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 don't think I have run into this or have ever really thought of it.

If drop pods are modeled shut, do you forfeit firing storm bolters/deathwind launchers from them?

INATFAQ v3.2

SM.69A.01 – Q: When a player deploys a Drop Pod can he choose to keep the doors open or closed? If the Drop Pod doors are deployed open can models deploy within 2” of them?

A: Once the Drop Pod lands, the doors remain open for the rest of the game. However, all measurements to and from the Drop Pod, besides firing its weapon, are done based on the hull of the Drop Pod (its shape when the doors are closed). This means, for example, that friendly and enemy models will be able to move on top of the open doors [clarification].

If the doors cannot be opened (they are glued in place or a player is using a model that doesn‟t have doors that open/has a solid core), both players must agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see „through‟ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can play that the model blocks line of sight „as is‟ in which case the Space Marine player will be unable to fire the Drop Pod‟s weapon (a trade-off for the improved line of sight blocking ability of the model) [rules change].
Ref: BT.22B.04, BA.26C.03, DA.35B.02, SW.47A.01

So, yes or no is your answer.

The INAT FAQ is the Only answer you will get for this tbh.

Agreed.

Tsannik, the INAT FAQ is not a valid source for rules. Besides, there is no reason to use this FAQ over any of the others out there.

The storm bolter can fire if it can draw line of sight to the enemy. If the doors are modeled shut and the storm bolter is placed on the inside, chances are slim it will be able to see its target.

Gwar! wrote:The INAT FAQ is the Only answer you will get for this tbh

thebetter1 wrote:Tsannik, the INAT FAQ is not a valid source for rules. Besides, there is no reason to use this FAQ over any of the others out there.

The storm bolter can fire if it can draw line of sight to the enemy. If the doors are modeled shut and the storm bolter is placed on the inside, chances are slim it will be able to see its target.

INAT FAQ is a better source for rules than the superb support from GW. The INAT FAQ has more clout than any other FAQ only for the very miniscule reason is yakface and his team coming up with them (because their interpretations of the rules were used by GW to help GW produce official FAQs).

I appreciate your comments, thebetter1, but I stand by my post and will continue to base my rulings on the BRB, the official FAQs from GW and the INAT FAQ only.

thebetter1 wrote:Tsannik, the INAT FAQ is not a valid source for rules. Besides, there is no reason to use this FAQ over any of the others out there.

Ok, as of now I know of exactly 3 "FAQs". They are:
The "These are not official but rather house rules" GW ones
The INAT
WargamingFaqs.com

What others are you talking about?

I have provided the RAW answer to the OP's question. If all you guys want to do is use the INAT FAQ, I really don't see the point of posting on YMDC at all.

Whether you use the INAT has little bearing on whether you use YMTC.

In this case there is no official answer, and the INAT answer happens to be about the best one I can think of.

Mannahnin wrote:
In this case there is no official answer, and the INAT answer happens to be about the best one I can think of.

I already presented a RAW answer and nobody has refuted it. Why is it not the official answer?

I'll restate my position: You may model the doors however you want (although you cannot change them during the game), and the gun inside can only fire if it can draw line of sight, which I doubt you will achieve when the doors are up.

Just about as good, and only slightly less comprehensive than the INAT answer.

There is no official answer to whether you can leave the doors up.

thebetter1 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
In this case there is no official answer, and the INAT answer happens to be about the best one I can think of.

I already presented a RAW answer and nobody has refuted it. Why is it not the official answer?

I'll restate my position: You may model the doors however you want (although you cannot change them during the game), and the gun inside can only fire if it can draw line of sight, which I doubt you will achieve when the doors are up.

Stop down this path madness lies ... RAW my models can be doing a hand stand so they can shoot under skimmers.

I go with ... Drop the doors and ignore them from then on. If you can't drop a door the leave it up but you can't shoot through it or drop it later.

... oh and i've had the missfortune of seeing a drop pod model with swing doors ... ok it was a cool conversion so a Dread could fit but you could hide a LR behind it ^_^,

If you can't drop the door, can you deploy the troops?

How do the strict RaW guys play it?

LOL. I'd be screwed. All the doors on my rhinos and razorbacks are glued shut.

thebetter1 wrote:Tsannik, the INAT FAQ is not a valid source for rules. Besides, there is no reason to use this FAQ over any of the others out there.

What other FAQs are out there that cover this subject? The only other one I can think of is Gwar's FAQ site, but that's mostly just the INAT faq with every instance of [Clarification] replaced with [Rules Change].

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Tsannik, the INAT FAQ is not a valid source for rules. Besides, there is no reason to use this FAQ over any of the others out there.

What other FAQs are out there that cover this subject? The only other one I can think of is Gwar's FAQ site, but that's mostly just the INAT faq with every instance of [Clarification] replaced with [Rules Change].

Not every instance, only the instances where the Answer is actually a rules change.

Alpharius wrote:If you can't drop the door, can you deploy the troops?

How do the strict RaW guys play it?

Just ignore the doors for every thing. If they block LOS they block LOS just like a banner would...

also just remembered the other argument ... you ignore your own unit for LOS so even if the doors are shut you can still shoot through them.

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Tsannik, the INAT FAQ is not a valid source for rules. Besides, there is no reason to use this FAQ over any of the others out there.

What other FAQs are out there that cover this subject? The only other one I can think of is Gwar's FAQ site, but that's mostly just the INAT faq with every instance of [Clarification] replaced with [Rules Change].

Not every instance, only the instances where the Answer is actually a rules change. (Clarification)

Fixed it for you Gwar! You just FAQ'd his post. Nice!

@Tri

The "ignore your unit for los" doesn't work for vehicles or your sponson mounted weapons could shoot people on the other side of the vehicle. You have to be able to draw los from the weapon to the target unit on a vehicle.

zatchmo wrote:@Tri

The "ignore your unit for los" doesn't work for vehicles or your sponson mounted weapons could shoot people on the other side of the vehicle. You have to be able to draw los from the weapon to the target unit on a vehicle.

Only if your sponson can turn to face into the vehicle ... I can't think of any that can

Alpharius wrote:If you can't drop the door, can you deploy the troops?

Being able to physically open the door isn't a requirement for any other vehicle, so I don't see why it would be for Drop Pods.

Tri wrote:Only if your sponson can turn to face into the vehicle ... I can't think of any that can

Most of the Land raiders can manage it just fine.

Jack

So if I make land raider out of clear acrylic......

Don't need to, that's the whole point of ignoring your own unit for LOS.

Jack

Does anybody really play it that landraider sponsons shoot 360 degrees?

Arschbombe wrote:Does anybody really play it that landraider sponsons shoot 360 degrees?

No because people think its silly ... there is nothing in the rules stopping you and the rules that are there tell you that you can. Its one of those silly RAW facts ... i brought it up since it came up last time and no one came up with a solution (stoping it).

On a scratch-built Pod, what's to keep a player from modelling the SB on the outside of the POD? IIRC the rules for Pods don't say it is/has to be mounted inside the hull. In this case the doors could just as easily be glued shut and the SB could have clear LOS.

Note- In such a case, I would still propose to play that for LOS purposes the doors are open as that is what the "fluff" says happens in the description of Pods.

Exactly the same thing that stops players from modelling 3" long barrels on Leman Russ tanks...nothing.

Except modelling for advantage is a good way to not get games or be DQ'd from tournaments

nosferatu1001 wrote:Exactly the same thing that stops players from modelling 3" long barrels on Leman Russ tanks...nothing.

Except modelling for advantage is a good way to not get games or be DQ'd from tournaments

Noferatu, I'm not talking about changing length on barrels or any such methods. I'm talking about using normal GW parts, but modelling the SB on the outside of the scratch-built Pod. RAW doesn't say you have to model the SB inside the hull, nor does the fluff indicate that is the case. This is all hypothetical anyway, but I don't see any reason someone couldn't do it on their scratch builds. It doesn't violate any RAW or RAI that I am aware of.

That would probably make the modelling a bit easier (so the doors wouldn't have to be hinged to open) yet still provide use of the wargear as listed. As I said though, I would still propose that any such Pod should be considered to have those doors open on the ground as the fluff says, despite them being physically glued shut on the actual model.

It violates RAW insomuch as you havent used a citadel model - contrary to the first rules in the book.

I also said there WAS nothing stopping you doing it - however modelling for advantage is treated with derision in most places I've been to.