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.

yeah,
I think that the Petals are a part of the model (a drop pod is all petals and struts).
As part of the model you can't get within 1" of them unless assaulting...

Panic...

I dont have a BRB with me atm, I thought there was some special rule regarding LOS with open topped vehicles.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression you could always see through them.

Panic wrote:I think that the Petals are a part of the model (a drop pod is all petals and struts).
As part of the model you can't get within 1" of them unless assaulting...

And also makes the pod far too impractical to actually use on any table with terrain on it, as it makes the footprint too big.

Demogerg wrote:I dont have a BRB with me atm, I thought there was some special rule regarding LOS with open topped vehicles.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression you could always see through them.

Sorry, no such rule.

yeah,
If it doesn't fit where you want to put it because of terrain, put it somewhere else.
If you can't deploy it because the petals go within 1" of a enemy model, put it somewhere else.

If you can't find any spot on the table for it at all that's too bad... you've probabily got too much terrain... unit lost.

I'm starting to see DSing as a dirty/messy business.

I understand that we can ignore the petals when shooting and measure to the hull.
and we can ignore the petals, like we ignore wings and banners for LOS purposes.
But since when can we choose to decide what parts of models we ignore as not being a part of the model?
'Oh yeah so My land raider can't fit throught this gap in the terrain... but if we ignore the lascannons it'll fit yeah lets do that!'

Are the petals a part of the model- yes
should they count for the 1" rule- I believe so.

Panic...

Panic wrote:I understand that we can ignore the petals when shooting and measure to the hull.
and we can ignore the petals, like we ignore wings and banners for LOS purposes.
But since when can we choose to decide what parts of models we ignore as not being a part of the model?

Since the rulebook tells us to ignore the other parts and measure to the hull.

Are the petals a part of the model- yes

But are they a part of the vehicle's hull?

That's what's relevant when measuring distances involving the vehicle. Not whether or not they're a part of the vehicle.

Panic wrote:yeah,

'Oh yeah so My land raider can't fit throught this gap in the terrain... but if we ignore the lascannons it'll fit yeah lets do that!'

This is EXACTLY what we do, since the LC's are not part of the hull. Same thing as a Daemon Prince not fitting through a gap unless you ignore his wings and sword, and instead use the width of his base.

yeah,
Thats for measureing a distance to a Vehicle. For shooting and assaults.
DS rules don't care if it's a vehicle or not it just counts it as a model and says you can't DS ontop of another model impassible terrain.

So again are the petals part of the model?

PG 95 says: wrote:
...If any of the models in a deep strike unit cannot be deployed because because they would land off the table, in impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong.

Space marine codex then says wrote: to reduce the distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle

Panic...

While I would be happy to play things either way there are only two things holding me up here:

While dropping the petals are part of the drop pods hull. If you shot at them while decending it would be quite damaging. After landing they are doors. this is currently the only model in the game that has a piece of a model that changes function (i.e. from hull to door/exit ramp). A Hat benefits aside, without a ruling this comes down to personal point of view as both sides have valid points.

The other is the LOS rule when open. this vehicle does have the Open topped rule which means it can't block line of sight. However the true LOS rules would seem to contradict this allowing a drop pod to provide cover. However what happens when you have two drop pods, that together totally obscure a models real LOS). One rule would say there is no line of sight, yet open topped would say line of sight cannot be blocked. I love the secondary question of dreadnaught drop pods that don't contain all of the other junk inside.

Note, these are not just A Hat questions. Depending on how answered this would provide a similar model foot print and effect as say a similarly costed Rhino. The only difference is the pod gets the benefit of deep strike and the negative of instantly becomming stationary.

egomine wrote: vehicle does have the Open topped rule which means it can't block line of sight.

Huh? Everything blocks LOS now. Open-topped has feth all to do with TLOS.

Lordhat wrote:

egomine wrote: vehicle does have the Open topped rule which means it can't block line of sight.

Huh? Everything blocks LOS now. Open-topped has feth all to do with TLOS.

Man, how is it people still make up these reidiculous rules.

First of all, open topped vehicles do block line of sight, it was skimmers in 4th that didn't. Now they do.

--Keeps laughing hysterically (at egomine not Lordhat, Lordhat is right)--

If drop pod petals blocked movement, wouldn't open hatches on Land Raiders or Rhinos do so?

Just got a reply from the mens at GW and I quote:

Hello,

No, the Drop Pod ‘petals’ are not part of the hull. Only use the ‘core’ of the drop pod to deploy from.



Thanks!



John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist

Not sure what kinda weight these answers have but there it is!

BlackDracoSLC wrote:Just got a reply from the mens at GW and I quote:

Hello,

No, the Drop Pod ‘petals’ are not part of the hull. Only use the ‘core’ of the drop pod to deploy from.



Thanks!



John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist

Not sure what kinda weight these answers have but there it is!

It doesn't have any weight, but even so, the Rules as Written situation is simple. The petals are doors. If they are doors they are not hull. Simple. If you count them as hull, then if even a silver of the open doors is off the table, in range of the enemy, lands in difficult terrain, you apply the results as if they were. No picking and choosing.

So wait - an email answer right from GW's ask a question line means nothing? Then why do they do they tease me with their official-ness? BLARGH!

@ Gwar: I understand the situation that if it does count as hull, it counts as a hull for all purposes. It's just something I would not like to have to argue about and agree on at the beginning of every other game since SM is such a popular army and most SM players use drop pods.

Also, and I know how some people look at the fluff with scorn as they relate to rules, but it fits in with the lascannons and such to say:

When a drop pod lands, the doors are blown. Violently, I might add. From that point of view, they really aren't a part of the vehicle anymore as it is. At least, not in any effective role.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:So wait - an email answer right from GW's ask a question line That is staffed by the people who pack the boxes means nothing?

Fix'd for you there. While I think what John does is commendable, untill his magical Wiki is made public and recives the GW "Play like this or else" stamp, then Spouting off (easily forged) emails just serve to make rules debates that much more venomous.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:Then why do they do they tease me with their official-ness? BLARGH!

They don't, because they are not.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:@ Gwar: I understand the situation that if it does count as hull, it counts as a hull for all purposes. It's just something I would not like to have to argue about and agree on at the beginning of every other game since SM is such a popular army and most SM players use drop pods.

The thing is, you have to for any army no matter what. GW do not write good tight rules. Each and every play can interpret a huge amount of things different. It's only prudent to always clarify the most common issues pre game (are the ruins Dangerous and/or Difficult, how do we do Drop Pods, Whats your take on the Deffrolla etc etc) and borders on idiotic not to, while things that spring up you roll-off.

KaloranSLC wrote:Also, and I know how some people look at the fluff with scorn as they relate to rules, but it fits in with the lascannons and such to say:

When a drop pod lands, the doors are blown. Violently, I might add. From that point of view, they really aren't a part of the vehicle anymore as it is. At least, not in any effective role.

No, no, NO! Please, No! No Fluff! Fluff is never relevant to any rules what so ever! Basing your opinions on how the rules work from fluff is flawed and will just lead to a poor gaming experience overall (and may the Emperor Protect you if you dare to go to a tournament).

Gwar! wrote:

BlackDracoSLC wrote:So wait - an email answer right from GW's ask a question line That is staffed by the people who pack the boxes means nothing?

Fix'd for you there. While I think what John does is commendable, untill his magical Wiki is made public and recives the GW "Play like this or else" stamp, then Spouting off (easily forged) emails just serve to make rules debates that much more venomous.

Then why do they do they tease me with their official-ness? BLARGH!

They don't, because they are not.

@ Gwar: I understand the situation that if it does count as hull, it counts as a hull for all purposes. It's just something I would not like to have to argue about and agree on at the beginning of every other game since SM is such a popular army and most SM players use drop pods.

So... what's the point in GW advertising the email and telling us to use it? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but rather asking an honest question. To me, GW says "Have a question? Email here!" That says that I should use the answer as part of the rules... am I failing at logic or something?

KaloranSLC wrote:So... what's the point in GW advertising the email and telling us to use it? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but rather asking an honest question. To me, GW says "Have a question? Email here!" That says that I should use the answer as part of the rules... am I failing at logic or something?

To be honest? No idea. I'm guessing its because some people don't know about these fansites, plus they had a "Rules Question Phone Line" before the internets were so widespread, so I guess the email was just an addition to that if nothing else.

It wouldn't be a problem if they actually bothered updating their FAQ's once and a while. Or answered frequently aaked questions (-cough-spacemanrinefaq-coughcough-)

Gwar! wrote:To be honest? No idea. I'm guessing its because some people don't know about these fansites, plus they had a "Rules Question Phone Line" before the internets were so widespread, so I guess the email was just an addition to that if nothing else.

It wouldn't be a problem if they actually bothered updating their FAQ's once and a while. Or answered frequently aaked questions (-cough-spacemanrinefaq-coughcough-)

Right, but why do so many people - yourself included (which is why I'm asking here) - take those answers with such a grain of salt? Again, this isn't meant to be an inflammatory question.

That's my biggest issue - I know they try to make their FAQs look all pretty and such in PDF format, but I'd rather just have a huge list of simple questions (like ones that are emailed in, for example!) that is added on to on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Especially questions that are as simple as this - it's not like they need weeks of play testing to determine whether or not ruling either way would be overpowered.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:That's my biggest issue - I know they try to make their FAQs look all pretty and such in PDF format, but I'd rather just have a huge list of simple questions (like ones that are emailed in, for example!) that is added on to on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Especially questions that are as simple as this - it's not like they need weeks of play testing to determine whether or not ruling either way would be overpowered.

Oh yes but what about those poor people without internets! It means they will be playing the wrong game! Therefore they must keep everyone playing a muddy ruleset to benefit the maybe 0.5% of 40k players worldwide with zero access to it (whether directly, via a friend or via a store)!!!!! </sarcasm> (the irony is that is actually the argument GW give)

That's a good point. Also ironic, the PDF is generally only available from the website...

KaloranSLC wrote:Right, but why do so many people - yourself included (which is why I'm asking here) - take those answers with such a grain of salt? Again, this isn't meant to be an inflammatory question.

Because with the more difficult questions if you call or email them one day, you'll get one answer, and if call/email another, you'll get a different answer. For the stuff that's really problematic (like anything in the INAT FAQ) there's not much consistency amongst the so-called GW "Roolz Trollz".

Death By Monkeys wrote:

KaloranSLC wrote:Right, but why do so many people - yourself included (which is why I'm asking here) - take those answers with such a grain of salt? Again, this isn't meant to be an inflammatory question.

Because with the more difficult questions if you call or email them one day, you'll get one answer, and if call/email another, you'll get a different answer. For the stuff that's really problematic (like anything in the INAT FAQ) there's not much consistency amongst the so-called GW "Roolz Trollz".

Pretty much covered there.

Also dont forget, these "Roolz Boyz" are just Box Packers who don't do much else all day. Now, while in the US at least they have gotten it down to one guy who does it, it still doesnt make up for the fact that he is NOT a member of the Rules Dev team. Unless we have Cavatore integrating them into an official errata Document (which GW will never do because they are greedy prick who dont care about the gamer, and have been from the moment they went public) they cannot be considered "official" by any stretch of the imagination.

Death By Monkeys wrote:
Because with the more difficult questions if you call or email them one day, you'll get one answer, and if call/email another, you'll get a different answer. For the stuff that's really problematic (like anything in the INAT FAQ) there's not much consistency amongst the so-called GW "Roolz Trollz".

Is that still the case with just the one dude (as I am led to believe) answering them, though?

Gwar! wrote:
Also dont forget, these "Roolz Boyz" are just Box Packers who don't do much else all day. Now, while in the US at least they have gotten it down to one guy who does it, it still doesnt make up for the fact that he is NOT a member of the Rules Dev team.

Right, but he/they have been "nominated" by GW to field these questions. Does that not say something?

::edit:: response to Gwar

KaloranSLC wrote:

Death By Monkeys wrote:
Because with the more difficult questions if you call or email them one day, you'll get one answer, and if call/email another, you'll get a different answer. For the stuff that's really problematic (like anything in the INAT FAQ) there's not much consistency amongst the so-called GW "Roolz Trollz".

Is that still the case with just the one dude (as I am led to believe) answering them, though?

While I appreciate I ninja'd you on that one, it still doesn't matter. Who's to say his take on an ambiguous rule is the correct one? The only person who can answer that, are the people who actually wrote the rules.

See ninja'd ninja above.

This whole mess reminds me of being a kid and getting the whole "go ask your mother" then "go ask your father" answer.

::edit:: mathgrammarz

Gwar! wrote:While I appreciate I ninja'd you on that one, it still doesn't matter. Who's to say his take on an ambiguous rule is the correct one? The only person who can answer that, are the people who actually wrote the rules.

Gwar! hit the nail on the head here. Even if it is only one guy, unless he's part of the rules development team, he could be just as wrong as any of us. The 'Roolz Boyz' or 'Roolz Trollz' have historically just been guys that play a lot of GW games and so have a lot of experience with them. AFAIK they're not involved in rules development or writing the FAQs.

KaloranSLC wrote:Right, but he/they have been "nominated" by GW to field these questions. Does that not say something?

No he hasnt been nominated by GW HQ as far as I know. I was under the impression that he just kinda does it.

And even if he was, Not a Rule Dev = Not Official (Sorry John )