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.

tneva82 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
There is a fifth option : The drop pod drops, opens all doors, and 10 characters inside embark. They are placed between the drop pod doors. Your opponent cannot attack them because the drop pod doors are closer to him.

Strangely, there is a rule against this. Drop pods aren't terrain so you can't put figures on top of them.

As was pointed out, a restriction that doesn't exist when charging. Is there a rule which prevents you from moving on to the open door of a drop pod if you've declared a charge against it? (Most likely a charge against both it and whatever passengers it disgorged.)

Is there rule that allows it? 40k is permissive so you need rule to allow, not rule to deny

There's rules telling you how to move, which include moving horizontally or vertically. This movement is covering anywhere on the board, so you already have permission to move. There have to be limitations at that point preventing you from moving into specific areas, like within 1 " of an enemy model (as an example), since you already have permission to move and rules telling you how to move. Older editions used to tell you that you couldn't move on top of a model. This edition doesn't make that distinction in the normal rules - the only mention is in relation to fortifications (which a drop pod isn't).

tneva82 wrote:

Is there rule that allows it? 40k is permissive so you need rule to allow, not rule to deny

"A model can be moved in any direction to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet."
You are permitted to move wherever you want.

"It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls., but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery."
You are now restricted from moving through models/terrain, but you can move vertically to pop over terrain.

So RAW, you cannot move through the doors, but have to go around.
I would also say that moving "on top" of other models is likely not allowed, since it would mean infantry could hop over other infantry so long as they take the extra inch jump into account.

His was a rhetorical question. You can’t move onto other models.

Well, his rhetorical question did not take into account the fact that moving onto other models is in fact permitted by the first sentence. So to answer his question: yes, there is a rule that allows it. With that established the rules must now explicitly deny movement onto other models.
It's not until the third sentence that we are restricted from moving through other models.
So his argument was moot.

I'm not in disagreement with you or him, I just want to make sure there are no possible doubts for others.

You’re reading it incorrectly - vertical movement is only allowed to “climb or traverse any scenery” as you quoted. There is no permission to move vertically to end up on top of another model, so you can’t. You can’t take one sentence in isolation, the whole section must be applied together.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You’re reading it incorrectly - vertical movement is only allowed to “climb or traverse any scenery” as you quoted. There is no permission to move vertically to end up on top of another model, so you can’t. You can’t take one sentence in isolation, the whole section must be applied together.

I already agree with you. I was just pointing out that the "permissive" argument is moot because there is a specific restriction on moving through other models.

Basically, they were saying you couldn't move on other models because there is no specific permission to do so. However, someone could easily point to the first sentence to say that is the permission. As such their argument was moot.

The real reason you cannot move on other models is the subsequent restriction of "you can't move through other models".

Ok, I don’t entirely see your point, as all relevant rules need to be applied so there is no permission as per the whole paragraph. The real reason is still that you can only move vertically over scenery. No permission exists to climb models (which would be up and over, not through), only scenery.

Glad we agree though!

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Rules citation, please? I'm not finding in the Battle Primer right now where it says you can't put a model on top of another model (serious question, not being snarky here). I see where it says you can't move within 1" of an enemy model (which gets ignored when charging), and that you can't move through models, but not where it says you can't move on top of another model. I'm sure I'm just missing it and am having a brainfart as to the rule's location right now.

The rulebook also doesn't say I can't slap a pumpkin with some Salami to autopass morale.

The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules do not say that you can put models on top of other models.

Furthermore, the various rules that some fortifications have allowing models to be placed on top of them indicate the default position is that you cannot put models on top of other models. For example the Aegis Defence Line (among others) has the rule "Static Defence Network", that says that after deployment to treat it as a terrain feature. If you could put models on top of other models, that wouldn't need to be a rule.

I asked a serious question - no reason to be snarky with your pumpkin comment.

The indications from the fortifications looks to be the answer I'm looking for. Otherwise you would be able to, despite your comment "The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules do not say that you can put models on top of other models." The rules tell you can move and tell you how to handle horizontal and vertical movement. They put the restriction on moving within 1" of an enemy model. They have already told you what you can do for movement, and given that (especially since they told you how to handle horizontal and vertical movement) it is up to the rules to restrict the movement permission they already have given you. Your statement there doesn't cover the situation as they have already given you movement permission.

Please, stick with the specifics and don't go into general platitudes or snark which don't help your position.

Strictly speaking the rules say you can't move through enemy model's or within 1" of an enemy model outside the charge phase.

No rule covers moveing on top during the charge phase the only stipulation is that you end within 1" of the model you charge and are not within 1" of a model you don't and that you don't go through the enemy model (going on top is not through)

So RAW there is no directional stipulation and you can move verticallyso therefore you could go on top of

The argument that skyshield gives you permission so you require it is irrelevant giving permission doesnt mean you require it in other circumstances e.g the incorrect argument of warlord relic preventing strategem relic

Raw hideing a corbulo between drop pod doors doesn't stop me chargeing him I just charge him and the drop pod. Which makes it easier to get him as i only have to charge both reach the drop pod and can pile in to him.

RAI however most players would recognise that the intention was that you don't and if you are going to argue you can then you clearly dont mind me sticking my knight on your guardsmans head (and so what if I scratch the paintwork/ damage the model.

Oh another drop pod door conversation. This topic in every
Edition has these arguments.

Doors open or closed do not block line of site. Nor block movement around the drop pod.

Gw has stated iirc to ignore the doors once the drop pod
Is deployed. Open or closed they are blown off after landing
, and the contents disembarks.

Lungpickle wrote:
Oh another drop pod door conversation. This topic in every
Edition has these arguments.

Doors open or closed do not block line of site[sic].

The above statement is false. The door is a part of the model, and models will block LoS if they actually block LoS.

Nor block movement around the drop pod.

The above statement is also false. The door is a part of the model, and you can not move through models (Fly works a bit differently)

Gw has stated iirc to ignore the doors once the drop pod Is deployed.

They have said no such thing. (Old edition FaQ's do not have any bearing on 8th ed.)

Open or closed they are blown off after landing,

This is fluff not rules.

Lungpickle wrote:
Oh another drop pod door conversation. This topic in every
Edition has these arguments.

Doors open or closed do not block line of site. Nor block movement around the drop pod.

Gw has stated iirc to ignore the doors once the drop pod
Is deployed. Open or closed they are blown off after landing
, and the contents disembarks.

Citation needed.

The only part of his statement thats evidenced is that it comes up every edition - so you would think GW would be able to make it clear in their rules

As to the 7th ruling thats now obsolete and even that was spurious as it was only in the SM FAQ so RAW didn't apply to BA etc drop pods

But then GW learn from there mistakes....

His statements were more what was Generally Accepted Practice in previous editions, at least for not counting the open doors as part of the hull and ignoring them. I don't recall them actually covering it in a FAQ.

As for being able to trace line of sight through the drop pod whether the doors were open and closed, that was not a generally accepted practice. Of course, in previous editions for vehicles you had to draw line of sight from the weapon, so if all the doors were closed on the drop pod it was not able to fire the weapon that was modeled inside the drop pod, so really with those editions you had the choice of blocking line of sight or firing the weapon. It seemed something left up to local groups to decide how they wanted to handle this. Since we have a new edition with new rules for shooting, the dynamics of leaving the doors open or closed have changed.

You'd think GW would put explicit statements out about this since it does seem to come up every edition. It's probably best to discuss with the people you're going to play with, especially since they might just be thinking of how it was played in previous editions and not how it works with current rules.

Measure vehicles from the Hull only. You don't count the vehicles accessories etc. Isn't that a rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Measure vehicles from the Hull only. You don't count the vehicles accessories etc. Isn't that a rule?

 womprat49 wrote:
Measure vehicles from the Hull only. You don't count the vehicles accessories etc. Isn't that a rule?

You've had arguments over several editions as to whether the drop pod doors count as part of the hull, especially when they've been described in previous editions as being blown off when the pod lands.

The way I’d play it; you decide if the doors are open or closed (maybe including which ones) when you’re about to place the model - that way, you could utilize the doors to open/block line of sight, act as an intervening model, etc - but are still restricted to deploying outside 9”.

So, doors down, better line of sight and larger footprint, but you have to account for the doors being placed on the table; eg. the center of the drop pod will be further away, and the doors might take up space for deploying the squad inside.

That said, we’re looking for RAW, not HIWPI.

 womprat49 wrote:
Measure vehicles from the Hull only. You don't count the vehicles accessories etc. Isn't that a rule?

Yes, you measure from the hull, but you still cant move on the enemy drop pod doors, because its part of the model.

 doctortom wrote:
His statements were more what was Generally Accepted Practice in previous editions, at least for not counting the open doors as part of the hull and ignoring them. I don't recall them actually covering it in a FAQ.

They were in the 7th edition Codex Space Marines FAQ released in early 2017.

 Ghaz wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
His statements were more what was Generally Accepted Practice in previous editions, at least for not counting the open doors as part of the hull and ignoring them. I don't recall them actually covering it in a FAQ.

They were in the 7th edition Codex Space Marines FAQ released in early 2017.

Okay, forgot about it being in the 7th ed stuff.

 doctortom wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
His statements were more what was Generally Accepted Practice in previous editions, at least for not counting the open doors as part of the hull and ignoring them. I don't recall them actually covering it in a FAQ.

They were in the 7th edition Codex Space Marines FAQ released in early 2017.

Okay, forgot about it being in the 7th ed stuff.

I think we've all tried to forget 7th edition as nothing more than a bad dream...

 p5freak wrote:

 womprat49 wrote:
Measure vehicles from the Hull only. You don't count the vehicles accessories etc. Isn't that a rule?

Yes, you measure from the hull, but you still cant move on the enemy drop pod doors, because its part of the model.

Except the question is what counts as hull and I would count doors on a drop pod as hull.

Doors are not defined by the exceptions rule

U02dah4 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 womprat49 wrote:
Measure vehicles from the Hull only. You don't count the vehicles accessories etc. Isn't that a rule?

Yes, you measure from the hull, but you still cant move on the enemy drop pod doors, because its part of the model.

Except the question is what counts as hull and I would count doors on a drop pod as hull.

Doors are not defined by the exceptions rule

They didn't used to be defined as hull. I wouldn't expect GW to treat that differently now.

7th had enough bulk to it that the rule-book specified what counts 8th doesn't.
The doors make up the majority of the model therefore they count unless you can find me a rule specifying that they don't.

I'm so glad Drop pods are garbage this edition, I havent seen a single one on the table. The 'Reign has stopped.

"The Drop Pod doors are lava, the drop pod doors are LAVA!"