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.

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The what now...?

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

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

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

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

Just as the drawing on pg.69 shows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The what now...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now your just being obtuse.

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dkellyj wrote:

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

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

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

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

Page 82 says they do have the Assault Vehicle USR.

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

Yes.

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

Where are the rules that define this?

The unit disembarks per the 6th ed BRB,

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean modeling for advantage? Yeah, no.

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

This distinction actually works against your argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now your just being obtuse.

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

Mythra,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't the guys get out?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rigeld2,

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

JimSolo,

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

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

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

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

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