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.

The new space marine FAQ makes a ruling that drop pod doors no longer block line of sight.

However this rule is not in the BA FAQ so since the BA are not beholden to the SM FAQ does this mean that BA drop pod doors are made of steel and block LOS while SM doors are flimsy paper

RAW is pretty clear.

However, if you argue like that, where the ruling after the FAQ is clear, I would call you TFG and would abort the game at this point.

What he said.

Even before the FAW, my friends and I always treated the doors of a Drop Pod as being non-existent for all game turns. Now, a particular scenario I encountered might have given rise to an issue reminiscent of what your post implies, but we disregarded it.

In other words - I would apply the Space Marine FAQ to the Blood Angels in this case. The only problems I see you running into is if you play a game where the rules are very strictly adhered to (e..g tournaments), but even then I'm sure they'd have some "House Rule" in order for it to apply to all Drop Pods.

It was something that came up for discussion in my group and consensus was that RAI was clear but that RAW the SM FAQ doesn't apply to BA

(Everyone agreed that really GW should just copy and paste into the other FAQ) and in a casual game you just agree with your opponent before it begins however I am just starting to play tournaments and in the stricter environment I wasn't sure

Even without the FAQ, the doors are supposed to be open. There is not RAI issue here. The doors open (hence the Open-Topped)
I realize that the Drop Pod model is a pain to assemble and it is reasonable to just glue them shut, but making the argument that they would block LoS is heading into "modeling for advantage" territory.

So basically either use the SM FAQ, or you are modeling for advantage. It is that simple.

Now, a reasonable player would be consider it able to see clearly though the Pod, but a cover save of 5+ for intervening models would apply.

-

Well my doors do open but we have a lot of terrain like low walls/hills that are not impassible terrain or Los blocking but would prevent a door/s opening

U02dah4 wrote:
Well my doors do open but we have a lot of terrain like low walls/hills that are not impassible terrain or Los blocking but would prevent a door/s opening

And that is exactly why I would assume you treat it as if you could fully open them and thus they could never block LoS.

I am only attacking the argument that one could glue the doors shut and than insist that they block LoS. Making that argument is what is unacceptable.
Gluing the doors shut, or not being able to open them due to placement is perfectly fine and acceptable. But just like sponsons, we have to assume they "could" move all the way

-

U02dah4 wrote:
Well my doors do open but we have a lot of terrain like low walls/hills that are not impassible terrain or Los blocking but would prevent a door/s opening

In these cases (e.g. low walls, trees, hedges etc), I tend to think of it this way (fluff perspective):

These doors are thundering open onto the ground so that the Astartes inside can deploy. These doors are either going to hit a high wall (in which case the wall or whatever it is will act as LOS-blocking anyway) or they will crush the low wall/tree/hedge/whatever in order to open and let the occupants deploy. Either way, the Drop Pod doors are effectively ignored.

I love how BA players spent the last year complaining about how they couldn't use the SM Dreadnaught stats, and then are now arguing they don't have to use the SM FAQ.

EnTyme wrote:I love how BA players spent the last year complaining about how they couldn't use the SM Dreadnaught stats, and then are now arguing they don't have to use the SM FAQ.

It sounds like it's less making that argument, and more pointing out yet another issue with GW rules being terrible.