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.

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

So, did you bother reading the pages, or would yopu care to follow the tenets and support your statements with *anything* to back them up?

As it has been explained, dozens of times in painstaking clarity, that it is NOT modelling for advantage to use a stock model in a stock pose. IT really, really, REALLY isnt.

A Model is a Model.

You have 3 Choices;

A) have the model open and have all of its "surface area" on the table count as Impassable, exitable, and targetable

B) Have the model closed, count all of its occupying area count as Impassable and use true LOS(and the open topped rule does not effect this); with the whole model as a Disembarkation point; and no ability to fire the storm bolter.

C) Make up rules non-existant in the published rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

So, did you bother reading the pages, or would yopu care to follow the tenets and support your statements with *anything* to back them up?

As it has been explained, dozens of times in painstaking clarity, that it is NOT modelling for advantage to use a stock model in a stock pose. IT really, really, REALLY isnt.

Gluing the doors closed and claiming they block LOS is Modeling for Advantage. There no rule in the rulebook that covers Modeling for Advantage so I can't stop you from doing it. But I can pack up my toys and play someone else cause you are "That Guy."

Again: you do not, in any way shape or form, need to glue the doors for them to stay shut, if you assemble the model competently

Again: leaving the doors up is not modelling for advantage. Claiming someone is MFA when they are using a stock model in a stock position makes YOU "that guy"

So, can you do us the courtesy of reading the thread, where you will hopefully see that your argument has been raised, debunked, re-raised, debunked, re-re-raised and debunked yet again, and come back?

Thanks

Oh, missed that one. Noone is "claiming" the doors block LOS - they are stating it, and are backed up by the actual real rules of this game when doing so. Or do you play househammer, where certain things DONT block LOS? If o please clearly indicate you are talking about houserules.

Thanks

I think this thread might be starting to run away a little bit.

I don't think that the people in the TLOS camp are cheating, or MFA, or TFG (as has been inferred or stated a few times). They feel that in the absence of any clear written rules to the contrary, we should use the rules as they are written, even if they don't make perfect sense. It isn't fair, or polite, to accuse them of being bad sports or cheating. (If anything, they're doing the exact opposite of cheating. )

Nor do I think that people in the 'you can shoot through the drop pod' camp are just making rules up off the top of their head. I think that they are trying to make what they feel is a reasonable inference based on the rules that already exist. To imply that this assumption is just 'made up' is as insulting as implying that using TLOS when it doesn't make any sense to do so is TFG behavior.

I haven't contributed as much to the thread because I feel like I already said my piece on the subject at hand. Repeating it to people who don't get it isn't going to change their minds. Neither is arguing or insulting. If you aren't willing to allow someone the chance to change your mind, if you aren't willing to keep your opinion on the subject fluid enough to accept change, then there isn't any reason to keep participating in the discussion. If you want, instead, to give others the benefit of your expertise, that's fine too, but there's no reason to continue giving it over and over. Just do it like a drive by. The people who are going to be swayed by your argument will be won over by it the first time, and continuing to argue about it only serves to weaken your position.

Here's what it comes down to: this is a clear issue of RAI vs RAW. I'm the number one supporter of the 'shoot through the drop pod' argument, but I think that any argument for that position from a RAW standpoint is shaky at best. I think that this is exactly the sort of situation where RAI should trump RAW. The purpose of the poll was to discover whether or not I should assume my position to be the default one before going into a game, and now I know that I should, instead, ask my opponent how they feel it should be played. (I'm willing to play it their way if they feel strongly in the RAW standpoint.)

I appreciate everyone's participation, and I especially appreciate those who have endeavored to stay civil even when they feel personally maligned. I know how hard it is to just let someone you think is wrong continue to be wrong, but please, if you aren't willing to listen to a reasonable argument and come over to the other side of the RAI vs RAW fence here, then it may be time to just move on and leave this thread behind you. Thanks again to those who have managed to stay helpful and on-topic, your respect is appreciated!

 General_Chaos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

So, did you bother reading the pages, or would yopu care to follow the tenets and support your statements with *anything* to back them up?

As it has been explained, dozens of times in painstaking clarity, that it is NOT modelling for advantage to use a stock model in a stock pose. IT really, really, REALLY isnt.

Gluing the doors closed and claiming they block LOS is Modeling for Advantage. There no rule in the rulebook that covers Modeling for Advantage so I can't stop you from doing it. But I can pack up my toys and play someone else cause you are "That Guy."

So is there a rule spelled out somewhere that says drop pod doors must be opened after DS'ing?

Should they just DS with them open so that they can remain an inch away?

Beings you think the doors must be opened I guess it's also cool if I disembark within 2" from the door tip too?

Or better yet I'll just follow the rules, Keep my doors up (not being able to shoot the Stormbolter "shucks") All the while blocking LOS and being able to disembark just fine.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
So is there a rule spelled out somewhere that says drop pod doors must be opened after DS'ing?

Should they just DS with them open so that they can remain an inch away?

Beings you think the doors must be opened I guess it's also cool if I disembark within 2" from the door tip too?

Or better yet I'll just follow the rules, Keep my doors up (not being able to shoot the Stormbolter "shucks") All the while blocking LOS and being able to disembark just fine.

There are no rules that state that the doors on a Drop Pod must open when the Pod lands. There is a sentence of fluff (the hatches are blown) that people are claiming that is a rule the doors must open.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Beings you think the doors must be opened I guess it's also cool if I disembark within 2" from the door tip too?

Psst! That's not how disembarking works any more...

 Happyjew wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
So is there a rule spelled out somewhere that says drop pod doors must be opened after DS'ing?

Should they just DS with them open so that they can remain an inch away?

Beings you think the doors must be opened I guess it's also cool if I disembark within 2" from the door tip too?

Or better yet I'll just follow the rules, Keep my doors up (not being able to shoot the Stormbolter "shucks") All the while blocking LOS and being able to disembark just fine.

There are no rules that state that the doors on a Drop Pod must open when the Pod lands. There is a sentence of fluff (the hatches are blown) that people are claiming that is a rule the doors must open.

Yes, I'm aware just like asking a silly question.

However I do like when people use fluff and call it a rule.

I like to laugh just as much as the next guy ^^

 Happyjew wrote:

There are no rules that state that the doors on a Drop Pod must open when the Pod lands. There is a sentence of fluff (the hatches are blown) that people are claiming that is a rule the doors must open.

I think that some of us are not claiming that the hatches are blown statement as a rules argument, (despite the fact that it is in the rules section of the entry, an anomaly I'll address in a different thread) but rather a clear statement of intent behind the rules. I'm certainly not trying to argue it that way!

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Or better yet I'll just follow the rules, Keep my doors up (not being able to shoot the Stormbolter "shucks")

Come on, now. This statement clearly indicates that you know you're playing it in a way it wasn't intended to be played.


I think that RAI is a slippery slope if you don't have a clear-cut view of what the intent is. In the case of drop pods, I think it is abundantly clear how it's supposed to work (the pods land with doors closed, then open to allow the men to exit, and remain open). I think it's pretty clear that the doors are moveable in order to allow the pod to deploy up against walls, or on uneven terrain. RAI isn't always an acceptable standpoint, but in this case, I think it's completely reasonable.

Again, let's try and avoid sarcasm and digs at one another, please. We've been doing a passing-fair job of keeping this thread civil, and I would hate to see that end.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Or better yet I'll just follow the rules, Keep my doors up (not being able to shoot the Stormbolter "shucks")

Come on, now. This statement clearly indicates that you know you're playing it in a way it wasn't intended to be played.


I think that RAI is a slippery slope if you don't have a clear-cut view of what the intent is. In the case of drop pods, I think it is abundantly clear how it's supposed to work (the pods land with doors closed, then open to allow the men to exit, and remain open). I think it's pretty clear that the doors are moveable in order to allow the pod to deploy up against walls, or on uneven terrain. RAI isn't always an acceptable standpoint, but in this case, I think it's completely reasonable.

Again, let's try and avoid sarcasm and digs at one another, please. We've been doing a passing-fair job of keeping this thread civil, and I would hate to see that end.

i would say you couldnt use the gun and yes it blocks LOS as the game uses True line of sight and there is no GW rule that says they can or cant be modeled up

You are not breaking any rules by claiming it blocks LOS but as stated 100 times the doors are blown open. If you glue the doors shut you are modeling for advantage. It is something "that guy" would do plain and simple. If you are so incompetent at building models just don't put the doors on in the first place.

 General_Chaos wrote:
If you glue the doors shut you are modeling for advantage.

So you're just choosing to ignore the fact that it has been pointed out multiple times now that keeping the doors closed does not require them to be glued?

 General_Chaos wrote:
You are not breaking any rules by claiming it blocks LOS but as stated 100 times the doors are blown open. If you glue the doors shut you are modeling for advantage. It is something "that guy" would do plain and simple. If you are so incompetent at building models just don't put the doors on in the first place.

I've already mentioned this, General Chaos, but I'm going to ask you not to personally attack people. Calling people incompetent or "that guy" is uncalled for behavior. I agree with your opinion on the rules issue, but you're already on the majority side of the argument, there's no reason to be rude. If it helps to lend credence to what you're being told, I've got a drop pod instruction sheet right in front of me, and as someone on your side of the argument, I'm telling you that the instructions do NOT say you have to glue them down. (Or up.) In addition, as this thread shows, assembly instructions are not rules.

JamesDean, I think you might have made a mistake in your quotations. That aside, we aren't discussing other Drop Pod rules here, only whether the doors are supposed to be up or down. Discussing a totally different rules issue (whether or not you can deploy from the tip of the doors) only serves to muddy the waters. I agree that there isn't a clear intent on that issue, but do you really feel that the intent in regards to whether or not the doors should be up or down when landing, and then after disembarkation, is not clear?

 General_Chaos wrote:
You are not breaking any rules by claiming it blocks LOS but as stated 100 times the doors are blown open.

And it has been corrected 100 times that it says the hatches are blown, not the doors are blown open.

 Happyjew wrote:

And it has been corrected 100 times that it says the hatches are blown, not the doors are blown open.

... and there's a differences... Little tip if you have to bring a dictionary to a 40k game to prove you can do whatever little BS rules lawyering your trying to pull, you are "that guy"

At my LGS -- We play 1 way. The doors open and close from the box. Some people glue them shut, but that doesn't really matter as the game is very imaginative anyways.

When you deploy the drop pod you Open the doors ( Or declare WHICH doors are open ). To get our regardless, 1 door has to open, if you choose to keep some shut, that is a tactical strategy that can / should be used when fighting a war.

So yes, if positioned correctly, you can limit the LoS an Aegis Quad gun has by blocking LoS. The model firing has to be able to draw LoS, not the gun.

If you open all the doors, makes it easy, but if you only open 1 door, you make a tactical decision that blocks LoS for you, and your oponent.

 General_Chaos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

And it has been corrected 100 times that it says the hatches are blown, not the doors are blown open.

... and there's a differences... Little tip if you have to bring a dictionary to a 40k game to prove you can do whatever little BS rules lawyering your trying to pull, you are "that guy"

Who says I bring a dictionary to my games to utilize a BS rule? I already stated how I would run it at a tournament (if I was the TO). I don't play SM and most of the people at my store who do don't utilize DPs so this has never come up. The one person I know who plays SM and uses DPs puts the doors down and we ignore them for all purposes (except LOS). Would you argue that a model without eyes can draw LOS? Would you argue that the Tau Bomber starts with a bomb? Prior to the latest FAQ would you argue that vehicles could take invulnerable saves?

 General_Chaos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

And it has been corrected 100 times that it says the hatches are blown, not the doors are blown open.

... and there's a differences... Little tip if you have to bring a dictionary to a 40k game to prove you can do whatever little BS rules lawyering your trying to pull, you are "that guy"

There's also a difference between fluff and rules, following fluff and not rules makes someone one of "those guys". (Yu-Gi-Oh players)

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 General_Chaos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

And it has been corrected 100 times that it says the hatches are blown, not the doors are blown open.

... and there's a differences... Little tip if you have to bring a dictionary to a 40k game to prove you can do whatever little BS rules lawyering your trying to pull, you are "that guy"

There's also a difference between fluff and rules, following fluff and not rules makes someone one of "those guys".

jdjamesdean has it correct.

the hatches are blown is just fluff.

 General_Chaos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

And it has been corrected 100 times that it says the hatches are blown, not the doors are blown open.

... and there's a differences... Little tip if you have to bring a dictionary to a 40k game to prove you can do whatever little BS rules lawyering your trying to pull, you are "that guy"

So youre totally going to ignore that you do not need to glue the doors to keep them shut?

Not sure how many times you can ignore this and keep repeating a lie, but its entertaining to see.

I stated it before but since i dont think anyone actually reads through the pages so i state it again.

Talk to the people you play with (duh) and try to move towards them instead of starting a rules dispute. Normally you are either in a friendly game where it really doesnt matter how its played in the end or you have a Judge/TO to simply decide the issue. If you dont have a judge and cant find a solution do what the rule book tells you. Decide by rolling a d6.

So where exactly is the debate? This thread proves that there are strong points and good arguments on both sides. With other words they are quite equal. So even if a judge rules the situation for one side or the other its just his personal preference which you have to accept because of structural pressure.

Thats it.

The arguments have articulated and multiple people are being rude to one another at this point.

Locking.