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.

 Ghaz wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage.

The instructions he posted doesn't show an assembled model. Is it modeling for advantage then if he assembles the model?

You're reaching.

No more than you are.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Oldmike wrote:
Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods.

No, they were blanket statements describing me as that fething guy, with no qualification. If you'd read how I choose to play you'd have had no reason to describe me as such.

The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.

Do you mean the instruction booklet page I've attached below? It's all I could find doing a quick search online, but there doesn't appear to be a "no glue" icon I can see.

The doors open and close. You're claiming because they can open and close they should be opened, which is the same logic as claiming that because they open and close they should be closed.

Any other support you can come up with for your opinion being anything more than just your opinion?

So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage.

That instruction book, does say to use glue on the doors...

It is not MFA to keep the doors closed, just as it is not MFA to open the doors.

 EnTyme wrote:

So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage

The instructions posted don't show the doors open. They show the doors being assembled. They're not really indicative of anything useful in determining if the doors are 'supposed' to be open or closed.


The model is designed to allow the doors to open and close. GW's own pictures of it tend to show them closed as often as open... the current webstore listing for the pod shows 4 pictures of it, 3 of which have the doors closed.


So if we accept that the doors are designed to be in either position, and that GW themselves don't seem to have a problem with them being closed, I'm really not seeing the issue here.


And that's not even getting into the discussion on whether or not something is 'modelling for advantage' if the player doesn't actually gain any advantage from it.

I think that the best way to approach this is through the rule of common sense.

How is a drop pod supposed to work?

You have a group of marines (or whatever else) embarked. Drop pod falls from the sky and hits the ground. Doors open. Marines charge out. The stormbolter within the drop pod then begins shooting.

By the rule of common sense, the doors don't BLOS, since they are presumed to be opened and to remain opened after disembarkation, whether or not the doors are glued shut for modeling purposes.

Traditio wrote:
I think that the best way to approach this is through the rule of common sense.

How is a drop pod supposed to work?

You have a group of marines (or whatever else) embarked. Drop pod falls from the sky and hits the ground. Doors open. Marines charge out. The stormbolter within the drop pod then begins shooting.

By the rule of common sense, the doors don't BLOS, since they are presumed to be opened and to remain opened after disembarkation.

40k's rules do not operate on "common sense" based on what happens in a "real" battle, or LRBTs/Land Raiders/etc would be immobilized on a 2+ every time they try to move. All that matters is what the rules actually say, and there is no rule for "you can't see through this, but it doesn't block LOS". If the drop pod doors are modeled in the closed position then they block LOS, there is no exception to the standard rule that if you can't see through it you don't have LOS.

Peregrine wrote:40k's rules do not operate on "common sense" based on what happens in a "real" battle, or LRBTs/Land Raiders/etc would be immobilized on a 2+ every time they try to move. All that matters is what the rules actually say, and there is no rule for "you can't see through this, but it doesn't block LOS". If the drop pod doors are modeled in the closed position then they block LOS, there is no exception to the standard rule that if you can't see through it you don't have LOS.

Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.

Edit:

Furthermore, I'm not making an argument from what happens in a "real" battle or any such realism argument. I'm making the claim that, in point of fact, that is how the model is intended to operate. The fact that the doors are up is purely accidental to the modeling decision of the person who constructed the drop pod.

If it were modeled "correctly," the doors would basically hinge and be able to moved up or down depending on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside.

Traditio wrote:

Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.

That's correct. And has been pointed out multiple times already.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:40k's rules do not operate on "common sense" based on what happens in a "real" battle, or LRBTs/Land Raiders/etc would be immobilized on a 2+ every time they try to move. All that matters is what the rules actually say, and there is no rule for "you can't see through this, but it doesn't block LOS". If the drop pod doors are modeled in the closed position then they block LOS, there is no exception to the standard rule that if you can't see through it you don't have LOS.

Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.

Edit:

Furthermore, I'm not making an argument from what happens in a "real" battle or any such realism argument. I'm making the claim that, in point of fact, that is how the model is intended to operate. The fact that the doors are up is purely accidental to the modeling decision of the person who constructed the drop pod.

If it were modeled "correctly," the doors would basically hinge and be able to moved up or down depending on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside.

noone in this thread has said that they could....what is your point exactly?

insaniak wrote:That's correct. And has been pointed out multiple times already.

Doesn't that seem completely counter-intuitive?

Suppose I glue the doors shut: 1. to save space and 2. to prevent the model from breaking (and not for any modeling advantage).

Why should I be prevented from using the stormbolter simply because of an accidental modeling decision on my part?

It's stuff like this which completely breaks immersion and starts personal disputes.

Regardless of what RAW says, RAI and the rule of common sense (and epikeia, may I add) declare otherwise.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:40k's rules do not operate on "common sense" based on what happens in a "real" battle, or LRBTs/Land Raiders/etc would be immobilized on a 2+ every time they try to move. All that matters is what the rules actually say, and there is no rule for "you can't see through this, but it doesn't block LOS". If the drop pod doors are modeled in the closed position then they block LOS, there is no exception to the standard rule that if you can't see through it you don't have LOS.

Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.

This is absolutely true.

A drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter because it can never draw Line of Sight to anything.

Furthermore, I'm not making an argument from what happens in a "real" battle or any such realism argument. I'm making the claim that, in point of fact, that is how the model is intended to operate. The fact that the doors are up is purely accidental to the modeling decision of the person who constructed the drop pod.

If it were modeled "correctly," the doors would basically hinge and be able to moved up or down depending on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside.

Yes the doors can move. The doors being up or down absolutely do not depend on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside. It depends on if the player has the doors up or down.

Disembarking has nothing to do with the position of the doors.

Traditio wrote:

Why should I be prevented from using the stormbolter simply because of an accidental modeling decision on my part?

Because your modeling decision results in the stormbolter not being able to draw LOS to anything.

It's stuff like this which completely breaks immersion and starts personal disputes..

Ultimately, it's no more 'immersion breaking' than guard heavy weapon teams crawling around the battlefield on their knees. Or being unable to target a dreadnought when all you can see is its banner while also being unable to draw LOS to the unit behind the dreadnought because of that same banner.

They're just side effects of a system that does a poor job of accounting for the fact that units are being represented by static models.

DeathReaper wrote:Yes the doors can move. The doors being up or down absolutely do not depend on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside. It depends on if the player has the doors up or down.

Disembarking has nothing to do with the position of the doors.

And this is why people should read the words in italics before they start applying rules. I quote:

"Crashing to the ground, the pods' hatches yawn wide, and the battle brothers inside charge forth to annihilate the foe" (C:SM, p. 158).

I also wish to point out that it clearly says, under unit type in the statline "open-topped." And the actual picture on p. 158 of the rulebook shows an open drop pod.

The assumption that the writers of the rules/makers of the model are making is that you've basically "hinged" your doors and made them able to open and close at will. The doors should be closed when they're off of the table. They should be closed when you put it on the table and roll scatter die. And you should then open the doors when you disembark your troops.

If the doors are glued shut, both parties should agree, as gentlemen with common sense, to pretend as though this happened, and proceed accordingly.

If I used drop pods, I would refuse to play against someone who wouldn't let me fire my stormbolter simply because I glued the doors shut because I want to prevent the model from breaking.

The game is first and foremost a spectacle. It is a competitive game only secondarily.

Traditio wrote:

The assumption that the writers of the rules/makers of the model are making is that you've basically "hinged" your doors and made them able to open and close at will. The doors should be closed when they're off of the table. They should be closed when you put it on the table and roll scatter die. And you should then open the doors when you disembark your troops.

Except, as per this, posted earlier in the thread, the writers of the rules clearly disagree with this assessment.

If I used drop pods, I would refuse to play against someone who wouldn't let me fire my stormbolter simply because I glued the doors shut because I want to prevent the model from breaking.

The problem with this approach is that it requires you to establish LOS from a weapon that you can't actually see.

There are all sorts of ways that you can assemble your models that result in them not being ideal in-game. Why is that your opponent's problem?


Playing the model as is results in the fewest rules issues.

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

The assumption that the writers of the rules/makers of the model are making is that you've basically "hinged" your doors and made them able to open and close at will. The doors should be closed when they're off of the table. They should be closed when you put it on the table and roll scatter die. And you should then open the doors when you disembark your troops.

Except, as per this, posted earlier in the thread, the writers of the rules clearly disagree with this assessment.

1. Perhaps the doors are closed because they wanted to make sure that everything was clearly visible on the photograph.

2. Perhaps the doors are closed in the picture because they consider the position of the doors on the model to be irrelevant for all rules intents and purposes.

Fact is, here are the facts:

1. The italics clearly say that the doors open upon landing.
2. The stat-line clearly says "open-topped," which ONLY makes sense if the doors are considered open.
3. The model becomes immobilized the moment that it enters play.

Does opening and closing the doors count as a movement?

If you tell me "yes," then I'll point out the utter absurdity of telling me that I can't roll the scatter dice, place the drop pod and then open the doors to disembark (which is precisely what the italics says actually happens).

If you tell me "no," then I'll ask you what stops me from hinging the doors of a drop pod, disembarking my troops behind the drop pods (drop pods being in between my troops and the opponents' troops), and closing the doors of my drop pods at the end of each of my turns (essentially granting me LOS for my shooting phases, but denying my opponent LOS for their shooting phases).

If you tell me "nothing," then I'll tell you that this is precisely why the virtue of epikeia is important.

The problem with this approach is that it requires you to establish LOS from a weapon that you can't actually see.

Again, epikeia. Simply ask whether the LOS of the weapon could be established if the doors weren't in the way.

Playing the model as is results in the fewest rules issues.

Agreeing to act as though you had common sense results in the fewest of all.

Then definitively establish los when you have no accurate method of doing so

On the contrary: nothing in the rules allow you to open or close the doors. This is a permissive rule set. Provide the rule permitting it, or mark your posts as "house rule"

But then , we know you consider certain rules inconvenient, such as blast weapons and their never rolling To Hit.....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then definitively establish los when you have no accurate method of doing so

Except, you do. Simply move the drop pod out of the way when attempting to determine LOS.

Traditio wrote:
Except, you do. Simply move the drop pod out of the way when attempting to determine LOS.

Then you aren't considering the structure of the drop pod. Even with the doors open it still provides significant LOS blocking, and removing it from the table is not an accurate representation of that. Plus, there is nothing in the rules that allows you to remove a model or terrain from the table so you can draw LOS through it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Then by that reasoning a drop pod with the doors glued shut can never fire its stormbolter.

Correct.

If it were modeled "correctly," the doors would basically hinge and be able to moved up or down depending on whether or not the drop pod had landed and disembarked the stuff inside.

Nope. There is no rule that allows you to change the configuration of a model in the middle of the game. You can have the doors open or closed, but once you make that choice you are committed to it for the entire game. You can't, for example, leave the doors open to give it a smaller footprint when deep striking and then open some of the doors to increase the footprint of the hull when disembarking.

Peregrine wrote:Then you aren't considering the structure of the drop pod. Even with the doors open it still provides significant LOS blocking, and removing it from the table is not an accurate representation of that.

Whether or not LOS is blocked by the doors of the drop pod or by some other feature should be perceptually apparent from the get go.

Plus, there is nothing in the rules that allows you to remove a model or terrain from the table so you can draw LOS through it.

As I said, this is a clear case of where epikeia applies.

Traditio wrote:
1. The italics clearly say that the doors open upon landing.

The italics also say that the pods 'plunge through the atmosphere amid teardrop-shaped coronae of flame'... I'm not sure how well plastic models are going to hold up to that sort of treatment.

2. The stat-line clearly says "open-topped," which ONLY makes sense if the doors are considered open.

Once upon a time, rhinos were considered open-topped in the opponent's shooting phase if embarked models fired from them. Nobody ever seemed to think that this required you to physically open the top hatch on the model.

3. The model becomes immobilized the moment that it enters play.

Does opening and closing the doors count as a movement?

Traditio wrote:
"Crashing to the ground, the pods' hatches yawn wide, and the battle brothers inside charge forth to annihilate the foe" (C:SM, p. 158).

Fluff =/= rules.

If I used drop pods, I would refuse to play against someone who wouldn't let me fire my stormbolter simply because I glued the doors shut because I want to prevent the model from breaking.

The game is first and foremost a spectacle. It is a competitive game only secondarily.

IOW, this is another one of your "accept my house rules or you're a bad person and I won't play with you" arguments, not an argument about how the printed rules of 40k actually work.

Traditio wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then definitively establish los when you have no accurate method of doing so

Except, you do. Simply move the drop pod out of the way when attempting to determine LOS.

1) inaccurate method. The structure of a fully assembled drop pod - never mind something like a death storm - puts a significant amount of los blocking model in the way, doors or no doors
2) no rule allows you to do so. So, again, mark your posts appropriately to ,are it clear to people you're just making yet more stuff up
3) accurately removing and replacing the drop pod is a significant task
So a fail in at least three accounts. Try again, rules this time.

Peregrine wrote:Nope. There is no rule that allows you to change the configuration of a model in the middle of the game.

Is there any rule which specifically prevents it?

You can have the doors open or closed, but once you make that choice you are committed to it for the entire game. You can't, for example, leave the doors open to give it a smaller footprint when deep striking and then open some of the doors to increase the footprint of the hull when disembarking.

Show me the rule that says so.

Traditio wrote:
Whether or not LOS is blocked by the doors of the drop pod or by some other feature should be perceptually apparent from the get go.

How? The stuff inside the drop pod still blocks LOS and is completely invisible with the doors closed. You can, at best, make a rough guess at whether LOS will be blocked, but you can not check it accurately.

As I said, this is a clear case of where epikeia applies.

Your religion is not an acceptable source for 40k rules. Please stick to the actual rules of 40k.

Traditio wrote:

Whether or not LOS is blocked by the doors of the drop pod or by some other feature should be perceptually apparent from the get go.

Except that it's practically impossible to determine if the machinery inside the pod blocks LOS to the target or not when the doors are in the way.

Traditio wrote:
Is there any rule which specifically prevents it?

Clearly you do not understand how 40k works. You are not allowed to do anything unless the rules say so. You can't change the configuration of a model mid-game unless there is a rule allowing you to, just like I can't roll 10 dice for armor penetration with my lasguns unless I can cite a rule that says "this weapon rolls nine additional dice when attempting to penetrate armor".

Traditio wrote:

Is there any rule which specifically prevents it?

No. There is also no rule specifically preventing you from swapping the pod for a Warlord titan at the start of turn 4.

You need a rule that says you can do something before it becomes something that can be done in the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Is there any rule which specifically prevents it?

Clearly you do not understand how 40k works. You are not allowed to do anything unless the rules say so. You can't change the configuration of a model mid-game unless there is a rule allowing you to, just like I can't roll 10 dice for armor penetration with my lasguns unless I can cite a rule that says "this weapon rolls nine additional dice when attempting to penetrate armor".

There's no rule that specifically allows me to place a drop pod with doors closed onto the table, roll dice, and then open the doors during disembarkation.

If I can open the doors in that case (though the rules don't tell me I can), why can't I close the doors later?

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Nope. There is no rule that allows you to change the configuration of a model in the middle of the game.

Is there any rule which specifically prevents it?

You can have the doors open or closed, but once you make that choice you are committed to it for the entire game. You can't, for example, leave the doors open to give it a smaller footprint when deep striking and then open some of the doors to increase the footprint of the hull when disembarking.

Show me the rule that says so.

Permissive rule set. Like pretty much any game.

The game tells you what you CAN do. At least to start with.

So, quote a rule, or mark your posts such that people know you're making stuff up , again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Is there any rule which specifically prevents it?

Clearly you do not understand how 40k works. You are not allowed to do anything unless the rules say so. You can't change the configuration of a model mid-game unless there is a rule allowing you to, just like I can't roll 10 dice for armor penetration with my lasguns unless I can cite a rule that says "this weapon rolls nine additional dice when attempting to penetrate armor".

There's no rule that specifically allows me to place a drop pod with doors closed onto the table, roll dice, and then open the doors during disembarkation.

If I can open the doors in that case (though the rules don't tell me I can), why can't I close the doors later?

No. Your point?

Traditio wrote:
There's no rule that specifically allows me to place a drop pod with doors closed onto the table, roll dice, and then open the doors during disembarkation.

If I can open the doors in that case (though the rules don't tell me I can), why can't I close the doors later?

You can't do that. If you model the drop pod with the doors open then it must remain in that configuration for the entire game, including when it is place on the table by deep strike. I already explicitly stated that you can't do this, so I don't know why you're acting like I believe the opposite.