parties should agree, as gentlemen with common sense, to pretend as though this happened, and proceed accordingly.
If I used drop pods, I would refuse to play against someone who wouldn't let me fire my stormbolter simply because I glued the doors shut because I want to prevent the model from breaking.
The game is first and foremost a spectacle. It is a competitive game only secondarily.
99
Post by: insaniak
Traditio wrote:
The assumption that the writers of the rules/makers of the model are making is that you've basically "hinged" your doors and made them able to open and close at will. The doors should be closed when they're off of the table. They should be closed when you put it on the table and roll scatter die. And you should then open the doors when you disembark your troops.
Except, as per this, posted earlier in the thread, the writers of the rules clearly disagree with this assessment.
If I used drop pods, I would refuse to play against someone who wouldn't let me fire my stormbolter simply because I glued the doors shut because I want to prevent the model from breaking.
The problem with this approach is that it requires you to establish LOS from a weapon that you can't actually see.
There are all sorts of ways that you can assemble your models that result in them not being ideal in-game. Why is that your opponent's problem?
Playing the model as is results in the fewest rules issues.
92798
Post by: Traditio
insaniak wrote:Traditio wrote:
The assumption that the writers of the rules/makers of the model are making is that you've basically "hinged" your doors and made them able to open and close at will. The doors should be closed when they're off of the table. They should be closed when you put it on the table and roll scatter die. And you should then open the doors when you disembark your troops.
Except, as per this, posted earlier in the thread, the writers of the rules clearly disagree with this assessment.
1. Perhaps the doors are closed because they wanted to make sure that everything was clearly visible on the photograph.
2. Perhaps the doors are closed in the picture because they consider the position of the doors on the model to be irrelevant for all rules intents and purposes.
Fact is, here are the facts:
1. The italics clearly say that the doors open upon landing.
2. The stat-line clearly says "open-topped," which ONLY makes sense if the doors are considered open.
3. The model becomes immobilized the moment that it enters play.
Does opening and closing the doors count as a movement?
If you tell me "yes," then I'll point out the utter absurdity of telling me that I can't roll the scatter dice, place the drop pod and then open the doors to disembark (which is precisely what the italics says actually happens).
If you tell me "no," then I'll ask you what stops me from hinging the doors of a drop pod, disembarking my troops behind the drop pods (drop pods being in between my troops and the opponents' troops), and closing the doors of my drop pods at the end of each of my turns (essentially granting me LOS for my shooting phases, but denying my opponent LOS for their shooting phases).
If you tell me "nothing," then I'll tell you that this is precisely why the virtue of epikeia is important.
The problem with this approach is that it requires you to establish LOS from a weapon that you can't actually see.
Again, epikeia. Simply ask whether the LOS of the weapon could be established if the doors weren't in the way.
Playing the model as is results in the fewest rules issues.
Agreeing to act as though you had common sense results in the fewest of all.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Then definitively establish los when you have no accurate method of doing so
On the contrary: nothing in the rules allow you to open or close the doors. This is a permissive rule set. Provide the rule permitting it, or mark your posts as "house rule"
But then , we know you consider certain rules inconvenient, such as blast weapons and their never rolling To Hit.....
92798
Post by: Traditio
Except, you do. Simply move the drop pod out of the way when attempting to determine LOS.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Traditio wrote:Except, you do. Simply move the drop pod out of the way when attempting to determine LOS.
Then you aren't considering the structure of the drop pod. Even with the doors open it still provides significant LOS blocking, and removing it from the table is not an accurate representation of that. Plus, there is nothing in the rules that allows you to remove a model or terrain from the table so you can draw LOS through it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Traditio wrote:Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.
Correct.
If it were modeled "correctly," the doors would basically hinge and be able to moved up or down depending on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside.
Nope. There is no rule that allows you to change the configuration of a model in the middle of the game. You can have the doors open or closed, but once you make that choice you are committed to it for the entire game. You can't, for example, leave the doors open to give it a smaller footprint when deep striking and then open some of the doors to increase the footprint of the hull when disembarking.
92798
Post by: Traditio
Peregrine wrote:Then you aren't considering the structure of the drop pod. Even with the doors open it still provides significant LOS blocking, and removing it from the table is not an accurate representation of that.
Whether or not LOS is blocked by the doors of the drop pod or by some other feature should be perceptually apparent from the get go.
Plus, there is nothing in the rules that allows you to remove a model or terrain from the table so you can draw LOS through it.
As I said, this is a clear case of where epikeia applies.
99
Post by: insaniak
Traditio wrote:1. The italics clearly say that the doors open upon landing.
The italics also say that the pods 'plunge through the atmosphere amid teardrop-shaped coronae of flame'... I'm not sure how well plastic models are going to hold up to that sort of treatment.
2. The stat-line clearly says "open-topped," which ONLY makes sense if the doors are considered open.
Once upon a time, rhinos were considered open-topped in the opponent's shooting phase if embarked models fired from them. Nobody ever seemed to think that this required you to physically open the top hatch on the model.
3. The model becomes immobilized the moment that it enters play.
Does opening and closing the doors count as a movement?
Physically opening the doors? Doesn't count as anything... there are no rules that allow you to change the posing of a model during the game, other than to turn weapons on vehicles.
Rules-wise? No... otherwise embarked models would be unable to disembark from immobilised rhinos.
The simple fact is that the rules don't care if your pod has its doors open or closed. Some players object to it, on the assumption that anyone leaving the doors closed is doing so to better hide their models behind it... but there is no rules-based reason to have them open, and the model allows for them to be either open or closed.
As I said earlier, it's no different to choosing to use kneeling or standing legs on your guardsmen or firewarriors. Yes, modeling choices have an impact on the game. That's just the nature of the beast... and doesn't mean that everyone making those choices is doing so specifically to gain an in-game advantage.
Again, epikeia. Simply ask whether the LOS of the weapon could be established if the doors weren't in the way.
That doesn't make any sense. You establish LOS by tracing a line from the weapon to the target. How do you do that if you can't see the weapon.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Traditio wrote:"Crashing to the ground, the pods' hatches yawn wide, and the battle brothers inside charge forth to annihilate the foe" (C: SM, p. 158).
Fluff =/= rules.
If I used drop pods, I would refuse to play against someone who wouldn't let me fire my stormbolter simply because I glued the doors shut because I want to prevent the model from breaking.
The game is first and foremost a spectacle. It is a competitive game only secondarily.
IOW, this is another one of your "accept my house rules or you're a bad person and I won't play with you" arguments, not an argument about how the printed rules of 40k actually work.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Traditio wrote:
Except, you do. Simply move the drop pod out of the way when attempting to determine LOS.
1) inaccurate method. The structure of a fully assembled drop pod - never mind something like a death storm - puts a significant amount of los blocking model in the way, doors or no doors
2) no rule allows you to do so. So, again, mark your posts appropriately to ,are it clear to people you're just making yet more stuff up
3) accurately removing and replacing the drop pod is a significant task
So a fail in at least three accounts. Try again, rules this time.
92798
Post by: Traditio
Peregrine wrote:Nope. There is no rule that allows you to change the configuration of a model in the middle of the game.
Is there any rule which specifically prevents it?
You can have the doors open or closed, but once you make that choice you are committed to it for the entire game. You can't, for example, leave the doors open to give it a smaller footprint when deep striking and then open some of the doors to increase the footprint of the hull when disembarking.
Show me the rule that says so. 
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Traditio wrote:Whether or not LOS is blocked by the doors of the drop pod or by some other feature should be perceptually apparent from the get go.
How? The stuff inside the drop pod still blocks LOS and is completely invisible with the doors closed. You can, at best, make a rough guess at whether LOS will be blocked, but you can not check it accurately.
As I said, this is a clear case of where epikeia applies.
Your religion is not an acceptable source for 40k rules. Please stick to the actual rules of 40k.
99
Post by: insaniak
Traditio wrote:
Whether or not LOS is blocked by the doors of the drop pod or by some other feature should be perceptually apparent from the get go.
Except that it's practically impossible to determine if the machinery inside the pod blocks LOS to the target or not when the doors are in the way.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Clearly you do not understand how 40k works. You are not allowed to do anything unless the rules say so. You can't change the configuration of a model mid-game unless there is a rule allowing you to, just like I can't roll 10 dice for armor penetration with my lasguns unless I can cite a rule that says "this weapon rolls nine additional dice when attempting to penetrate armor".
99
Post by: insaniak
No. There is also no rule specifically preventing you from swapping the pod for a Warlord titan at the start of turn 4.
You need a rule that says you can do something before it becomes something that can be done in the game.
92798
Post by: Traditio
 Peregrine wrote:
Clearly you do not understand how 40k works. You are not allowed to do anything unless the rules say so. You can't change the configuration of a model mid-game unless there is a rule allowing you to, just like I can't roll 10 dice for armor penetration with my lasguns unless I can cite a rule that says "this weapon rolls nine additional dice when attempting to penetrate armor".
There's no rule that specifically allows me to place a drop pod with doors closed onto the table, roll dice, and then open the doors during disembarkation.
If I can open the doors in that case (though the rules don't tell me I can), why can't I close the doors later?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Traditio wrote:Peregrine wrote:Nope. There is no rule that allows you to change the configuration of a model in the middle of the game.
Is there any rule which specifically prevents it?
You can have the doors open or closed, but once you make that choice you are committed to it for the entire game. You can't, for example, leave the doors open to give it a smaller footprint when deep striking and then open some of the doors to increase the footprint of the hull when disembarking.
Show me the rule that says so.
Permissive rule set. Like pretty much any game.
The game tells you what you CAN do. At least to start with.
So, quote a rule, or mark your posts such that people know you're making stuff up , again. Automatically Appended Next Post: Traditio wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Clearly you do not understand how 40k works. You are not allowed to do anything unless the rules say so. You can't change the configuration of a model mid-game unless there is a rule allowing you to, just like I can't roll 10 dice for armor penetration with my lasguns unless I can cite a rule that says "this weapon rolls nine additional dice when attempting to penetrate armor".
There's no rule that specifically allows me to place a drop pod with doors closed onto the table, roll dice, and then open the doors during disembarkation.
If I can open the doors in that case (though the rules don't tell me I can), why can't I close the doors later?
No. Your point?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Traditio wrote:There's no rule that specifically allows me to place a drop pod with doors closed onto the table, roll dice, and then open the doors during disembarkation.
If I can open the doors in that case (though the rules don't tell me I can), why can't I close the doors later?
You can't do that. If you model the drop pod with the doors open then it must remain in that configuration for the entire game, including when it is place on the table by deep strike. I already explicitly stated that you can't do this, so I don't know why you're acting like I believe the opposite.
99
Post by: insaniak
Traditio wrote:
There's no rule that specifically allows me to place a drop pod with doors closed onto the table, roll dice, and then open the doors during disembarkation.
If I can open the doors in that case (though the rules don't tell me I can), why can't I close the doors later?
You can't open the doors in that case. If you deploy the pod with the doors closed, there is no rule that would allow you to open them later.
92798
Post by: Traditio
Peregrine wrote:You can't do that. If you model the drop pod with the doors open then it must remain in that configuration for the entire game, including when it is place on the table by deep strike. I already explicitly stated that you can't do this, so I don't know why you're acting like I believe the opposite.
Even though the italics specifically says that this is what happens.
Alright. If that's your mentality, I wipe my hands of this discussion.
Good day.
99
Post by: insaniak
Traditio wrote:
Even though the italics specifically says that this is what happens.
Alright. If that's your mentality, I wipe my hands of this discussion.
I'm not really sure what you were expecting. You can't just pick out random bits of fluff and treat them as rules. That way lies madness.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Traditio wrote:Peregrine wrote:You can't do that. If you model the drop pod with the doors open then it must remain in that configuration for the entire game, including when it is place on the table by deep strike. I already explicitly stated that you can't do this, so I don't know why you're acting like I believe the opposite.
Even though the italics specifically says that this is what happens.
Alright. If that's your mentality, I wipe my hands of this discussion.
Good day.
The italics also require the pod to be on fire. Do you do that bit? Or do you just pick and choose when it suits?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Traditio wrote:DeathReaper wrote:Yes the doors can move. The doors being up or down absolutely do not depend on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside. It depends on if the player has the doors up or down.
Disembarking has nothing to do with the position of the doors.
And this is why people should read the words in italics before they start applying rules. I quote:
"Crashing to the ground, the pods' hatches yawn wide, and the battle brothers inside charge forth to annihilate the foe" (C: SM, p. 158).
That quote does not actually have any rules in it.
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
Traditio wrote:Peregrine wrote:You can't do that. If you model the drop pod with the doors open then it must remain in that configuration for the entire game, including when it is place on the table by deep strike. I already explicitly stated that you can't do this, so I don't know why you're acting like I believe the opposite.
Even though the italics specifically says that this is what happens.
Alright. If that's your mentality, I wipe my hands of this discussion.
Good day.
"But the italics say the unit inside charges forth to annihilate the foe, so I can charge after disembarking, and I auto-win to annihilate you!"
"That's not what the rules say, though."
"But it's what the italics say. If that's your mentality then I'm wiping my hands of this game."
|
|
