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.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, a new way.

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

Honest question.

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I model the pods with no harnesses in them.

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

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

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

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

RAW doors block los

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I is something I considered too.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this has what to do with LOS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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