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.

White Dwarf 346 from when drop pods were first released is an interesting read.
Now, I know that WD isn't an official codex, faq, errata or BRB so this annecdotal evidence means literally nothing.
I just thought it to be related and interesting enough.

It contains two battle reports containing drop pods.
Points of interest.....
Ultramarines Game 1: Pod deployed with it's doors down as far as possible. Doors are part way open where they land on terrain. Models stand on doors.
White Scars Game 2: Pod is deployed closed, It blocks Defilers' line of sight to the unit behind it. Pod shoots with it's doors closed.

It's strange (but not unexpected) that they would play it two different ways in the studio and certainly in the batreps.
It seems obvious that there was some confusion even at the point of release and in a situation where they probably could have spoken to the designer!

I also always thought it should be open. But for some reason yesterday I grabbed one of my pods and set it on the table with doors open and grabbed 5 terminators(on cork bases so they were higher) and put them behind it. And you coukdntbsee ther terminators. The harness and gun and everything inside the pod blocked LOS so it doesn't really matter to me now cuz either way you can't see through them

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Aijec wrote:
WSYIWYG how does the Dread come out if the door can't open?

How do 20 Orks come out of a Battlewagon's wheel?

Great point, not only would they not fit but it wouldn't even be close.

But that is the official model, and it has a transport capacity of 20. (I think)

If my opponent modeled a battle wagon to fit 20 boys bases I'd call him out for it immediately.

I am consistent with my rules, boys can embark even though they can't fit and leave likewise.
Dreads can't fit but can disembark likewise.

You can't say the doors aren't there one moment and suddenly the next they are not only there but block Los. What piece of terrain in the game blocks Los YET allows movement directly through it? (Non magical aside)

I'm being anal about this because it's a common enough occurrence, DP provides 5+, use LOS.

Do you play battle wagons, rhinos and drop pods as you suggested? How do you take transports? Lol

Aijec wrote:
What piece of terrain in the game blocks Los YET allows movement directly through it? (Non magical aside)

A solid wall that is a part of a ruin does exactly this.

It will block Line of Sight as you can not see through a ruined wall that has no doors or windows on that side, but since ruins are difficult terrain your models may move through it with a Difficult Terrain test.

Woods, doors and hills too.

Farseer Pef wrote:
In every 6th edition Codex I have read, a paragraph beginning with a bolded title and a colon (ex: Transport Capacity: ) has not one word of fluff written into it. Presumably, this means that every word in it is written rule.

Either 'hatches are blown' is intended as opening doors (not a huge leap of logic), or its the first time an editor has failed to maintain an established writing format (crunch only in said paragraphs).

Page 63 C:CSM. I'm pretty sure that what befalls Fabius Bike's enhanced warriors after the battle is that they go in the case/box they came out of.
That's the only 6th edition codex I have available, but your presumption is incorrect.

 insaniak wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
This again................. This is why they need to FAQ the drop pod section in the rules to read like the Horus heresy book one does. "all doors are opened to their full extent". would stop all of the cheesy drop pod uses in games, by the rule lawyers.

You know what else would be helpful?

If people stopped blaming the deficiencies in the rules on other players.

Thats like blaming car Manufacturers, For road traffic accidents caused by drivers, just because there is a deficiency, doesnt mean you have to exploit it.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Thats like blaming car Manufacturers, For road traffic accidents caused by drivers,

It's really not. The driver who has an accident while driving his car in a perfectly legal fashion is not the one at fault when an oversight by the manufacturer causes something screwy to happen.

just because there is a deficiency, doesnt mean you have to exploit it.

That's one way to look at it, certainly.

The other way to look at it is to point out that if it is legal within the rules and has been that way for 3 editions now, it's clearly not really an exploit. If it was, a writer who actually cares about their product would fix it.


GW have all the chances in the world to plug the holes in their rules. They choose not to. So it's left up to the players to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed. And when that happens, you're always going to get some disagreement as to whether a particular rules interaction is an exploit or perfectly acceptable.

If a player reads a rule and decides that it seems perfectly fine to play that way, and you disagree and think that the rules are clearly supposed to work another way... that doesn't make the other player a bad person, or mean that they are trying to 'exploit' the rules. If they see it as a valid way of playing, they're not going to see it as an exploit in the first place.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aijec wrote:
What piece of terrain in the game blocks Los YET allows movement directly through it? (Non magical aside)

A solid wall that is a part of a ruin does exactly this.

It will block Line of Sight as you can not see through a ruined wall that has no doors or windows on that side, but since ruins are difficult terrain your models may move through it with a Difficult Terrain test.

Absolutely correct and I am wrong, this is a special case and is specially stated in the rules. Unlike the rest of the thread's terrain.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
Woods, doors and hills too.

Since when can't I move through woods?

You cannot move through a hill.

You cannot move through a door, it opens for gods sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GW have all the chances in the world to plug the holes in their rules. They choose not to.

Obviously they choose not to, but they are financial reasons to leave rules ambiguous.

Majority of 40k players are casual and they want a casual game.

This thread is ridiculous

Aijec wrote:
You cannot move through a hill.

If the hill is classed as difficult terrain, please explain why not.


Again, not suggesting that you should be able to... but the difficult terrain rules simply don't differentiate. If it's difficult terrain, you can walk through the pieces that make it up.

You cannot move through a door, it opens for gods sake.

And there's the issue in a nutshell.

Yes, fluffwise the guy moving through the door would open it. But so far as the rules are concerned, there is no need to physically open the door, or to have the door modelled open to begin with. Whether the door is open or closed, models can move through it.

Obviously they choose not to, but they are financial reasons to leave rules ambiguous.

Majority of 40k players are casual and they want a casual game.

How do ambiguous rules help a casual game?

Aijec wrote:

GW have all the chances in the world to plug the holes in their rules. They choose not to.

Obviously they choose not to, but they are financial reasons to leave rules ambiguous.

Majority of 40k players are casual and they want a casual game.

This thread is ridiculous

No, any "financial reasons" are invented and easily disproved. GW would make far more money with well written rules.
Please explain how well written rules hurt casual players. You should probably PM though since it's off topic.
And yes, it's ridiculous that so many people get offended by discussing what the rules actually say (instead of what some people want them to say) in a rules forum on the internet.

No one required that you post in this thread, let alone read it.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Check out page 81 and the Crash and Burn entry. The 1st sentence is "If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down onto the battlefield." If I treat every word in it is written rule am I to take it Games Workshop wants me to smash my model, light it on fire and scatter it over the table?

Well the hobby would attract a lot more pyromaniacs.