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.

If you deploy it with doors closed, it blocks LOS as the game has, for many editions now, used TLOS

There is no rule requiring you to lower the doors, and whether the doors are lowered or not has absolutely no bearing on whether the models inside can disembark.

Jinx - yo uare actually wrong about the question. Insaniak has it 100% correct - the question asked is:

"If you deploy a Drop Pod with the doors fixed in a closed position, are you within you rights to disembark your troops AND claim that the closed pod completely blocks LOS to units firing from the other side?"

The condition is you ARE deploying the pod with the doors closed, so as a result does this block LOS. The correct answer is "yes", otherwise you are playing a houserule

Jimsolo, I would absolutely agree that the intent is for the pod to be deployed doors open. The simple fact that the pod's weapon is on the inside it's more than enough of a clue there.


But the simple fact is that many players are not going to do so, either because they glued the doors shut for one reason or another, because the terrain doesn't permit it, or because they're using non-GW pods.

The issue I have with pretending in those situations that the pod on the table is actually a regular GW pod with doors down is that it is practically impossible to actually do so.

Let's say you're trying to shoot through the pod at a single marine on the other side. He could be in full view through the gaps. He could be partially obscured by the harness, or he could be completely hidden by the central console. How on earth do you tell, when you can't actually see it?

Far, far easier to just treat the pod on the table as the pod on the table and let true line of sight be true line of sight.

 insaniak wrote:
Far, far easier to just treat the pod on the table as the pod on the table and let true line of sight be true line of sight.

Agreed, it is easier. That is fine for casual games and such, but at more serious levels of play, we often do things that are more difficult to ensure fairness.

WYSIWYG is a good example. It's easier for me to say "the grey based IG Vets are my special weapons guys. They have whatever my army list says they have." This is fine for many games, but not tournaments with WYSIWYG restrictions. If I want 3x Plasmas, I have to model 3x Plasmas.

I see MFA as the key feature of this argument. The doors on the Drop Pod are supposed to open. The gun is on the inside. The instructions instruct you to. It's an open-top vehicle. The fluff describes it. Etc. Each reason on their own (except the gun being inside) is a bit flimsy. Taken together, fairly strong case.

However, the doors are hinged on crappy joints. The model itself not the easiest GW product to assemble. It has one of the worst points costs to $US value ratios - thus motivating many people to make their own or buy cheaper imitations. Transporting a fragile, bulky, expensive, commonly used model is no fun either.

I can see why people want closed doors. It makes sense, it's reasonable, and it's easier, but it's MFA.

HIWPI - a sealed Drop Pod should have the same general footprint as an open doored one.
Shooting through a sealed Drop Pod always grants a 5+ cover save. Sure, sometimes it would be no save, but sometimes it might completely block TLOS. A steady 5+ is my compromise.

RAW - I think the a sealed drop pod is MFA. It's an extremely reasonable case of it, much like a self defense case of manslaughter. I would not cite a player for this or cause a fuss unless there were other circumstances. I would suggest the player's try to play the sealed Drop Pod as if it was correctly assembled, using much the same guidelines as HIWPI above.

RAI - I think the sealed Drop Pod is flatly better than the open Drop Pod. This irks me. 40k is often a game of trade-offs. Do I give a unit special weapon X or special weapon Y? Each is good in its own way. The sealed drop pod can be place in much smaller areas than an open Drop Pod. The troops coming out of the sealed Drop Pods can be placed closer to their target for Melta fire and/or future Assaults. The TLOS blocking can be a huge issue, especially considering the guidance system on the DP allows for low risk precision placement. I do not think this is what GW intended.

Is it still modelling for advantage if the only player who benefits from the pod providing more solid cover is your opponent?

And in a game where you can change how a model interacts with cover and what it can shoot at by choosing whether to use the standing legs or the kneeling ones, is it really worth all the fuss?

We have a whole forum here devoted to fuss

And yes, even if I was the SM player with sealed Drop Pods, I would give my IG Gunline opponent TLOS through my DPs - and apologize for my reasonable laziness

 insaniak wrote:
Jimsolo, I would absolutely agree that the intent is for the pod to be deployed doors open. The simple fact that the pod's weapon is on the inside it's more than enough of a clue there.


But the simple fact is that many players are not going to do so, either because they glued the doors shut for one reason or another, because the terrain doesn't permit it, or because they're using non-GW pods.

The issue I have with pretending in those situations that the pod on the table is actually a regular GW pod with doors down is that it is practically impossible to actually do so.

Let's say you're trying to shoot through the pod at a single marine on the other side. He could be in full view through the gaps. He could be partially obscured by the harness, or he could be completely hidden by the central console. How on earth do you tell, when you can't actually see it?

Far, far easier to just treat the pod on the table as the pod on the table and let true line of sight be true line of sight.

I've always seen it played that the unit being shot at gets the standard cover save for firing through a unit. I've never had it come up that the target might have been COMPLETELY obscured by the pod gubbins, but if it ever does, I would probably just give my opponent the benefit of the doubt (whichever way that would work out for him). I can at least see where you're coming from now, though. I'm still never going to try and run it that way, since I think it would benefit me more than my opponent, and I don't want people thinking I'm trying to pull a fast one.

Cover for firing through a unit applies when the LOS passes between models. You'll never get cover from a single model unit unless the model is actually obscuring the target.

I think the line of reasoning still tracks though, and everyone I've played seems to think it's a reasonable way to play it, too. It's not a perfect solution, but it's both reasonable and expedient, so I think it's the best one. I've yet to encounter an argument at the table.

The majority of players at my FLGS have GW sealed door Drop Pods. I also don't recall an argument over it. At most, a 60 second discussion is enough to settle it.

I don't say a word when they fire the SB out. When I shoot through them, I tell them to take a 5+ cover save. In casual games, we tend to tell our opponents when they get a cover save. Mostly an honor system.

If it's not a tournament, I just eat the disadvantage they get in location and proximity. If it is a tournament, the TO has said, play it as though the doors are open.

It's modeling for advantage is the bottom line. At tournament I'd call a TO and in a friendly game I'd pack up and play someone else.

I agree that it should be if it is closed and blocks tlos then no storm bolter as well

 General_Chaos wrote:
It's modeling for advantage is the bottom line. At tournament I'd call a TO and in a friendly game I'd pack up and play someone else.

No, it isnt. There is no requirement, in the rules, to fold the doors down.

I think it would do most of us well to remember that this forum is usually used for determining RAW - with that in mind, why are we calling each other out for breaking the game's fun when this is just a forum? I doubt many of us in this thread, if any at all, seek to use the door-closing for advantage, though I know some have in the past.

To the issue at hand:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Arguments FOR the Drop Pod completely blocking LOS:
1. The game uses TLOS. If the doors are closed, then you cannot truly see anything on the other sight. QED.
2. Furthermore, the instructions clearly show the doors being modeled without glue, which means it isn't even MFA to have them shut.
3. The rules never state that there is a requirement for the doors to be open.

Arguments for the Drop Pod ALWAYS being open:
1. The vehicle is designated open-topped, which represents it being exposed (via the open doors) to enemy fire. How can it be open-topped without being open?
2. The doors have to be open for the models to get out, right?
3. The description for the vehicle clearly indicate that the doors are blown off when the pod lands, providing a clear intent for the doors to be in the down position.

I feel these points pretty much sum up the argument either side. Thing is, all the "for" arguments are RAW. All the "against" arguments are fluff-based and therefore RAI.
If you look at the rules for open-topped vehicles, nothing states the model has to appear open-topped for it to count, only that the unit has the rule to begin with. Also with disembarking, you need an access point to disembark - but this is the entire vehicle anyway when we're talking about open-topped. Nothing states the model has to be able to open those access points, or as rightly mentioned already, other vehicles like Rhinos or Razorbacks would be unusable if modelled as the instructions tell you to.

So, strict RAW, nothing forces you to have the doors open *OR* closed, and true line of sight applies in either case (even though this means that with the doors shut, the pod cannot fire). I've felt this is in need of clarification either by FAQ or new rules in Codexes for as long as I've known about the pod rules - sadly it doesn't look like they're coming any time soon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 General_Chaos wrote:
It's modeling for advantage is the bottom line. At tournament I'd call a TO and in a friendly game I'd pack up and play someone else.

No, it isnt. There is no requirement, in the rules, to fold the doors down.

We had this occur at our club - everyone there considered the person who suggested it to be trying to rule lawyer for his advantge in a friendly setting.....strange how many of these game lawyers do this about rules that only give them an advantage and get other rules wrong........

I voted that the doors all blast open and remain open - which is what we play at our club, otherwise your just twisting things IMO

Ah, love those negative aspersions, they really help a debate proceed in a friendly manner.

Explain how you are twisting things. Please show the rule requiring ANY vehicles doors to open in order for the unit inside to disembark. Page and paragraph will be sufficient.

We've always played it that TLOS is paramount.

i.e, if I can't see through your pod's closed doors then it can't shoot me with its storm bolter, etc.

I don't know what having the doors open means for disembarking however, a rhino's doors don't have to open for you to disembark.

Iranna.

I'd like to purpose a scenario. Say I was playing with two drop pods: one with doors that can open and one that have doors glued shut because I got tired of trying to assemble it otherwise. It would be possible to draw TLOS through the pod with the open doors but not the pod with the doors glued shut?

In a game, would they be treated differently in terms of TLOS.

It's actually quite simple, the GW model as shown is doors open. Any variation is your own model (like the soul grinders that are damn near laying down to always get 25% cover from the aegis defense line).
The vehicle is designed to represent and open topped vehicle (with no individual access points), a closed drop pod does not represent this and it different from the GW model.
Like I said you can just dice off if your opponent is being a jerk about it, but my argument to take that a step further would be that if you are using a custom model that changes the rules (blocking los where the GW correctly modeled one would not) then it shouldn't be treated as open topped and with no access points you can't disembark then you can dice off about that

Also show me a rule that says I can't model my devistators to stand on dead rip tides as part of their base to gain extra height to see over the entire battle field? you see where this line of reasoning goes.

Bottom line, stop trying to win though modeling

Kisada II wrote:
It's actually quite simple, the GW model as shown is doors open. Any variation is your own model (like the soul grinders that are damn near laying down to always get 25% cover from the aegis defense line).
The vehicle is designed to represent and open topped vehicle (with no individual access points), a closed drop pod does not represent this and it different from the GW model.
Like I said you can just dice off if your opponent is being a jerk about it, but my argument to take that a step further would be that if you are using a custom model that changes the rules (blocking los where the GW correctly modeled one would not) then it shouldn't be treated as open topped and with no access points you can't disembark then you can dice off about that

Also show me a rule that says I can't model my devistators to stand on dead rip tides as part of their base to gain extra height to see over the entire battle field? you see where this line of reasoning goes.

Bottom line, stop trying to win though modeling

Then I assume all your models are built in the exact same pose as those in the instructions? Better not see any purity seals on those sgts! And you can forget having tactical marines with meltaguns...

You see where this line of reasoning goes.

Caboose

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, love those negative aspersions, they really help a debate proceed in a friendly manner.

Explain how you are twisting things. Please show the rule requiring ANY vehicles doors to open in order for the unit inside to disembark. Page and paragraph will be sufficient.

The description clearly states how drop pods work - it lands - the doors blast open on bolts and those inside disembark - totally unlike a normal vehicle. If you can't see how opening none or only some of the doors is twisting the intentions then lets just agree to disagree as we clearly want different things from our games and its easier to just not argue about these things.............

Kisada II wrote:
it shouldn't be treated as open topped and with no access points you can't disembark

RAW, It is not Open Topped because the doors open. it is Open Topped because the rules say it is Open Topped. Open topped vehicles do not require access points for Embarked units to Disembark.

Ah ok, so you are making a non-rules argument, based on what you think the intent of the designers was?

Then can i point you to the tenets, where you are required to state you arent making a rules argument, just a HIWPI one.

 Mr Morden wrote:


The description clearly states how drop pods work - it lands - the doors blast open on bolts and those inside disembark - totally unlike a normal vehicle. If you can't see how opening none or only some of the doors is twisting the intentions then lets just agree to disagree as we clearly want different things from our games and its easier to just not argue about these things.............

Since when did fluff - outside of specific instances laid out by GW - ever dictate rules?

If that's the case, shouldn't damaged necrons just get teleported back to the Tomb and therefore, not count as being removed as casualties? They do get repaired after all.

Iranna.

Lets just agree to disagree as we clearly want different things from our games and its easier to just not argue about these things.............

@Mr Morden - It's been my experience that there are two types of people in forums like this. People who come seeking wisdom, and people who come to create wisdom.

The creation of wisdom is messy work, much more so than making omelets. We break not mere eggs, but our beliefs, egos, ignorance.

We break them to make ourselves stronger. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change.

Of course, there is also the 3rd type of person. The one who goes to a Boxing Prize Fight and stands up to ask "why all the violence?"

Ok so here is the reason you always play it as does not black LOS. The simple answer is consistency and Modeling for advantage.

1.) If you state that Pods with doors glued shut, those that want them to BLOS will glue them shut, and those that want LOS will model them as being able to open.

2.) For those that argue well if all the doors are shut you cannot fire the gun, ok why can I not glue say 2 or 3 shut and not the other doors, pod in with those door facing you open them and shoot while I get out with the doors blocking LOS. After all there are no rules stating I need to open all the doors.

Essentially you need consistency either, the doors always count as closed in all cases, in which case all pods BLOS, or they always count as open, and don't block. Given that the intent of the model is that the doors open on impact the second is the stronger interpretation.

Yes other models have opening doors, (and doors that cannot open) but none of this impacts the way they impact the game. If I open the rear hatch on a Chimera you cannot see through it.

Essentially as most other things GW it is not designed for competitive play, but at that level you need a consistent interpretation of how the model works concerning LOS, anthing else is akin to allowing a 2" tall daemon prince (nothing in the actual rules makes this illegal ether.)

Breng77 wrote:
Ok so here is the reason you always play it as does not black LOS. The simple answer is consistency and Modeling for advantage.

1.) If you state that Pods with doors glued shut, those that want them to BLOS will glue them shut, and those that want LOS will model them as being able to open.

2.) For those that argue well if all the doors are shut you cannot fire the gun, ok why can I not glue say 2 or 3 shut and not the other doors, pod in with those door facing you open them and shoot while I get out with the doors blocking LOS. After all there are no rules stating I need to open all the doors.

Essentially you need consistency either, the doors always count as closed in all cases, in which case all pods BLOS, or they always count as open, and don't block. Given that the intent of the model is that the doors open on impact the second is the stronger interpretation.

Yes other models have opening doors, (and doors that cannot open) but none of this impacts the way they impact the game. If I open the rear hatch on a Chimera you cannot see through it.

Essentially as most other things GW it is not designed for competitive play, but at that level you need a consistent interpretation of how the model works concerning LOS, anthing else is akin to allowing a 2" tall daemon prince (nothing in the actual rules makes this illegal ether.)

It's been awhile since I built a rhino but I'm pretty sure if you don't glue the side doors shut you can see through it... So can I always see through the middle of my rhinos? I've been playing it wrong all these years!!

There's no ground for a MFA argument, TLOS works both ways. If I pod in and hide my guys behind a closed pod so you don't have LOS then they don't have LOS either. And if you say "well you get to place the pod so it blocks what you want it to!" then that's deploying for advantage. You gonna call someone a cheater for blocking LOS by parking a LR in front of you? If anything, it's more of a disadvantage to the owning player since they can't fire the weapon inside. Sure it's not a major one, but a disadvantage is a disadvantage.

I partially agree with your consistency argument. If someone is playing with multiple pods then they should play them all the same. But if I'd rather give up my stormbolter/crap missle launcher to block LOS and my opponent prefers to get his 2 awesomesauce shots/crap template then I dont see any problem.

Caboose

Glue them shut? do you mean glue them on, as they are not attached by anything else. SO yeah if you don't put doors on so you can see through yeah you are MFA.


So say I am playing an assaulty Dread in my pod, I don't care about LOS to you at all, so I glue 2 of the doors shut and get out behind them, and still shoot you with my awesome storm bolter.

I laugh that you think it is some kind of disadvantage to me that I cannot shoot a storm bolter. Say I am playing an asasult army well I have now the advantage of dropping a LOS blocking wall between you and me, which I can then run around and assault you next turn.

As for consistency it is not just the same player it is all players. The same model should be treated the same by al players within reason.

Your TLOS argument works for my 2" tall DP too he can't see you over terrain either, but it is still MFA. Essentially MFA is making a choice at the modeling stage to gain an advantage. If I have glued the doors shut to gain an advantage, then I am MFA.

Also, in your case do I need to glue the doors or can I just decide, hey your a shooty army I'll just leave some doors up. Or if I can put them down do I have to?

Look at rulings at more or less any major Tournament, you'll see most play the doors always open.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just as some Reference

NOVA open FAQ
 To avoid confusion, gaming the system, pressuring players to play it “your” way, etc., treat drop pod doors as open NO MATTER WHAT; do not treat them as closed if glued shut.

Adepticon/BAO/Wargmes CONFAQ

• The doors of a drop pod model are ignored for all game purposes (e.g. they never block LoS, they may not be disembarked from, and enemy models do not need to remain 1” away from them).

foolishmortal wrote:
@Mr Morden - It's been my experience that there are two types of people in forums like this. People who come seeking wisdom, and people who come to create wisdom.

The creation of wisdom is messy work, much more so than making omelets. We break not mere eggs, but our beliefs, egos, ignorance.

We break them to make ourselves stronger. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change.

Of course, there is also the 3rd type of person. The one who goes to a Boxing Prize Fight and stands up to ask "why all the violence?"

I expressed my opinion and then decided to refrain from a long and eventually nasty slagging match that would get the thread closed down

I like violence when it happens to other people

In this case we have such diametrically opposed views thats its really not worth the time for anyone of use to debate (or even type answers whilst getting annoyed - been there - done that..........no one wins.

(Necrons do get teleported back - thats when they are removed from the table and then they rendered down into energy to create new ones as per the Codex fluff)

Breng77 wrote:
Glue them shut? do you mean glue them on, as they are not attached by anything else. SO yeah if you don't put doors on so you can see through yeah you are MFA.


So say I am playing an assaulty Dread in my pod, I don't care about LOS to you at all, so I glue 2 of the doors shut and get out behind them, and still shoot you with my awesome storm bolter.

I laugh that you think it is some kind of disadvantage to me that I cannot shoot a storm bolter. Say I am playing an asasult army well I have now the advantage of dropping a LOS blocking wall between you and me, which I can then run around and assault you next turn.

As for consistency it is not just the same player it is all players. The same model should be treated the same by al players within reason.

Your TLOS argument works for my 2" tall DP too he can't see you over terrain either, but it is still MFA. Essentially MFA is making a choice at the modeling stage to gain an advantage. If I have glued the doors shut to gain an advantage, then I am MFA.

Also, in your case do I need to glue the doors or can I just decide, hey your a shooty army I'll just leave some doors up. Or if I can put them down do I have to?

Look at rulings at more or less any major Tournament, you'll see most play the doors always open.

The loss of a gun is still technically a disadvantage.

There is no MFA argument here. If I had 6 FW pods would I be cheating? Even open you can't see through them, and they were the original pod. You can't claim MFA because I glued doors shut. If I used a RT era Avatar on the correct base size am I cheating? I've followed every rule in the book.

Caboose


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty sure there's some NOVA FAQs that have gone against what GW FAQ'd...So that's kind of a moot point.

Caboose