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.

 insaniak wrote:

Do you also insist on the pod being set on fire as it is dropped onto the table from a great height?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Do you require blast charges or Pneumatics to blow the doors as well?

I will now!

GW PLC wrote:Citadel Dragon breath(TM) is a high performance lighter fluid specifically formulated for in-game cinematics. It looks fantastic in flaming pools on its own, for burning torches or applied to gun muzzles and drop pods- and in fact is a spectacular way to ignite Citadel Demo Charge(TM) blast caps.

I'd play that the pod is inertial-guided to a safe landing spot and then the charges blow the doors open. If the doors hit terrain before they open fully then they stay stuck there. If they hit enemy models than there's a problem- you cant have the pod doors within 1 inch of an enemy. You twist or move the pod until the pod is not with 1 of an enemy.

Again, wouldn't it just be easier to have the doors open to start with, and not have to move it from where it was supposed to land?

 insaniak wrote:
Again, wouldn't it just be easier to have the doors open to start with, and not have to move it from where it was supposed to land?

Technicalliy, it's easier to just ignore the doors completely, exactly like we've been doing since the Drop Pod model was first introduced. GW's stupid True Line of Sight rules are a bane on the game becausd even GW can't wrap their collective brains around all the problem it creates.

SJ

 Traditio wrote:

Why would you have some closed and some open?

Because opening specific doors would look stupid leaning against the wall of a piece of terrain.

Or because you didn't include the doors on the model to avoid this exact issue.

Here's a quick can of worms I hadn't thought about until now.

If the doors are deployed down, and now count as part of the hull,

"A model..... .....can never move or pivot through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past they must go around." pg18 BRB

The disembarking unit can't be placed anywhere on the Drop Pod, including the doors, when exiting. They would also have to move completely around the deployed doors just like their opponent, with the exception of being able to move within 1" of the pod.

Just how many pictures of marines standing on the Drop Pod doors have you seen?

Anyway, the group I play with have decided to continue playing the old way of ignoring the doors for game purposes.

bigbaboonass wrote:
Here's a quick can of worms I hadn't thought about until now.

If the doors are deployed down, and now count as part of the hull,

"A model..... .....can never move or pivot through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past they must go around." pg18 BRB

The disembarking unit can't be placed anywhere on the Drop Pod, including the doors, when exiting. They would also have to move completely around the deployed doors just like their opponent, with the exception of being able to move within 1" of the pod.

Just how many pictures of marines standing on the Drop Pod doors have you seen?

Anyway, the group I play with have decided to continue playing the old way of ignoring the doors for game purposes.

That actually brings up a question for me regarding Orcs. Can Orc transports scale cliff type terrain, or ignore impossible terrain?