Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yakface wrote:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the responses mates!

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

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

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

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

My Bad!

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my 2 cents...

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

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

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

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

Drop Pods work much more smoothly, now.


Eric

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

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

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

JD21290 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ OP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARGH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARGH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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