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.

scorpio2069 wrote:
So let me get this straight. I can arm my DP with a deathwind launcher, and position it so that when it lands, I can open the 2 doors that would block the DW launchers LOS, but I can leave the other 3 doors closed so that my disembarking unit is blocked from your LOS.

Where is the disadvantage here? This is strict modeling for advantage. My DW launcher can see your units while you cannot see my disembarked unit.

Now if MFA is not a rule, can I bring a single drop pod made from 5 drop pods all glued together to form a giant pod?

Or how about a single pod made by gluing 5 pods in a line, with 3 doors a piece to block LOS, while using the rest of the doors to extend this line? Can I make the line big enough to block off your entire deployment zone, or my own deployment zone?

Seems like a sound tactic. Take a giant wall DP and a bunch of jump troops. Your opponent cannot contest your objectives, meanwhile you can have your jump troops leap over the wall on turn 5 to contest all of theirs. Shake hands, Good Game, you win the tourney.

You can do anything you want until your opponent calls a TO and he tells you otherwise. You can even play with a kitbashed monster made from 2 Terivgons and a Carnifex with your own custom statistics..

Well if the TO says that it is a strict RAW tourney, then the MC could not be used due to there being no rules letting you use the custom stats.

As for the giant DP, or even using that kitbashed model as a Giant Tervigon, or Carnifex, or even a Tyrannofex, it should be legal as long as your are using a granted RAW stat line. Actually you can even use that beast as a termagant since there is no rule telling you what base a termagant has to use.

So am I correct on this?

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its exactly the issue. When you put the drop pod in reserves with the doors closed you don't have permission to open them when the model hits the table

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. It's like arguing that if your dreadnought is stored in your case with the arms separate, you can't put them on when you want to use it.

No, its like arguing that you can't change the dreadnoughts arms during the game.

Whether or not the doors are open when the model in reserves makes absolutely no difference. Once the model is actually put in play there is no permission to alter it, but there is no rule that deals with what a model looks like before it is actually in use.

Once the game has started there is no permission to alter your models. Models go into reserves as part of the game. My statement could have been if the doors on the drop pod are closed on turn 1 you don't have permission to open then on turn 3.

(Again, this is a pure RAW argument)

No, it isn't. There is absolutely zero basis in written rules in that argument.

Yes, yes it is. We agree that the RAW give no permission to alter the model during the game. The argument is that there is no permission in the RAW. The idea that something is not allowed by RAW is not a RAW argument because its not in the written rules is "ridiculous".

scorpio2069 wrote:
Well if the TO says that it is a strict RAW tourney, then the MC could not be used due to there being no rules letting you use the custom stats.

As for the giant DP, or even using that kitbashed model as a Giant Tervigon, or Carnifex, or even a Tyrannofex, it should be legal as long as your are using a granted RAW stat line. Actually you can even use that beast as a termagant since there is no rule telling you what base a termagant has to use.

So am I correct on this?

You miss the point here. You can do whatever you want as long as the person playing you agrees, or the TO , if its a tournament says its legal. A TO can even tell you that you cannot do something that is Legal, since it is his tournament.

As far as your giant drop pod goes, go for it. I think it would be really cool to see you make one.

Fragile wrote:

As far as your giant drop pod goes, go for it. I think it would be really cool to see you make one.

And walk into a tourney with it. You can't make one and not enter it.

scorpio2069 wrote:
So let me get this straight. I can arm my DP with a deathwind launcher, and position it so that when it lands, I can open the 2 doors that would block the DW launchers LOS, but I can leave the other 3 doors closed so that my disembarking unit is blocked from your LOS.

Where is the disadvantage here? This is strict modeling for advantage. My DW launcher can see your units while you cannot see my disembarked unit.

Yes, restricting a turret weapon to a 60 degree fire arc is clear modelling for advantage...

rigeld2 wrote:
The game uses TLOS so if you glued to doors up they shouldn't be able to draw LoS.

There is a very common house rule, however, to treat the Drop Pod as open even if glued shut.

Drop pods are open topped, and if you land, the doors are popped to allow the contents to disembark. Regardless of gluing the doors closed, you can draw LOS through it (albeit granting a cover save).

If someone was to cheese me by saying they hadn't popped the doors then I would counter saying that the doors are either all open or all closed, if closed, you can't deploy, therefore the contents are destroyed.

Haven't got BRB on hand, but goes something like this.. if for any reason a model cannot disembark from a transport vehicle, the entire unit counts as destroyed.

 Skabfang wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The game uses TLOS so if you glued to doors up they shouldn't be able to draw LoS.

There is a very common house rule, however, to treat the Drop Pod as open even if glued shut.

Drop pods are open topped, and if you land, the doors are popped to allow the contents to disembark. Regardless of gluing the doors closed, you can draw LOS through it (albeit granting a cover save).

If someone was to cheese me by saying they hadn't popped the doors then I would counter saying that the doors are either all open or all closed, if closed, you can't deploy, therefore the contents are destroyed.

Haven't got BRB on hand, but goes something like this.. if for any reason a model cannot disembark from a transport vehicle, the entire unit counts as destroyed.

So if I don't open the hatches on a Landraider, the Terminators cannot disembark?

Wasnt this clarified a while ago by GW? Units can obviously see through a DP but the unit on the other side gets a cover save. Even if the doors are glued shut, it is assumed to be open on impact.

 Skabfang wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The game uses TLOS so if you glued to doors up they shouldn't be able to draw LoS.

There is a very common house rule, however, to treat the Drop Pod as open even if glued shut.

Drop pods are open topped, and if you land, the doors are popped to allow the contents to disembark. Regardless of gluing the doors closed, you can draw LOS through it (albeit granting a cover save).

Please quote a rule, not an opinion.

If someone was to cheese me by saying they hadn't popped the doors then I would counter saying that the doors are either all open or all closed, if closed, you can't deploy, therefore the contents are destroyed.

You also require your opponents to open Rhino/Land Raider doors?

Haven't got BRB on hand, but goes something like this.. if for any reason a model cannot disembark from a transport vehicle, the entire unit counts as destroyed.

It's like you're misapplying a rule or something...

Skabfang wrote:Drop pods are open topped, and if you land, the doors are popped to allow the contents to disembark.

The first part of that statement is a rule. The second is fluff.

There is no requirement anywhere in the 40K rules for a vehicle to physically open its doors in order for models to disembark from it.

Regardless of gluing the doors closed, you can draw LOS through it (albeit granting a cover save).

The LOS rules disagree.

If someone was to cheese me by saying they hadn't popped the doors then I would counter saying that the doors are either all open or all closed, if closed, you can't deploy, therefore the contents are destroyed.

And unless you can provide a rule that requires the doors to be open, you would be in the wrong here.

Haven't got BRB on hand, but goes something like this.. if for any reason a model cannot disembark from a transport vehicle, the entire unit counts as destroyed.

The is dealing with model placement, not opening the doors. Otherwise, you've going to have the same issue with anyone wanting to deploy from any transport vehicle with doors.

Col. Dash wrote:Wasnt this clarified a while ago by GW?

Yes. They wrote LOS rules that tell you to bend down and have a look at the placement of the actual models on the table.

That's how LOS has worked for 20 years now.

Units can obviously see through a DP but the unit on the other side gets a cover save. Even if the doors are glued shut, it is assumed to be open on impact.

The thing is, even with the doors open, it is possible for a model to be completely hidden from view by the gubbins inside the pod. With the doors open, it's easy enough to determine that. With the doors closed, how do you tell if a model is visible or not?

The simple answer is to just follow the actual rules of the game, which tell you that if you can't see the target, you can't shoot at it. There is no rule that tells us to treat a model on the table as anything other than what is on the table for LOS purposes.

RAW: if your doors are glued shut, you cant see through a pod.
RAI and the only way to play it without being an ass: Pod does not block line of sight, and only provides a 5+ cover to units behind it.

Eihnlazer wrote:
RAI and the only way to play it without being an ass: .

That sort of comment adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

Throughout 4th edition (or at least the part of it before I gave up on the game in disgust and waited for 5th) I played a gunline marine army in pods. My LOS-blocking pods were generally far more of a hindrance to me than to my opponent.

This idea that people only use closed pods to garner better cover for their own models is a gross generalisation. Nobody should be considered an 'ass' for preferring to play by the actual rules when there is no particularly compelling reason to do otherwise.

This is how I play my drop pods and how I tell my opponents before we play. When they land all the hatches open or count as in case they are glued. Because I'm pretty sure space marines are not going to wait in single file line to get out and start killing some xenos or traitors. And that's how I treat a lot of rules.

As for land raiders and rinhos they can open their doors to let them out and close em again so to me it doesn't matter if they are glued they can still disembark normally( just added this for the people that are using land raiders and rinhos as examples too)

Guys, everyone who doesn't play by Eihnlazer's house-rules is an ass, spread the word, the people need to know.

Fantastic topic very interesting.

To clear up one or two things thing

Hatch =a door on a floor or ceiling.

Blown = fully expanded or opened (this one of its many past participle meanings)

Blown in this context is being used as an adjective describing what is happening to the door..

Combined knowledge :

The door in the floor or ceiling is fully extended or opened

BUT this is in the fluff not rules so it might as well say a nasty one eyed pirate folds one corner and squeezes each passenger out then hides in a sock.

Id hardly call it my way as its played that way across the globe by various groups.

I had the same issue with a fella stating you can't see through a pod but attempt to shoot. I informed him he needs to choose one or the other, either no los so no shooting, or counts as open and can shoot, he chose to not blos.

Since then we have ruled they are always open, interestingly fw implicitly states the doors are open, regardless of the model.

 Formosa wrote:
Since then we have ruled they are always open, interestingly fw implicitly states the doors are open, regardless of the model.

That is not what the FW rules actually say though...

JinxDragon wrote:...it is the lack of rules telling us how to go about 'blowing' them that is the problem....

There's a joke here somewhere...

To be honest the word blown is used in the correct context and with the correct intent. Its 100% obvious that when a sealed drop pod lands all the doors are opened and cannot be re sealed during the fight.... The argument lies with GW not covering the obvious behaviour in its rule section only in fluff which certain characters will use to there advantage and others will sit around having a friendly chat and then make an educated decision either way.

Its not an argument about pods and los its an argument about fluff and rules IMO.

And the fact that it's difficult to tell what you can see when there's a door in the way. "Pretending" you have LoS when you don't isn't something covered in the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Since then we have ruled they are always open, interestingly fw implicitly states the doors are open, regardless of the model.

That is not what the FW rules actually say though...

Since the latest book and horus heresy ones, yes it does

kranki wrote:
To be honest the word blown is used in the correct context and with the correct intent. Its 100% obvious that when a sealed drop pod lands all the doors are opened and cannot be re sealed during the fight.... The argument lies with GW not covering the obvious behaviour in its rule section only in fluff which certain characters will use to there advantage and others will sit around having a friendly chat and then make an educated decision either way.

Its not an argument about pods and los its an argument about fluff and rules IMO.

But it should not be an "argument about fluff and rules" because the two are clearly different things.

 Formosa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Since then we have ruled they are always open, interestingly fw implicitly states the doors are open, regardless of the model.

That is not what the FW rules actually say though...

Since the latest book and horus heresy ones, yes it does

No, it doesn't. The text was quoted in this thread and it says nothing of the sort.

 Formosa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Since then we have ruled they are always open, interestingly fw implicitly states the doors are open, regardless of the model.

That is not what the FW rules actually say though...

Since the latest book and horus heresy ones, yes it does

Really? where is this quote does it say that: "Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent." (IA: Apoc book)?

Note: it never says "the doors are open, regardless of the model." never even hints at it.

If the full extent of the doors is 0 degrees open because of the way the model is assembled, then the rule has been followed 100%

If it's glued shut the doors cannot be "opened" at all therefore the rule has not been followed even remotely, therefore the only way to follow the rule is they must be considered open to the full extent possible by the model.

Either way from my example this person was trying to eat his cake and have it, its either no los and no shooting or considered open and can shoot, tlos works both ways.

That I'm sure we agree on

 Formosa wrote:
If it's glued shut the doors cannot be "opened" at all therefore the rule has not been followed even remotely, therefore the only way to follow the rule is they must be considered open to the full extent possible by the model.

You've added the bolded words.
And yes - if they're glued shut they've still been opened to their full extent - their full extent just happens to be not at all. Or, if you still disagree with that - glue them so that all doors are open 1 degree. They're opened to their full extent.

Closed is not open rigel it's as simple as that

Formosa wrote:Closed is not open rigel it's as simple as that

rigeld2 wrote:Or, if you still disagree with that - glue them so that all doors are open 1 degree. They're opened to their full extent.