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.

Is it legal for dreadnoughts to get cover saves deploying behind a drop pod filled with all those troop harnesses? The reason I ask is because the dreadnought drop pod is much bigger, only has 3 fins, is more open and not very easy to claim cover saves. Basically, is using the troop pod akin to using a proxy and if it is should the cover be based on the proxy or the real model?

I can guarantee 90% of the people who use podnaughts (myself included) just use an infantry one. So yes, you'd get the save.

Guess I'm in that 10% range

Even without the harness you can angle the pod to get a save from the fins

Cerebrium wrote:I can guarantee 90% of the people who use podnaughts (myself included) just use an infantry one. So yes, you'd get the save.

That's horrible logic.

Until the new Battlewagons came out, everyone was using giant square jobs...now that's considered beardy or downright cheating

Well, it's horrible logic, but Forge World stuff is entirely optional so would would assume GW are fine with people using normal drop pods for it.

The dreadnought drop pod is a FW IA item that allows dreads to assault the turn they arrive. Most people seem to consider that unbalanced for it cost. That pod is not a codex item. The SM codices only recognize drop pods and the rules make no distinction between a pod for a dread and a pod for sternguard. The GW plastic kit is the official model for the drop pod. I see no problem with someone using the official plastic kit in accordance with the rules in their codex. I don't think a player should be required to model his GW kit a specific way to make it look more fluffy on the table top.

Arschbombe wrote:The dreadnought drop pod is a FW IA item that allows dreads to assault the turn they arrive. Most people seem to consider that unbalanced for it cost. That pod is not a codex item. The SM codices only recognize drop pods and the rules make no distinction between a pod for a dread and a pod for sternguard. The GW plastic kit is the official model for the drop pod. I see no problem with someone using the official plastic kit in accordance with the rules in their codex. I don't think a player should be required to model his GW kit a specific way to make it look more fluffy on the table top.

Agreed. The GW drop pod kit is all you need, and there is no requirement to model it any differently to any other drop pod.

Regardless of what kind of drop pod is being used, I think you should get the cover save if you have to shoot through the pod. I play a Drop Pod army, and only use the infantry ones (although I do not use the harnesses, since I think they look like crap). I always allow my opponent a cover save if I drew LoS through the pod.

You are firing through a unit eh? lol a unique way but still through

Yep, I tried to make my dreadpod at least resemble the FW one by not including the harnesses and such, it's just the frame.

If it is blocking 50% of the Dred's body then there is a cover save.

Jimsolo wrote:Regardless of what kind of drop pod is being used, I think you should get the cover save if you have to shoot through the pod. I play a Drop Pod army, and only use the infantry ones (although I do not use the harnesses, since I think they look like crap). I always allow my opponent a cover save if I drew LoS through the pod.

Except vehicles do not get a cover save just for being shot through another unit, they need to be 50% covered

Cerebrium wrote:Well, it's horrible logic, but Forge World stuff is entirely optional so would would assume GW are fine with people using normal drop pods for it.

Right, but a dreadnought drop pod should not be assembled with the marine harnesses. A drop pod with harnesses is essentially a proxy.

ph34r wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Well, it's horrible logic, but Forge World stuff is entirely optional so would would assume GW are fine with people using normal drop pods for it.

Right, but a dreadnought drop pod should not be assembled with the marine harnesses. A drop pod with harnesses is essentially a proxy.

where does it say that in the rules?

ph34r wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Well, it's horrible logic, but Forge World stuff is entirely optional so would would assume GW are fine with people using normal drop pods for it.

Right, but a dreadnought drop pod should not be assembled with the marine harnesses. A drop pod with harnesses is essentially a proxy.

I disagree, not only do I think it'd be pretty crazy to expect a person to buy drop pods for dreds and drop pods for marines. but as the harneses are part of the only current GW model as part of the kit they SHOULD be on the model, as such they work for either.

from a fluff point of view maybe the dreds need to be strapped in securly to not get banged around in there or rather to keep them from banging up the pod (av12 vs av 10)

I'd have no problem with somebody not including harneses mind you... but If I'm fielding my marines and somebody says my offical GW drop pod is a "proxy" due to having seatbelts and dropping a dred I'm definatly goign to have a sarcastic reply or two

ph34r wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Well, it's horrible logic, but Forge World stuff is entirely optional so would would assume GW are fine with people using normal drop pods for it.

Right, but a dreadnought drop pod should not be assembled with the marine harnesses. A drop pod with harnesses is essentially a proxy.

Sorry Ph34r no rules to support your claim, and I wish there were.

Cerebrium wrote:Yep, I tried to make my dreadpod at least resemble the FW one by not including the harnesses and such, it's just the frame.

Same here... great minds?

G00fySmiley wrote:

ph34r wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Well, it's horrible logic, but Forge World stuff is entirely optional so would would assume GW are fine with people using normal drop pods for it.

Right, but a dreadnought drop pod should not be assembled with the marine harnesses. A drop pod with harnesses is essentially a proxy.

I disagree, not only do I think it'd be pretty crazy to expect a person to buy drop pods for dreds and drop pods for marines. but as the harneses are part of the only current GW model as part of the kit they SHOULD be on the model, as such they work for either.

from a fluff point of view maybe the dreds need to be strapped in securly to not get banged around in there or rather to keep them from banging up the pod (av12 vs av 10)

I'd have no problem with somebody not including harneses mind you... but If I'm fielding my marines and somebody says my offical GW drop pod is a "proxy" due to having seatbelts and dropping a dred I'm definatly goign to have a sarcastic reply or two

A sarcastic $35 reply. I may be a moron who buys a lot of GW stuff but I am not going to be held to buying DPs for one or the other. When GW does it and makes it official but not until then as I am definitely not spending $60++ to buy FW drop pods nor am I going to buy drop pods that are dedicated to one or the other.

ph34r wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Well, it's horrible logic, but Forge World stuff is entirely optional so would would assume GW are fine with people using normal drop pods for it.

Right, but a dreadnought drop pod should not be assembled with the marine harnesses. A drop pod with harnesses is essentially a proxy.

No, it's a drop pod. A drop pod is a drop pod is a drop pod. Raising an issue over a dreadnough arriving in a drop pod with harnesses inside is as silly and unsuppportable as saying a sponson loses it's fire arc if it's glued in place.

Bat Manuel wrote:Until the new Battlewagons came out, everyone was using giant square jobs...now that's considered beardy or downright cheating

Using scratchbuilt or converted vehicle for battlewagons is still pretty well established practice.

ph34r wrote:Right, but a dreadnought drop pod should not be assembled with the marine harnesses. A drop pod with harnesses is essentially a proxy.

The codex mentions no difference between an infantry pod and a dreadnought pod. While it certainly makes real-world sense that the Dread pod would need to be configured differently just to fit the dreadnought in there, there is no mention of how this is accomplished, and no different model provided for it. As such, for the moment at least the 'correct' way to play it within the current rules is to just use the Drop Pod model that is available from Games Workshop.

If you convert it, and that changes its LOS profile, then that's something you will need to sort out with your opponent.

ph34r wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Well, it's horrible logic, but Forge World stuff is entirely optional so would would assume GW are fine with people using normal drop pods for it.

Right, but a dreadnought drop pod should not be assembled with the marine harnesses. A drop pod with harnesses is essentially a proxy.

Not really.

Anyway, if someone didn't give me a cover save because they were firing through a dreadpod and not an infantry one, I would call all sorts of shenanigans.

If youre not 50% covered (for vehicles) then you dont get a save. Thats it.

But saying infantry pods would give a save but not dread pods is clear modelling for advantage. What's to stop me boarding up my drop pod with plasticard so nothing can see through them?

Cerebrium wrote:But saying infantry pods would give a save but not dread pods is clear modelling for advantage. What's to stop me boarding up my drop pod with plasticard so nothing can see through them?

Better idea to save you some time, just glue the doors shut

Cerebrium wrote:But saying infantry pods would give a save but not dread pods is clear modelling for advantage. What's to stop me boarding up my drop pod with plasticard so nothing can see through them?

The model you use is what you use. If the model confers cover, then there is cover.

What stops you from taking advantage of that is your opponent. Or lack thereof.

1st - codex-wise, is there even such a thing as a dread pod?

2nd - If FW items are tournament optional, you COULD use them if you wanted to.

3rd - Rules are, sadly, RAW and not HWYPI.

(While my circle has always adapted a bit of HWYPI into our games (of every kind), we never expect others to, and we adopt a stance of rules-lawyer-readiness that we ALL, after a lifetime of nerd-hobbying, should be used to.)

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:1st - codex-wise, is there even such a thing as a dread pod?

2nd - If FW items are tournament optional, you COULD use them if you wanted to.

3rd - Rules are, sadly, RAW and not HWYPI.

(While my circle has always adapted a bit of HWYPI into our games (of every kind), we never expect others to, and we adopt a stance of rules-lawyer-readiness that we ALL, after a lifetime of nerd-hobbying, should be used to.)

Nope, it simply refers to it in the codex as a drop pod.

Not much cover


Tons of cover


I just used the FW assault cannon drop pod to show that the actual pod is pretty much identical to the GW one so it goes to reason that the FW dreadnought drop pod would be identical if GW ever made one. There is a huge difference between the two. Are you just kidding yourselves into thinking that there shouldn't be?

So I ask again. Is using the infantry drop pod for a dreadnought and claiming cover sorta just like using a proxy for an in game advantage? Sorta like modeling for advantage? Sorta? Kinda? Just a little?

The model for a Drop pod, is the only model for a drop pod from GW.

Both infantry and the dreadnought use the same one.

No proxy at all, since that is the only GW model for a drop pod that they sell.

Bat Manuel wrote:Not much cover

Got a shot of that dread on the ground behind the dread pod? That base is rather thick. Looks like it could get enough coverage that way and maybe a little more because of the doors unless you plan to ignore them for LOS purposes. But you never tested it did you? You're making an assumption.

I'd support a requirement for marine players to use the FW dread pod if they got to use the rules that came with that model. You know, the "can assault after deep striking part." They're only, what, 50 points? Cause with that they won't need cover the turn they land (the only turn they need it). They'll be in combat killing your dudes.

Is using the infantry drop pod for a dreadnought and claiming cover sorta just like using a proxy for an in game advantage? Sorta like modeling for advantage? Sorta? Kinda? Just a little?

No. It's using the codex model for the codex entry. Nothing wrong with that.