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.

RustyKnight wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:
You can't see through a normal drop pod anyway, so you won't be "cheating" That is a total myth that you can shoot through a drop pod. You can never seen enough of an enemy model to do so, unless the drop pod is a dreadnought drop pod.

You're saying that is impossible to see even the tiniest sliver of a Dreadnought that is standing behind a drop pod? You're saying that one will never see the top of a Space Marines head if they are behind the drop pod? I'm looking at a picture of an open drop pod right now, and I would have no problem seeing something on the other side.

What if you modelled your drop pod to be totally solid in the middle with the seat brackets facing outward from that solid cylinder, leaving no room to walk "inside" it. One of my friends has done this as he has (quite rightly) realised that having so much empty weak space in a transport designed to smash into the ground at Mach 11 is idiotic to the extreme.

Its actually possible...however very difficult to hide a 10 man squad behind a GW drop pod and have it fully obscured. the seats actually will hide a very tightly packed unit behind it. However you them become very easy to kill from template weapons.

Dreads are another thing. Impossible to hide fully behind an open GW DP even with seats in it. However you will almost always get a cover save. Seatless pods are even harder to hide behind 50 %. Then its even harder if almost impossible to get an cover save behind a FW pod since its so darn big and empty.

Gwar! wrote:

f74 wrote:Why are people leaving the drop pod doors open anyway?

All the fluff has always said "on landing the bolts pop, doors open and marines leave" when have they ever said "then they close again?"

Where does it say they dont!

P.S. Just to move off topic in an already mad thread, does my Vassal banner look ok on the left or should i centre it?

Where does it say it doesnt have a nuke inside? As always, if it isnt written it isnt there regardless of logic or w/e.

Im wondering abit where you get the fact that "doors" doesnt count as part of the hull? If you measure for something reaching a vechile precisly where the doors are, dont they reach? How about the front door on a LR, arent they a part of its hull?

Kallbrand wrote:Im wondering abit where you get the fact that "doors" doesnt count as part of the hull?

From the rules for measuring distances wth Vehicles, where it tells us to ignore 'decorative elements'

Obviously, people's interpretation of what consitutes a 'decorative element' may vary, but a Drop Pod door which serves absolutely no purpose once the pod has landed and the door is laying on the ground, and which would result in no particularly effective damage on the pod if it was removed, certainly fits my (and from various similar discussions on this topic previously, most other players') definition of 'decorative'...

If you measure for something reaching a vechile precisly where the doors are, dont they reach?

If the door is closed, and this effectively forming a part of the vehicle's hull, yes.
If the door is open, and thus serving no purpose other than to stick out and create a closer point from which to measure, then no.

coredump wrote:While Yak is correct, I don't feel he was strong enough.

It does not seem reasonable to declare that the doors are part of the hull.
If they are, then his marines can deploy 2" from the edge of the petal, and *can't* be placed on the petal itself.
Likewise, it means you should model a door onto your LR, that will get you another few inches of assault range.

QFT

If the player insists that the ramps are part of the hull, then he can't deploy on them either. I don't think he would mind as it would give him a huge deployment advantage. However if it is a hull he would also possibly get hosed by the 'can't drop within 1in' of an enemy model when the doors drop.

imweasel wrote:

coredump wrote:While Yak is correct, I don't feel he was strong enough.

It does not seem reasonable to declare that the doors are part of the hull.
If they are, then his marines can deploy 2" from the edge of the petal, and *can't* be placed on the petal itself.
Likewise, it means you should model a door onto your LR, that will get you another few inches of assault range.

QFT

If the player insists that the ramps are part of the hull, then he can't deploy on them either. I don't think he would mind as it would give him a huge deployment advantage. However if it is a hull he would also possibly get hosed by the 'can't drop within 1in' of an enemy model when the doors drop.

Which is why you have the petals open, and position the drop pod so it is more than 1" from any enemy models, then roll for scatter. Even if you scatter onto an enemy, you reduce the scatter until you are more than 1" away from an enemy, then go off and deploy.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:That's my biggest issue - I know they try to make their FAQs look all pretty and such in PDF format, but I'd rather just have a huge list of simple questions (like ones that are emailed in, for example!) that is added on to on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Especially questions that are as simple as this - it's not like they need weeks of play testing to determine whether or not ruling either way would be overpowered.

Possibly because gw cannot write a faq any better than a bunch of monkeys having a fight at the zoo?

I mean, even most of their 'officially published faqs' are quite laughable. They have even taken the cowardly stance that the answers to faq's are 'gw house rules' and that only errata is an 'official rules change'.

I mean really,

/rant off

Ahhh, that feels so much better.

Gwar! wrote:Which is why you have the petals open, and position the drop pod so it is more than 1" from any enemy models, then roll for scatter. Even if you scatter onto an enemy, you reduce the scatter until you are more than 1" away from an enemy, then go off and deploy.

True, but it still can create problems with table edges and deployment.

Oh hai guise I thought I'd just leave this here...

The rulebook states specifically to use your judgement. If it looks like you can move there, or shoot that, you probably can. So with this in mind, you think a land raider won't climb over a roughly 1ft tall gradual incline? Guess they can't get over curbs or onto terrain base edges either Your buddy needs to quit hiding behind technicality and use better tactics. I personally prefer melta guns over drop pod doors to hinder my opponent's movement

I have just one question, would you measure from the open door of a LR? EXACT same situation guys.





-Orkishly

Whats he doingtrying to stay 1" away from a pod in a land raider??? he should be ramming it, negating the problem. then, your large petal thing works against the marine player.