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.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Billmurry666 wrote:
I fail to see anywhere that states you can sit inside, shoot, and then assault next turn. How do you even draw los if the hatches are not blown like other codices state?

Where are the rule for "blowing the hatches"? Drop Pods are open-topped vehicles and as such follow the rules for open-topped vehicles. Every other codex has a rule that says the unit must disembark and nobody can embark. BT have no such rule that the unit must disembark, but does have a rule allowing the unit that dropped in the pod from re-embarking (though other units can embark).

In other codices in the description for Transport it states that the hatches are blown and you must disembark. Im saying that if the black templars codex entry for drop pods leaves out a whole paragraph about how to disembark, then technically they dont have to drop the hatches and disembark, but if you want to shoot and your hatches are still closed how will you draw los?

 Billmurry666 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Billmurry666 wrote:
I fail to see anywhere that states you can sit inside, shoot, and then assault next turn. How do you even draw los if the hatches are not blown like other codices state?

Where are the rule for "blowing the hatches"? Drop Pods are open-topped vehicles and as such follow the rules for open-topped vehicles. Every other codex has a rule that says the unit must disembark and nobody can embark. BT have no such rule that the unit must disembark, but does have a rule allowing the unit that dropped in the pod from re-embarking (though other units can embark).

In other codices in the description for Transport it states that the hatches are blown and you must disembark. Im saying that if the black templars codex entry for drop pods leaves out a whole paragraph about how to disembark, then technically they dont have to drop the hatches and disembark, but if you want to shoot and your hatches are still closed how will you draw los?

First there is no rule saying you have to open the Drop Pod doors (I know a few people who glued them shut). Second the Drop Pod is Open-topped, which means the models inside fire as if they were firing from an Open-topped vehicle.

The position of the hatches on the physical model makes no difference to the embarked unit firing. It's an open topped vehicle... they can take LOS and range from any point on the vehicle.

There is also no requirement to model the pod with the doors closed, just as there is no requirement to model them open in order for models to disembark.

Alright then, I personally have not seen a drop with the doors glued shut and such, but that makes sense I suppose.

First there is no rule saying you have to open the Drop Pod doors (I know a few people who glued them shut). Second the Drop Pod is Open-topped, which means the models inside fire as if they were firing from an Open-topped vehicle.

I think the question is more from a fluff/story perspective than a modelling perspective.

I mean, think about what an "open topped" drop-pod would be. We're talking about a space-bus that is shot out of a tube, from outer space, at extremely high velocity before it slams into the surface of a planet. Sure, it's got some retro-rockets to pad its landing... but they still leave a hell of a dent in the ground.

If there really were no lid on a drop-pod, it'd be a multi-stage deployment. First, the drop-pod hits the ground. Then a rain of Space Marines, and their various, charred bits, as those who shot out of the pod at any point during its descent finally fall out of the sky. Hopefully, these were assault marines equipped with jump-packs, otherwise they're dead.

 Psienesis wrote:
I mean, think about what an "open topped" drop-pod would be. .

It would be exactly what the drop pod already is... an enclosed capsule that opens up when it lands.

But the fact that the vehicle opens up when it lands fluff-wise in no way requires that you have the physical pod modelled with the doors open, any more than you are required to open the doors on a Land Raider when the troops disembark.


Leaving the doors up just gives you problems trying to draw LOS from the pod's weapon system.

I think we're agreeing with each other...

If you take any open-topped vehicle and model it as close-topped, I would expect you to play it as if it were open-topped anyway.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Due to a type, technically speaking, Flying Monstrous Creatures STILL don't have either the Relentless or Smash rules. (The comma is missing in the sentence in the BRB, meaning they only have a single rule called 'Relentless Smash,' which try as I might I can never find )

Really? My brb reads "Monstrous Creatures have the Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Move Through Cover, Relentless and Smash special rules." P. 48

It says Relentless and Smash, not Relentless Smash.

The big full sized BRB has the typo.

I took that line out of the full sized book.

Did they change print editions or something?

No, you are correct. Monstrous Creatures is listed correctly as having "Relentless and Smash". FLYING monstrous Creatures on the other hand have "Relentless Smash" (BRB p 49, bottom right "Special Rules").

Thanks for fielding that one, Rorshach. Yeah, the typo is only in the Flying Monstrous Creature section, not the regular one. (Sorry if I didn't emphasize that enough.) I thought someone told me it was like that in the little bitty book too, but I haven't checked firsthand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyrian wrote:
If you take any open-topped vehicle and model it as close-topped, I would expect you to play it as if it were open-topped anyway.

I have seen a couple of players model their Drop Pods with the doors closed and then argue that the model now completely blocks LOS. (They deploy the squad on the other side, of course.) My pods don't open usually (I can open them, but it's a pain.) I just make sure my opponents know they are still able to fire right through the pod and out the other side.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I have seen a couple of players model their Drop Pods with the doors closed and then argue that the model now completely blocks LOS. (

So far as the rules are concerned, they would be correct. Of course, that works both ways, as the pods weapon would also be unable to draw LOS to anything.

Given that the times when you'll actually be shooting through an open pod are fairly rare anyway, the downside of not being able to fire the pod's weapon far outweighs the LOS-blocking benefit of leaving the doors shut, IMO.

IME the LOS-blocking is much more useful and important than the storm bolter. YMMV.

 Mannahnin wrote:
IME the LOS-blocking is much more useful and important than the storm bolter. YMMV.

I'm in total agreement with this. My pods are as useful as mobile cover as they are transportation. If I was using them as total LOS blocking shields, I think that would be royally unfair. Closing the doors (or keeping them closed) for the purpose of sacrificing your storm bolter shots to totally block LOS through the pod is, in my personal opinion, MFA. Other people see it differently, I'm sure, but even if I don't open the doors, I'm not about to claim that bonus.

Might just be me, but I can't even remember ever needing to shoot through a drop pod...

People who glue them shut often use them as LOS blockers. It's one of their tactical uses, in addition to blocking movement. I've had a landraider blocked off and forced to go backwards by two well-placed pods.

 dangermouse425 wrote:
It's audacious because you're using what appears to be a mistake in rules-writing to change the way in which an established unit functions. Every other Drop Pod functions one way, there is no reason for BT Pods to function differently.

But there is. The rule is different.

I would really like to know if anybody has successfully been able to claim that there drop pod blocks line of site in a tournament enviroment, because its doors are glued shut. If you want to use the Pod in that way, i would argue that its fine to use it as LOS block, but because the Doors don't open, your unit can not disembark from the pod. Nor can it fire from the Pod. As the Pod is only classed as "open topped" when it has Landed and the Seals have been blown, and the door/ramps lowered.

No, you're making a qualification that has no basis in rules. The pod is open topped - not "open topped after the doors are lowered".

rigeld2 wrote:
No, you're making a qualification that has no basis in rules. The pod is open topped - not "open topped after the doors are lowered".

Fire points and Access Points: ONCE DEPLOYED the Drop Pod is no longer a sealed environment and is therefore counted as being open-topped.

No the inclusion of the phrase "no longer sealed", as in the doors are open. is what makes the pod open-topped.

seems pretty clean cut to me. If you dont open the doors and use it as cover then it is a sealed unit and not open topped. You cant have it both ways.

Except that "once deployed" means "once on the table"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except that "once deployed" means "once on the table"

But that is a contradiction of the next part of the phrase. Reading the complete Rule, reads as though the drop pod is not deployed until the doors are opened and is no longer a sealed unit. If someone has modeled there drop pod doors closed then the model has to be ignored in order to stay within the rules.

You can lawyer the rules both ways, and we can argue it until the cows come home. But in all truth, if we took the Models for anything other than a representation of what we are actually playing. Then 10 marines would not fit in a Rhino, 10 DE, would not fit in a Raider. and so on.

cerbrus: Please quote where that rule specifies the doors must be open.

As that rule is written, it being deployed (i.e. on the table) causes it to be not a sealed environment and open-topped. Where does it mention the doors being open on the model as a prerequisite?

I love that they updated part of the Black Templar rules for Drop Pods. They got everything updated to match the other Space Marines, except that no one is forced to disembark. Spectacular.

Cerbrus - no, that isnt what the rule says

Condition: model is deployed
Result: model is open topped

How do we deploy? well, we follow the DS rules.

Now, find a RULE, not a fluff piece (seriously, "doors are blown" is as fluffy a piece as you can get - unless you are requiring people to explosively remove the doors from their model?) that says otherwise, as per the tenets of this forum

cowmonaut wrote:
I love that they updated part of the Black Templar rules for Drop Pods. They got everything updated to match the other Space Marines, except that no one is forced to disembark. Spectacular.

Not only that but (and this worked in 5th edition) there is no restriction on units embarking (except for the unit that rode it down).

cerbrus2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, you're making a qualification that has no basis in rules. The pod is open topped - not "open topped after the doors are lowered".

Fire points and Access Points: ONCE DEPLOYED the Drop Pod is no longer a sealed environment and is therefore counted as being open-topped.

No the inclusion of the phrase "no longer sealed", as in the doors are open. is what makes the pod open-topped.

Cite the rules definition for "no longer sealed".
Or is it perhaps fluff?

seems pretty clean cut to me. If you dont open the doors and use it as cover then it is a sealed unit and not open topped. You cant have it both ways.

Feel free to think so.
And even if you were correct, 35pts for deep striking LOS blocking terrain is pretty sweet.

 Happyjew wrote:
Not only that but (and this worked in 5th edition) there is no restriction on units embarking (except for the unit that rode it down).

Amazing oversight there. Not many BT players in my area and he plays it using the same rules as everyone else so I had no idea until I looked at his Codex.

I'm still trying to wrap my head over the 'line of sight' blocking argument. I don't agree with it, far from it of course, but it would be something that causes me to pinch my nose if someone brought it up.

Does that mean if I glue a 10 inch long, 3 inch wide bit of plastic the back of a land speeder I can claim all units behind said monstrosity do not have Line of Sight?

That seems to be the core of the argument: that it doesn't matter what the pod would normally look like once deployed on the table, with doors open and line of sight clear. All that matters is what the model looks like at the time of drawing line of sight. This is clearly not as intended, given that none of the drop pods I have seen let you close the doors after the unit disembarks... they are using explosives to open the damn things in the first place and that sort of prevents closing afterwards.

Could you also turn it around and point out he can't logically deploy the unit within and not open the door?

JinxDragon wrote:
I'm still trying to wrap my head over the 'line of sight' blocking argument. I don't agree with it, far from it of course, but it would be something that causes me to pinch my nose if someone brought it up.

Does that mean if I glue a 10 inch long, 3 inch wide bit of plastic the back of a land speeder I can claim all units behind said monstrosity do not have Line of Sight?

Agree with it or nor TLoS are the rules. If a model blocks Line of Sight, then it blocks Line of Sight.

Assembling a Stock model is one thing. Adding parts to a mini just to block Line of Sight is MFA.

P.S. what does "pinch my nose" mean?

That seems to be the core of the argument: that it doesn't matter what the pod would normally look like once deployed on the table, with doors open and line of sight clear. All that matters is what the model looks like at the time of drawing line of sight.

TLoS tells us this is true. Models on the table block Line of Sight if at the time of drawing line of sight the model actually blocks Line of Sight.

This is clearly not as intended, given that none of the drop pods I have seen let you close the doors after the unit disembarks... they are using explosives to open the damn things in the first place and that sort of prevents closing afterwards.

You do not need the doors open on a drop pod to disembark any more than you need the doors on a land raider, Rhino, Ork Trukk or Battlewagon open to disembark. In fact, with the Open topped vehicle you do not have to measure from a door, you just measure from any point on the Hull, which could be the engine compartment.

Could you also turn it around and point out he can't logically deploy the unit within and not open the door?

No, as the rules do not make a distinction between an open transport door and a closed one. they simply tell us to measure from the access point.

remember that the rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

Technically speaking, gluing the doors shut is MFA. I'm all for doing what it takes to win, but its clearly against the rules due to MFA. I generally tell people as much when they ask why I didn't glue my doors shut.

But then when I drop my Pods down sometimes I can't open a door because of enemy models or terrain (don't want to displace them, even if you ignore the doors as part of the model like most people do) they'll be 'shut' and block LOS.

Generally, if a door should have been opened, but was glued shut, I'm of the opinion you should ignore the door for LOS purposes. True LOS or not be damned. But given I'm the only one using Drop pods usually these days at my FLGS it doesn't come up much.

What I am trying to say, which Cowmonaut does better, is gluing the doors shut just to gain an advantage is clearly not playing the game as intended.

Okay, I accept my example was extreme but it still holds the same core element to what they are trying to push here. The argument that LOS can be ignored because the model was modified to prevent a clear LOS. In my opinion it doesn't matter if the modifications where small or outrageous ones, they are still modifications being made to exploit the system.

If you can not gain the advantage using any other standard model of the exact same make, then you should not be given the advantage.