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.

I apologize in advance if this has been asked/answered before. In a game I had a few days ago my opponent claimed that he could deploy from the 'doors' of the drop pod after landing. He wanted to be able to jump out 2" from the 5 unfolding actual doors! I immediately said no citing that it was:
a)ridiculous
b)stupid
c)has to be from the hull of the vehicle (actual 'pod' part)
d)and that those folding doors are ornamental

We argued this point for a good amount of time and he would not yield saying that the rules didn't clarify where on the pod you got out. We diced it and I won the argument. Am I right or wrong on this issue? Can models deploy from the unfolding doors? Much appreciated.

Measurement to and from a vehicle is from the hull, not from the opening doors.

Of course, some people argue that the doors are a part of the pod's hull, since they make up such a large part of the pod's surface area when closed... so until GW FAQ it, it's going to remain a point of contention.

The rules say to measure from the hull for disembarking from a vehicle. The doors are not part of the hull.

This is a bit of a contentious subject, and you will not get a universal answer.

It's hard to argue that drop pod doors aren't part of the hull since the vast majority of the pod is indeed the doors themselves, but any other interpretation gets absolutely ridiculous when you attempt to play it out.

I've had the same argument... Is there anything in the SM dex that would indicate different? It seems to me that the rules about the 'hull' are clear and trying to say that the doors are the hull would leave open up the possibility of opening rhino/chimera doors for an extra few inches too. I don't think anyone would even attempt it with tanks, why would it be different with drop pods?

We play it that the doors don't count for deployment, it would just be too much if they did.

insaniak wrote:Measurement to and from a vehicle is from the hull, not from the opening doors.

Of course, some people argue that the doors are a part of the pod's hull, since they make up such a large part of the pod's surface area when closed... so until GW FAQ it, it's going to remain a point of contention.

Agreed with this.

Although, if your opponent is going to say that the doors are part of the hull, make sure that he knows to keep them more than 1" away from your models when DSing and that he can't move over them while it's still alive. If the pod is wrecked, remember that the doors are then difficult and dangerous terrain, etc etc.

It might be an idea to let this person know that it's obviously a contentious issue (he himself said that it wasn't clear in the Codex) and that he should have clarified it with you before the game.

If the doors were part of the hull, then the disembarking marines would not be allowed to be on the doors.

Does that really sound like the right way to play it?

The rules say that distance from Vehicles are measured from the hull of the vehicle. Since the doors of a drop pod are not the hull, then I would say that your opponent was wrong. For people saying that the doors are part of the hull, is rules lawyering and people know it. They are just trying to get an advantage any way they can. Next time bring a land raider with a custom built 12" long door and claim the same rule benefit. Because no where in the SM codex does it specify how long a land raiders door is. It was a silly argument.

Any-other vehicle with doors that open out (but are generally static/glued) would be supject to this very same problem but there is no problem simply because the doors are on a different axis?

"..the hatches are blown.." I would argue that this means the hatches are blown off so the main body of the vehicle is stil the pod itself.
Anyways as mango mentioned, Ill counter rules laywering with some of my own ; Definition of hull is the main body of the vehicle or in other words, the Chasis.

Either way anyone true to argue you can dismebark within 2" from the egde of an open hatch needs to be told of and sent home without any supper. Its just naughty, simple as.

coredump wrote:If the doors were part of the hull, then the disembarking marines would not be allowed to be on the doors.

Does that really sound like the right way to play it?

There are no rules preventing infantry from being on top of friendly vehicles. So this doesn't really stop any shenanigans regarding the doors.

Democratus wrote:

coredump wrote:If the doors were part of the hull, then the disembarking marines would not be allowed to be on the doors.

Does that really sound like the right way to play it?

There are no rules preventing infantry from being on top of friendly vehicles. So this doesn't really stop any shenanigans regarding the doors.

BRB Pg. 11...

"Models may not move into or through the space occupied by another model...."

There certainly are rules keeping any model (infantry or otherwise) from being on top of other models. You can move through gaps in your models, but you may never move on top of friendly models.

If this player actually wants to define doors as part of the hull then make sure he ALWAYS opens those doors. No weaseling about if there's not enough room.

Alerian wrote:

Democratus wrote:

coredump wrote:If the doors were part of the hull, then the disembarking marines would not be allowed to be on the doors.

Does that really sound like the right way to play it?

There are no rules preventing infantry from being on top of friendly vehicles. So this doesn't really stop any shenanigans regarding the doors.

BRB Pg. 11...

"Models may not move into or through the space occupied by another model...."

There certainly are rules keeping any model (infantry or otherwise) from being on top of other models. You can move through gaps in your models, but you may never move on top of friendly models.

A model on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as the vehicle. For that to occur it would have to be inside the vehicle. A model moving on a door is over the door, not inside of it.

Moving on top of a friendly vehicle is the same as moving over the base of a friendly model..both are illegal...nice try though.

Climbing over a vehicle is moving over it....and that is illegal. Standing on a vehicle is occupying the same space, just like trying to put one model's base on (or partially on) another model's base...and that too is illegal. Remember that vehicles are models too, and re-read pg 11.

Remember that 40k is a permissive ruleset, and there is nothing that counteracts pg 11 and says that you CAN climb on top of a vehicle. It is purely illegal. Now, once it is wrecked, you can climb on it all you want.

Edited for spelling errors

BRB Pg. 11...
"Models may not move into or through the space occupied by another model...."

Democratus wrote:A model on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as the vehicle. For that to occur it would have to be inside the vehicle. A model moving on a door is over the door, not inside of it.

"Can you tell me what the definition of 'is' is?"

Vehicles are models.
A model cannot share the same 'space' as another model.
Ergo, you cannot place models ontop of a vehicle.

The only way to move over a vehicle, by the BRB, is if it's wrecked or destroyed. If it's wrecked, it's Difficult and Dangerous Terrain. If it's destroyed, it's only Difficult Terrain.

OK, thanks a lot Dakka^2. I thought that I was right, just wasn't exact about wording.

dietrich wrote:

BRB Pg. 11...
"Models may not move into or through the space occupied by another model...."

Democratus wrote:A model on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as the vehicle. For that to occur it would have to be inside the vehicle. A model moving on a door is over the door, not inside of it.

"Can you tell me what the definition of 'is' is?"

Vehicles are models.
A model cannot share the same 'space' as another model.
Ergo, you cannot place models ontop of a vehicle.

The only way to move over a vehicle, by the BRB, is if it's wrecked or destroyed. If it's wrecked, it's Difficult and Dangerous Terrain. If it's destroyed, it's only Difficult Terrain.

Very concise and excellently worded. Anytime someone can use the word 'ergo' properly in a sentence I feel a tinge of joy. But just to lawyer a little more and and to have absolutely clarity, do drop pods count as being 'immobilized' or 'wrecked' upon arrival? If they're immobilized then the two shall not occupy the same space, if it's wrecked would every marine spilling out have to take a test?

Drop pods are Immobile, so they are Immobilized, not Wrecked.

Alerian wrote:Moving on top of a friendly vehicle is the same as moving over the base of a friendly model..both are illegal...nice try though.

Climbing over a vehicle is moving over it....and that is illegal. Standing on a vehicle is occupying the same space, just like trying to put one model's base on (or partially on) another model's base...and that too is illegal. Remember that vehicles are models too, and re-read pg 11.

Remember that 40k is a permissive ruleset, and there is nothing that counteracts pg 11 and says that you CAN climb on top of a vehicle. It is purely illegal. Now, once it is wrecked, you can climb on it all you want.

Edited for spelling errors

I'm in total agreement on the Rhino bit, but you are mistaken on one small part of your "argument."

If GW rules were permissive, then I could put my killed units back on the field, as there are no rules saying I can't.

By definition, permissive means that you can assume it's okay, unless told otherwise. Permissive parents, for example, allow their kids to do whatever they want until they go too far, at which time the parent's speak up.

Restrictive is the word you want.

Restrictive rule sets mean that you should presume you CAN'T do something, unless he rules specifcally say you can. Using the same example as above, if you had restrictive parents growing up, that means you had to ask permission to do things that weren't already established as "acceptable."

Hope that clears it up.


Eric

Try definition 2, the rules are granting us permission to do something. Anything that the rules are NOT granting us permission to do is a restriction. Most of the rules in the rulebook are presented in a fashion of, you may move 6" in the movement phase, vs you may not move over 6". So its a permissive style, as we know from inference that over 6" is not allowed. Pretty sure Dakka will stick with their currently accepted vernacular.


Back on topic. A hatch is an opening from a vehicle, in the context of this game. The rules PERMIT models to be within 2" of the hatch when disembarking. They do not state that the model must be completely within 2" so if your friend wanted to tweak things as much as he could, he could put the very edge of the model 2" away from the hatch. In short, you were correct, he was wrong. I wouldn't even call what he was doing rules-lawyering, its more like cheating.

dietrich wrote:

BRB Pg. 11...
"Models may not move into or through the space occupied by another model...."

Democratus wrote:A model on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as the vehicle. For that to occur it would have to be inside the vehicle. A model moving on a door is over the door, not inside of it.

"Can you tell me what the definition of 'is' is?"

Vehicles are models.
A model cannot share the same 'space' as another model.
Ergo, you cannot place models ontop of a vehicle.

Occupying the same space would mean one being inside of the other.

Unless there is an entry in the BRB that states "same space means the same 2-dimensional area when viewed from directly above"? Please point out the page which states this or similar.

Sazzlefrats wrote: The rules PERMIT models to be within 2" of the hatch when disembarking.

Drop Pods are open-topped, so hatches don't enter into it. Models are permitted to disembark anywhere within 2" of the vehicle.

The relevant point here is that measurement to and from vehicles uses the hull. So to determine whether or not a model is within 2" of a vehicle, you measure the distance from the model's base to the vehicle's hull.


The only reason there is any debate on pod deployment is that some people want to count the ramps as a part of the hull, because they make up such a large part of the pod's surface area when closed.

Pointing out that if they count for measurement during deployment, then they count for measurement at all other times, meaning that on most decently setup boards they're never going to have room to actually deploy the pod in the first place should put a stop to that sort of thinking though.

Very good reasoning. If they counted for purposes of moving the doors would have to be open during deployment, meaning they could hardly fit anywhere. Although I'm sure the OP could use this argument if his opponent was insisting that the doors counted for purposes of disembarking very well. Good way to put him between a rock and quicksand.

Democratus wrote:

dietrich wrote:

BRB Pg. 11...
"Models may not move into or through the space occupied by another model...."

Democratus wrote:A model on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as the vehicle. For that to occur it would have to be inside the vehicle. A model moving on a door is over the door, not inside of it.

"Can you tell me what the definition of 'is' is?"

Vehicles are models.
A model cannot share the same 'space' as another model.
Ergo, you cannot place models ontop of a vehicle.

Occupying the same space would mean one being inside of the other.

Unless there is an entry in the BRB that states "same space means the same 2-dimensional area when viewed from directly above"? Please point out the page which states this or similar.

@Democrates:
Again, this is where you are wrong. Infantry modles are allowed to be inside of a transport..they are not allowed to occupy the same space on the tabletop as a transport. You have your terms confused.

Pg 11 is talking about literal space on the table...read it.

No 2 models, no matter if they are infanty, MC, vehicle, or anything else may take up the same literal space of the table top. Any overlaping of models, or placing them on top of each other is strictly forbidden. You may not overlap infantry models' bases, nor place them on top of each other. You may not place vehicles on top of each other. And, you may not place infanty on vehicles (nor vehicles on top of infantry )

IF you were right about infantry being able to be on top of vehicles, then vehicles could park "on top" of infantry or "on top" of other vehicles. Heck, you could even put infantry on top of other infantry if you could figure out howto balance them .... Obviously, however, you are mistaken, because no model may ever be on top of another model...there is no distiction as to types of models governed by the rules on pg 11.

And yes, 40k is a permissive rules set. It tells you what you are permitted to do. If it doesn't say that you are permitted to do something, then you may not do it. A restrictive rules set tells you waht you cannot do, anything else is fair game.

The rules do not say that you can place models on top of a vehicle; therefore, you cannot. (Lest we forget the ban on pg 11)

As for the hatch issue, it is not the hull. You cannot use them to deploy further from the DP, anymore that using a BW's or Ork truck's boarding plank to gain extra deployment space. If you could, every Ork player would model ther battlewagon with a boarding plank sticking out 3 inches or so in front of it to gain more charge range.

You should just punch him in the face, explain with ya fist!!!!

If the hatches are classified as part of the hull, then the hatches are impassible terrain. See page 13, the section on categorizing impassible terrain:

Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassible terrain.

While it's completely acceptable to declare your terrain to be whatever one would like, that's all the case which is needed to say that the default condition is that the doors are impassible terrain.

Democratus wrote:A model on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as the vehicle.

According to the rules, it is indeed occupying the same space. Or did GW write a rule just to prebvent players from phasing one model into another?

Ghaz wrote:

Democratus wrote:A model on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as the vehicle.

According to the rules, it is indeed occupying the same space.

Please provide the rule which states this. I have been unable to find it.

Or did GW write a rule just to prebvent players from phasing one model into another?

GW is famous for writing rules that make little to no sense. It doesn't change what the rule actually says.

Alerian wrote:
@Democrates:
Again, this is where you are wrong. Infantry modles are allowed to be inside of a transport..they are not allowed to occupy the same space on the tabletop as a transport. You have your terms confused.

Pg 11 is talking about literal space on the table...read it.

No 2 models, no matter if they are infanty, MC, vehicle, or anything else may take up the same literal space of the table top. Any overlaping of models, or placing them on top of each other is strictly forbidden. You may not overlap infantry models' bases, nor place them on top of each other. You may not place vehicles on top of each other. And, you may not place infanty on vehicles (nor vehicles on top of infantry )

Here's what I see in the book.

"A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)...[]...A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases."

Moving a model on top of the hull of a vehicle breaks none of these restrictions. It is not occupying the same space as the hull of the vehicle, as this would place it inside the vehicle.

IF you were right about infantry being able to be on top of vehicles, then vehicles could park "on top" of infantry or "on top" of other vehicles. Heck, you could even put infantry on top of other infantry if you could figure out howto balance them .... Obviously, however, you are mistaken, because no model may ever be on top of another model...there is no distiction as to types of models governed by the rules on pg 11.

I see no rule there that prohibits a vehicle from being on top of an infantry model. Though it is nearly universally house-ruled that this can't be done. Again, I see nothing under the "Models in the Way" section that prohibits any of this.

And yes, 40k is a permissive rules set. It tells you what you are permitted to do. If it doesn't say that you are permitted to do something, then you may not do it. A restrictive rules set tells you waht you cannot do, anything else is fair game.

The movement rules permit you to move an infantry model up to 6". So you can do so wherever you like unless another rule prevents it. This is the nature of a permissive rule set. Since there is no rule stating that an infantry model can't be over a vehicle then it is allowed per the rules.

Again, I almost never see it played this way - though I have seen several tournaments where models were allowed to emergency disembark on top of their transport because of these rules. I'm just discussing what the rules actually say, as opposed to house/tournament rulings.

The movement rules permit you to move an infantry model up to 6". So you can do so wherever you like unless another rule prevents it. This is the nature of a permissive rule set. Since there is no rule stating that an infantry model can't be over a vehicle then it is allowed per the rules.

Well yes, but in order to climb ontop of a vehicle you also need to move vertically to get above the base level of the playing table, and the only rules allowing you to do that are for interacting with terrain - not with friendly models.

Again, I almost never see it played this way - though I have seen several tournaments where models were allowed to emergency disembark on top of their transport because of these rules. I'm just discussing what the rules actually say, as opposed to house/tournament rulings.

Thing is by that stage the vehicle has stopped being a friendly model and has become terrain, and thus a legal thing to stand on.

I'm not seeing any allowance for tank surfing I'm afraid.