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.

Well, it does wheen one is based in rules, and one isnt.

You have asserted that not lowering the doors is MFA. Please state exactly how using a stock model in a stock pose is MFA.

If one glues the doors in place to keep the model from damage, that's one thing. But to leave them up in order to block LOS is doing so for an advantage, hence the term.

As I have said before, this is a freaking game, people! How badly do you have to win? In our area, pulling a stunt like this gets you a bad name quickly. Frankly, its a jackass move. No there are no rules about it. There is also no rule stating I must play you if you do stupid stuff like this.

Its a game, people, get a grip.

Except that isnt "modelling" for advantage; you are leaving a stock model in a stock position. You have not changed the model in any way, shape or form. Literally.

Your final comments really dont help in a discussion forum about a game. This isnt real life.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
So you have to ask yourself why do I want those DPs to block LOS? Is it to protect my unit from return fire after I hit the table, or make the unit a non-viable target for a charge? This is a modeling for advantage situation clear and simple

Deploying a stock build unmodified GW model with the doors closed is "a modeling for advantage situation clear and simple"? (This is clearly not MFA).

Do you require Land Raiders, Rhinos etc... to be modeled with functioning doors?

That is how I model mine. What is the matter, is it too complicated of a process?

A LR has 3 egress points, can we agree on that even though I am not quoting the rules for it? Any one of those three can be opened and the models inside disembark. With that hatch open can you see through the model? If both side hatches were opened then yes, and a good reason why those should be able to be opened. Now look at a DP, it has no listed egress points because the model is open topped and the entire hull is considered an egree point. So comparing a DP to a LR or Rhino is not an apples to apples comparison. How do you model an open topped vehicle with glued shut doors?

Orc trucks, DE Venoms, Raiders, Necon Ghost Arcs are all open topped and, OMG, they are all modeled that way. Why shouldn't a DP be modeled to show that it is open topped? That is why the kit instructions indicate glue free at the hinges, I do not understand why this is so hard to understand. If you ignore that then you are knowingly modeling an open topped vehicle that can physically be open topped. In a game that is currently using true (physical) LOS how can you model a vehicle abstractly? What you are tyring to do is justify using both an abstract mechanism (deploying from egress hatches that cannot be opened) and a true mechanism (physical LOS), or getting the best from both worlds.

There may be a few players that have limited skill in assemling a DP and glue their doors shut for expedience; but input from players such as those found contributing on sites like this are generally experienced and therefore, are glueing the doors shut for purposes other than poor model building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
If one glues the doors in place to keep the model from damage, that's one thing. But to leave them up in order to block LOS is doing so for an advantage, hence the term.

As I have said before, this is a freaking game, people! How badly do you have to win? In our area, pulling a stunt like this gets you a bad name quickly. Frankly, its a jackass move. No there are no rules about it. There is also no rule stating I must play you if you do stupid stuff like this.

Its a game, people, get a grip.

Thank you, we are of a like mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except that isnt "modelling" for advantage; you are leaving a stock model in a stock position. You have not changed the model in any way, shape or form. Literally.

Your final comments really dont help in a discussion forum about a game. This isnt real life.

You are wrong, the model is not in a stock position, the kit instructs you to keep the door hinge free of glue.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except that isnt "modelling" for advantage; you are leaving a stock model in a stock position. You have not changed the model in any way, shape or form. Literally.

Your final comments really dont help in a discussion forum about a game. This isnt real life.

No, but the game is supposed to be our escape from real life. To find bigger donkey-caves in the gaming world than we have to deal with in our jobs is ridiculous.

Most MFA discussions boil down to two things: would you complain it if it had been used against you and are you intentionally being TFG? And, as I said, there may be no rule governing how models are to be constructed, there is also no rule forcing me to play someone I know is being a douche.

Again, its a game. Get a grip.

So terminators on 25mm bases from now on, the instructions, with the model don't mean anything So its not modelling for advantage.

cerbrus2 wrote:
So terminators on 25mm bases from now on, the instructions, with the model don't mean anything So its not modelling for advantage.

this is what gaming has become. "the rules don't tell me I can't so I can! nyah nyah nayh! you're not my father!" There is no rules saying its wrong, but there is no rules saying you have to play, either. Or shower before coming our to play.

and 25mm bases on terrminators actually screws you out of some range and movement. believe me. I know.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have NO rules based argument that states the doors must be opened when landing. None. Thtat is because there are NO RULES requiring this. None.

The sooner people accept that is the case, the easier this thread becomes.

I would be interested in hearing your argument (Rules based or otherwise) for how you believe this should be played at a competitive level - if, for example, you were the TO at a national event. My answer will be at the bottom.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please state exactly how using a stock model in a stock pose is MFA.

I am unsure what the rules based definition is for a 'stock pose'

cerbrus2 wrote:So terminators on 25mm bases from now on, the instructions, with the model don't mean anything So its not modelling for advantage.

Don't be foolish (that's my job). Changing base size is one of the very few areas we have explicit rules for.


HIWPI - the doors are not present for game rules purposes. Handle TLOS as best you can. Handle standing on the doors with WMS.

Why I would play it that way
1) There is a significant difference between deploying a DP RAW with doors open VS doors closed.
a) model footprint for placement
b) disembarkation footprint
c) LOS blocking including DP weapon firing

2) This difference meets my criteria for MFA. I know of no model customization choices that have this large of an effect on game play. The closest I can think of are the choice of 2 flying bases (short and long) for some units (Jetbikes) and the inclusion of a flying base in some monolith kits but not others. In both of these cases, TLOS profile change is the only major RAW effect on game play, and this difference alone has been enough to spark MFA disagreements in FLGSs and threads here.

3) My first preference would be for everyone to build their model with the doors not glued shut, and have them deploy with the doors open. This sort of directive is unlikely to meet wide approval in all but the most totalitarian of competitive environments.

4) If we must allow glued shut DPs, we should devise a rule that is...
a) playable without a judge's input, or as infrequent as possible. Slowing down games at the competitive event = bad
b) does not reward or penalize a player for their gluing choice, or minimizes the reward or penalty to be withing the bounds of other model customization choices

5) by treating the doors as not present for game purposes, we meet the above criteria

Is the above a RAW argument? No. It's just HIWPI and how I would make you play it if I was in charge of making an 100+ person event run smoothly.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing.

1) Common sense has nothing to do with the actual rules in question.

2) the hatches (doors) are not "blown open upon impact" that is entirely incorrect. it says hatches are blown, not "blown open upon impact" Please try to be more precise it helps when discussing rules.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
A LR has 3 egress points, can we agree on that even though I am not quoting the rules for it? Any one of those three can be opened and the models inside disembark. With that hatch open can you see through the model?

There is no allowance to change a model mid game, therefore you can not change the model in the middle of the game.

foolishmortal wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have NO rules based argument that states the doors must be opened when landing. None. Thtat is because there are NO RULES requiring this. None.

The sooner people accept that is the case, the easier this thread becomes.

I would be interested in hearing your argument (Rules based or otherwise) for how you believe this should be played at a competitive level - if, for example, you were the TO at a national event. My answer will be at the bottom.

If I was running an event? Ignore the doors for all purposes. This means you do not use them for disembarkation, they do not block LOS and enemy models can move within 1" (or even on top) of them without assaulting. Then again if I was running a tournament there are a number of things that would be addressed opposite of RAW (such as the Tau Bomber's surprising lack of an initial bomb).

RAW saying that the doors blocks LOS is exactly the same as saying the hull of a Land Raider blocks LOS from the sponson weapons.

Cerbrus - page 3. Oh wait, there IS a rule on base sizes. Guess you shouldnt change your base size then.

Again: you are NOT changing the model. You are leaving doors shut that, on the model, stay shut. There is no need for glue, you are just not changing the shape of the model during the game. Which, you dont have rules for anyway. You literally have no rules allowing you to [choose to] open the doors of a rhino, LR, or DP, and no rules forcing you to do so.

Foolish - I have given, repeatedly, the rules based argument. Doors, not being hull, cannot be measured to. They block LOS just like many, many others things that dont otherwise count (like Wings ona daemon prince)

And thats it. there isnt actually anything else to say. Those getting riled up by this (solo) should really just cool down, as their posts are getting increasingly pointless to read, as they literally do nothing to further the discussion.

When I build mine, I am not bothering with the doors at all. Between seeing another drop pod's door break off and the chances that the doors will drop awkwardly and damage minis on the table, this discussion has further encouraged avoiding stupid arguments lkke this one...

Only two people in my group use drop pods. Both of us have the doors modeled to open and do so upon deployment. It's a non-issue with my group.

Some of the people I play with have them glued shut. Others do not. Everybody plays it that you can draw LOS through. Of course people around here also allow eyeless models to draw LOS, allow blast weapons to allocate wounds to non-target units out of sight, allow non-target units to take saves, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Foolish - I have given, repeatedly, the rules based argument. Doors, not being hull, cannot be measured to. They block LOS just like many, many others things that dont otherwise count (like Wings ona daemon prince)

Yes, yes, but that's not what I was asking. Your RAW argument is solid. I find it reasonable, persuasive and I agree with it.

I asked for " your argument (Rules based or otherwise) for how you believe this should be played at a competitive level - if, for example, you were the TO at a national event."

Are you saying you would TO a large event this way?

Yes - I have TO'd a Large (ish) event (50 players) multiple times over the years, and we played TLOS as TLOS. Doors, if up, block LOS. They have done since 3rd edition.

Of course this is also harkening back to the day where drop pods were made from cola bottles and were impossible to draw LOS through in any case.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Of course this is also harkening back to the day where drop pods were made from cola bottles and were impossible to draw LOS through in any case.

Ok, but how would you run it now, in 6th?

Wow. Passion of the people here. So some could say this is the rule where the doors must be opened.

Quote gw page 177 sm codex digital version.

“Once deployed the Drop Pod is no longer a sealed environment and is therefore counted as being Open-topped.
”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Space Marines.” v1.2. Games Workshop, 2012. iBooks.
If the doors is closed it's sealed. If open unsealed.

The only part of that sentence that is a rule is that the Drop Pod counts as Open-topped.
edit: I know that I've never seen a drop pod assembled to be "sealed" - they're not air or water tight.

foolishmortal wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Of course this is also harkening back to the day where drop pods were made from cola bottles and were impossible to draw LOS through in any case.

Ok, but how would you run it now, in 6th?

Exactly the same, having run them in 6th through to previous editions, all of which have the exact same DP rules, and the exact same TLOS rules. There is no reason to change.

There is no rule requiring the pods doors to be opened. There is no permission to alter the shape of the model in game. So the only way to run it is: the pods are as they are deployed. If the pods doors are "down" when the model is first put on the table, the doors are down. If up, up. Things block LOS according to TLOS.

Incredibly simple. Requires no arbitrary changes to the rules.

Lung - nope, that isnt a rule. Unless you can point to the ingame usage of "sealed" that isnt air / water / other fluiid tight, which a pod with doors up is NOT.

Nope, still no rule requiring it. Would be nice for the pro -"down" side to actually, finally acknowledge this.

I'm pro doors down. I agree with you nos that there's not a direct rule saying they have to be up or down. Under the rules one could infer that hatches being blown, and no longer sealed means the doors are down. However lacking any direct input from the writers as to the intention we can play it both ways depending on your opponents drop pods.

As I have stated many time before here and other places that the rules are mostly written as a guide leaving subjective opinions in as a way to rule things.

Yep, and you could infer that leaving them up is the intention, for all those people who built them so they stay up without glue.

Having check the book again, the exact line is:
"Scarcely have the smouldering hulls come to rest when their hatches blow clear, and the occupants disembark to wreak havoc on wrong footed enemies."

That seems to suggest that the hatches are blown clear (out of the way) rather than merely unsealed, and thus they'd enter down

 Hashbeth wrote:
Having check the book again, the exact line is:
"Scarcely have the smouldering hulls come to rest when their hatches blow clear, and the occupants disembark to wreak havoc on wrong footed enemies."

That seems to suggest that the hatches are blown clear (out of the way) rather than merely unsealed, and thus they'd enter down

Do you have a rules quote, with rules, and not fluff, to back that up?

 Hashbeth wrote:
Having check the book again, the exact line is:
"Scarcely have the smouldering hulls come to rest when their hatches blow clear, and the occupants disembark to wreak havoc on wrong footed enemies."

That seems to suggest that the hatches are blown clear (out of the way) rather than merely unsealed, and thus they'd enter down

Yes, fluffwise that's what happens. But there is no rule that says that this has to be represented on the model. There is no rule at all that says that the doors on a transport model have to be opened in order for the models to get out, despite the fact that this (fluff-wise) would obviously need to happen with every single transport that has doors.

And without a rule that says that this piece of fluff means that you have to take a specific action, all it is is a piece of fluff, and a reason for the vehicle to count as open-topped. So far as actual rules are concerned, you no more have to model the doors open than you have to leave a trail of smouldering footprints and dribbled blood behind the Eldar Avatar as he walks around.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hashbeth wrote:
Having check the book again, the exact line is:
"Scarcely have the smouldering hulls come to rest when their hatches blow clear, and the occupants disembark to wreak havoc on wrong footed enemies."

That seems to suggest that the hatches are blown clear (out of the way) rather than merely unsealed, and thus they'd enter down

Yes, fluffwise that's what happens. But there is no rule that says that this has to be represented on the model. There is no rule at all that says that the doors on a transport model have to be opened in order for the models to get out, despite the fact that this (fluff-wise) would obviously need to happen with every single transport that has doors.

And without a rule that says that this piece of fluff means that you have to take a specific action, all it is is a piece of fluff, and a reason for the vehicle to count as open-topped. So far as actual rules are concerned, you no more have to model the doors open than you have to leave a trail of smouldering footprints and dribbled blood behind the Eldar Avatar as he walks around.

There's no rule however that seems to suggest that it can block LoS. We just know that it's opentopped, which seems counterintuitive for a vehicle that has it's hatches up.

The whole point is that this rule is a grey area, and as such, I'd rather air on the safe side and go on the side that makes more fluff sense. But that's just me.

 Hashbeth wrote:
There's no rule however that seems to suggest that it can block LoS.

Yes there is. The LOS rules revolve around actual LOS. If you can't see past it, it blocks LOS.

We just know that it's opentopped, which seems counterintuitive for a vehicle that has it's hatches up.

It is indeed. As I said earlier in the thread, it's clear that the intention is for the doors to be open. But there is no rule that actually requires it, and there are all sorts of valid reasons for not doing it.

Hashbeth - so, again, you model explosive bolts into the doors of your DP, so they actually blow clear? No? Then you are still not compliant with your fluff piece.

That is pure, 100% fluff. There are NO RULES contained within it, as there is NO INGAME usage of that sentence.

As for you saying there is nothing saying doors BLOCK LOS - there is. Its called the TLOS rules.

Using the doors to block LOS is modeling for advantage.

 General_Chaos wrote:
Using the doors to block LOS is modeling for advantage.

Have you even read the thread?