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 product information page at GW's website (here) has three pictures of a Drop Pod in its entirety. 2/3 of the pictures show the doors shut.

JinxDragon wrote:
However 'hatches blown open' does change the way the drop operates on the field when it comes to line of sight and a few other places as well. Given how dramatically it changes game play, I would state it can not be considered fluff.

Please find the rules that define what 'hatches blown open' means in game terms.

If you can not we have to fall back on the dictionary definition of 'hatches blown open' and I would then expect you to use explosives or compressed air to get your Drop Pod hatches to be 'blown open' upon landing.

Or we can realize that this part of the sentence is fluff. They mix Fluff with rules all of the time.

 Sigvatr wrote:

5.7 The 'petals' of a Drop Pod are not taken into
account for disembarkement, LOS or cover
purposes.

I think you'll find that ruling is talking about the open doors being completely ignored.

When the doors are opened, that's the standard way of playing the pod: disembarking is still measured from the main hull of the pod, and the open doors are ignored for all in-game purposes.

....are people seriously claiming that "blown open doors" does not mean that they are open? I mean...really.

 Sigvatr wrote:
....are people seriously claiming that "blown open doors" does not mean that they are open? I mean...really.

No, they're saying that it's a fluff explanation for what happens when the pod lands. It doesn't require you to actually open the doors, any more than you need to open the doors on a land raider for the models inside to disembark despite that being what would happen fluffwise.

 Sigvatr wrote:
....are people seriously claiming that "blown open doors" does not mean that they are open? I mean...really.

1) It is not "blown open doors"

2) There are no rules for 'hatches are blown' (Which is what the Codex SM says P.69) then yes, the doors do not have to be opened as it mentions nothing about the hatches or doors being opened.

P.S. the Poll asks "Can a Drop Pod be deployed with the doors closed to both completely block line of sight and allow the crew to disembark?"

Clearly the RAW says yes, yet many many people say no in this poll. I wonder how many other house rules people play by considering about 70% of the people said "No, it cannot be used to completely block LOS" which of course is incorrect by the RAW.

Nm, I just did a forum search (aka google XXX + dakkadakka) and saw the "arguments" brought up.

I don't want to get such discussions starting again.

I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Why does modelling the doors closed put anyone "into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus."?

Must all vehicles be modeled with open doors? If not why should only certain vehicles have their doors modeled open?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Nm, I just did a forum search (aka google XXX + dakkadakka) and saw the "arguments" brought up.

I don't want to get such discussions starting again.

I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Red's a good color on me. And there's a word for people without beards: lady.

Caboose:
"I don't see your point here... Of course you're allowed to pod in next to mine and place your units however you want. And if you play your doors open, then by all means feel free to shoot."

My point being if your going to try and take advantage of a rule where it clearly does not apply, then don't whine if someone figures out a way to use your own 'interpretation' against you.

"Only thing douchey here would be your attitude... "
Yeah....because being clever enough to out-douche someone who is being a total D-Bag is.....what?

dkellyj wrote:
Caboose:
"I don't see your point here... Of course you're allowed to pod in next to mine and place your units however you want. And if you play your doors open, then by all means feel free to shoot."

My point being if your going to try and take advantage of a rule where it clearly does not apply, then don't whine if someone figures out a way to use your own 'interpretation' against you.

"Only thing douchey here would be your attitude... "
Yeah....because being clever enough to out-douche someone who is being a total D-Bag is.....what?

Didn't realize that tactics was a form of douchery. I'll see your douche and raise you an out-douchery.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Why does modelling the doors closed put anyone "into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus."?

Must all vehicles be modeled with open doors? If not why should only certain vehicles have their doors modeled open?

Are all vehicles open-topped? Do all vehicles have that prominent doors? Where does it state that a Rhino's /Land Raider's doors are blown open upon disembarking?

I just can't understand that some people seriously claim that the doors do not open upon landing given the wording we get in the codex. I just...don't get it. Anyway, the topic's been discussed a LOT and it's down on opinions. Just keep the golden rule in mind: listen to your TO / ref. And if playing with friends: clear the issue before it comes up.

Done.

dkellyj wrote:
My point being if your going to try and take advantage of a rule where it clearly does not apply, then don't whine if someone figures out a way to use your own 'interpretation' against you.

This still makes no sense. Nobody has claimed that the pod's LOS blocking only works one way. So your claim of 'out-douching' is nothing of the sort. You're seeing it as cleverly defeating a shady tactic... while those arguing in favour of the pod blocking LOS will simply see it as the game working as it is supposed to: If something blocks LOS, then it blocks LOS.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I also remember sth. about a doors + 1'' rule somewhere...recently read about it...will try to dig it up.

I'm on the side of them not blocking LOS, mainly because they are open-topped, supposed to open and (keep your crying to yourself) it's an official rule on EU tournaments:

Rulings on ambiguous rules made by tournamements are not 'official' since they apply to that tournament, and that tournament only. in that sense they are simply house rules, and house rules are just another way of saying 'How I would Play It'.
The only time a rule is 'official' in any capacity whatsoever is when it is printed in an official publication by GW, or the FAQ/errata for those publications.
Until an Errata or FAQ answers the question definitively either way, then the only sources for the rules are the BRB, the expansions, and the Codices.

madtankbloke wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I also remember sth. about a doors + 1'' rule somewhere...recently read about it...will try to dig it up.

I'm on the side of them not blocking LOS, mainly because they are open-topped, supposed to open and (keep your crying to yourself) it's an official rule on EU tournaments:

Rulings on ambiguous rules made by tournamements are not 'official' since they apply to that tournament, and that tournament only. in that sense they are simply house rules, and house rules are just another way of saying 'How I would Play It'.
The only time a rule is 'official' in any capacity whatsoever is when it is printed in an official publication by GW, or the FAQ/errata for those publications.
Until an Errata or FAQ answers the question definitively either way, then the only sources for the rules are the BRB, the expansions, and the Codices.

Technically speaking, the FAQs themselves are houserules - GW's house rules.

[quote=The Shrine of Knowledge]The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I just can't understand that some people seriously claim that the doors do not open upon landing given the wording we get in the codex.

Some of the misunderstanding might be coming from the fact that nobody is claiming that.

The disagreement is simply over whether it means that the doors on the model need to be opened, or whether that's just fluff. Infantry don't have to be positioned in a running pose when they perform a 'Run' move. Deep Striking models don't actually have to plummet from orbit. And vehicle doors don't actually have to open in order for the models inside to disembark.

TLOS gets my vote. True line of site Is a core rule and unless another rule specifically says to ignore it, it stays in play.

The drop pod model is just a bad design with bad instructions. I put together a few of those models and understand why some people glue the doors shut due to the frustration of lining them up.

On a side note what about the forge world drop pod mini which has a solid interior that can't be seen through?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Yay... this thread again...

The doors should count as being open even if they are not on the model. Otherwise I will call you on disembarking, LOS on the weapon, etc.

I can disembark fine with the doors closed, However the Stormbolter (standard) can not draw LOS.

Do you flip open your Rhino door when you get out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Why does modelling the doors closed put anyone "into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus."?

Must all vehicles be modeled with open doors? If not why should only certain vehicles have their doors modeled open?

Are all vehicles open-topped? Do all vehicles have that prominent doors? Where does it state that a Rhino's /Land Raider's doors are blown open upon disembarking?

I just can't understand that some people seriously claim that the doors do not open upon landing given the wording we get in the codex. I just...don't get it. Anyway, the topic's been discussed a LOT and it's down on opinions. Just keep the golden rule in mind: listen to your TO / ref. And if playing with friends: clear the issue before it comes up.

Done.

/undone.

Not all open topped Vehicles are "open"
Most vehicles do have prominent doors
Thats a nice piece of fluff there, is there anything in the actual rules for Drop Pod Deployment?

The poll avg is RAW wrong, which is hilarious. However it's HIWPI.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am fine with people stating that it might be RAW for doors to block LOS. Sure. But playing it that way immediately puts you straight into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus.

Why does modelling the doors closed put anyone "into dark red TFG territory with extra neckbeard bonus."?

Must all vehicles be modeled with open doors? If not why should only certain vehicles have their doors modeled open?

Are all vehicles open-topped?

Open topped vehicles are not required to be modeled with open doors, unless you have a page and graph that contradicts this statement.

Do all vehicles have that prominent doors?

I am unsure what "prominent doors" has to do with, well, anything.

Where does it state that a Rhino's /Land Raider's doors are blown open upon disembarking?

It doesn't, and neither does the Drop Pod doors.

The rule states "'hatches are blown" Codex SM P.69 Not 'doors are blown open'

That part is fluff, there are no rules that require an open topped vehicle to open its doors any more than there is for a non open-topped vehicle.

IamCaboose wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Caboose:
"I don't see your point here... Of course you're allowed to pod in next to mine and place your units however you want. And if you play your doors open, then by all means feel free to shoot."

My point being if your going to try and take advantage of a rule where it clearly does not apply, then don't whine if someone figures out a way to use your own 'interpretation' against you.

"Only thing douchey here would be your attitude... "
Yeah....because being clever enough to out-douche someone who is being a total D-Bag is.....what?

Didn't realize that tactics was a form of douchery. I'll see your douche and raise you an out-douchery.

Well, that was my entire point. If someone is going to be a DB and bend rules to fit the specific way they put a model together, they should not whine when someone comes along and outplays them using their own rules against them.

dkellyj wrote:
Well, that was my entire point. If someone is going to be a DB and bend rules to fit the specific way they put a model together, they should not whine when someone comes along and outplays them using their own rules against them.

You keep saying that, despite the response to your DB 'counter' being that it is perfectly acceptable within the rules.

Nobody who is arguing in favour of the closed pod blocking LOS is whining about that working against them.

Consider this: You model yours with hatches closed and claim it Blocks LoS.
I build mine with hatches open (or not even installed; ie: blown off) and claim it only provides a cover save.
You pod in a unit somewhere mid field, with the bulk of your army in the deployment zone, and disembark. You then claim that my Plasma Dev Squad may not shoot at a Terminator unit in your deployment zone because the Pod is now blocking my LoS. I then drop a pod next to your unit and deploy my unit so your pod is between my unit and your deployment area.
I then shoot your guys through my open pod (say with AP3 Vengeance rounds from SG) and grant you a cover save only...killing your whole squad on failed saves.
When you then try to shoot my unit from your deployment zone I then claim YOUR RULE that your closed hatch pod blocks your LoS and you can't shoot me. And since your Pod blocks LoS your charging Terminator Squad can't assault me either until you work around your own pod and get LoS.

Regardless, in the Codex on pg. 69 under "TRANSPORT" the description is rather clear what happens. Trying to claim that your pod's HATCHES (NOT DOORS!!!!) remount themselves is purely playing WAAC. Regardless how someone misbuilds the model for whatever reason (the instruction sheet NEVER has you gluing the hatches shut. It does show you gluing the structural ribs in place with the doors in the open position).
Note that all other SM transports the term "door" is not used. They are "access points" and have their own rules for disembarking. If the Pods Hatches were intended to close and make the pod blocking LoS, they would have called them Access Points (5 of them) and used the same rules as a Rhino access point.
(EDIT) They would have also made the DP weapon an external mount in that case. The fact the pods weapon (including upgraded Deathwind launcher) are internal clearly indicates the intent of how the model should be played (hatches open).

dkellyj wrote:
Consider this: You model yours with hatches closed and claim it Blocks LoS.
I build mine with hatches open (or not even installed; ie: blown off) and claim it only provides a cover save.
You pod in a unit somewhere mid field, with the bulk of your army in the deployment zone, and disembark. You then claim that my Plasma Dev Squad may not shoot at a Terminator unit in your deployment zone because the Pod is now blocking my LoS. I then drop a pod next to your unit and deploy my unit so your pod is between my unit and your deployment area.
I then shoot your guys through my open pod (say with AP3 Vengeance rounds from SG) and grant you a cover save only...killing your whole squad on failed saves.
When you then try to shoot my unit from your deployment zone I then claim YOUR RULE that your closed hatch pod blocks your LoS and you can't shoot me. And since your Pod blocks LoS your charging Terminator Squad can't assault me either until you work around your own pod and get LoS.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If my pod is blocking LOS, I wouldn't be trying to shoot through it in the first place.

Trying to claim that your pod's HATCHES (NOT DOORS!!!!) remount themselves is purely playing WAAC.

I have no idea what this even means. What do you mean by 'remounting' the doors? (it makes no difference what you call them...)

Regardless how someone misbuilds the model for whatever reason (the instruction sheet NEVER has you gluing the hatches shut. It does show you gluing the structural ribs in place with the doors in the open position).

Leaving the doors shut when you deploy the pod does not require them to be glued.

If the Pods Hatches were intended to close...

Nobody has said that they are intended to close. They have just pointed out that there is no actual requirement to open them.

... and make the pod blocking LoS, they would have called them Access Points (5 of them) and used the same rules as a Rhino access point.

Open topped vehicles don't have access points.

 insaniak wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Consider this: You model yours with hatches closed and claim it Blocks LoS.
I build mine with hatches open (or not even installed; ie: blown off) and claim it only provides a cover save.
You pod in a unit somewhere mid field, with the bulk of your army in the deployment zone, and disembark. You then claim that my Plasma Dev Squad may not shoot at a Terminator unit in your deployment zone because the Pod is now blocking my LoS. I then drop a pod next to your unit and deploy my unit so your pod is between my unit and your deployment area.
I then shoot your guys through my open pod (say with AP3 Vengeance rounds from SG) and grant you a cover save only...killing your whole squad on failed saves.
When you then try to shoot my unit from your deployment zone I then claim YOUR RULE that your closed hatch pod blocks your LoS and you can't shoot me. And since your Pod blocks LoS your charging Terminator Squad can't assault me either until you work around your own pod and get LoS.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If my pod is blocking LOS, I wouldn't be trying to shoot through it in the first place.

Trying to claim that your pod's HATCHES (NOT DOORS!!!!) remount themselves is purely playing WAAC.

I have no idea what this even means. What do you mean by 'remounting' the doors? (it makes no difference what you call them...)

Regardless how someone misbuilds the model for whatever reason (the instruction sheet NEVER has you gluing the hatches shut. It does show you gluing the structural ribs in place with the doors in the open position).

Leaving the doors shut when you deploy the pod does not require them to be glued.

If the Pods Hatches were intended to close...

Nobody has said that they are intended to close. They have just pointed out that there is no actual requirement to open them.

... and make the pod blocking LoS, they would have called them Access Points (5 of them) and used the same rules as a Rhino access point.

Open topped vehicles don't have access points.

Insaniak is on the ball today.

68% of the poeple that voted say you can't block LOS. I think were done here.

I would like to start off by saying that GW should have FAQ'd this a LONG time ago. I also understand that the model can be a real PITA to put together, and many players would rather just glue the doors to the body and call it a day instead of trying to fiddle around with the inside bitz. Personally, I usually play it however the opponent has it modeled, and honestly, just blow it up first and then nuke the squad inside Some can make the argument that gluing the doors closed constitutes modeling for advantage, and to be honest, against some opponents I've felt the same thing. However, people using the model to block line of site is no different than someone using a rhino or land raider to do the same. Lesson here? Blow up the drop pod first.

RAW I say it blocks line of sight and you are under no obligation to lower the doors.

I don't really care if my opponent wants to play that way, or treat them as open when closed or what, but if they did choose to play that they block LOS, I would insist you either open all the doors, or none of them, so you can't drop them to block LOS while opening half the pod to let it's weapon system fire.

Again, a few hours past and more posts to look through but that can wait till I have time.

I just wanted to quickly say that I have thought on one of the two questions put forth by myself and decided I have an answer. Yes, rules can exist in the same sections as fluff thanks to the way Game Workshop writes. That just makes things far more confusion, so why would I have ever thought they would do it any other way. Frankly, the explanation that they are really green-skins so the rules do not have to follow what we would consider to be logic is adequate.

I still consider 'hatches blown' a rule, just one I have no real clue how to properly interpret as it is poorly written.

If something is written in such a way that it can change the outcome of the game it needs to be taken seriously. You can not just decide that a game altering part of any rule book can be ignored as 'fluff.' As this sentence has the possibility of changing the outcome of the game, it can not just be waved away. Sadly with how poorly written it is, if they had just stated open the hatches, it is not clear as to what it means. That leads to individual interpretations and with no way to determine exactly who is correct until we get a FAQ related to it which clearly is going to be never.

In the end, this is going to come down what the players, or tournament organizers, decide this sentence means.

 General_Chaos wrote:
68% of the poeple that voted say you can't block LOS. I think were done here.

You don't think that one in three players disagreeing is sufficient cause for discussion?

 insaniak wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Consider this: You model yours with hatches closed and claim it Blocks LoS.
I build mine with hatches open (or not even installed; ie: blown off) and claim it only provides a cover save.
You pod in a unit somewhere mid field, with the bulk of your army in the deployment zone, and disembark. You then claim that my Plasma Dev Squad may not shoot at a Terminator unit in your deployment zone because the Pod is now blocking my LoS. I then drop a pod next to your unit and deploy my unit so your pod is between my unit and your deployment area.
I then shoot your guys through my open pod (say with AP3 Vengeance rounds from SG) and grant you a cover save only...killing your whole squad on failed saves.
When you then try to shoot my unit from your deployment zone I then claim YOUR RULE that your closed hatch pod blocks your LoS and you can't shoot me. And since your Pod blocks LoS your charging Terminator Squad can't assault me either until you work around your own pod and get LoS.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If my pod is blocking LOS, I wouldn't be trying to shoot through it in the first place.

Just showing how to take advantage of someone elses rules interpretation.

Trying to claim that your pod's HATCHES (NOT DOORS!!!!) remount themselves is purely playing WAAC.

I have no idea what this even means. What do you mean by 'remounting' the doors? (it makes no difference what you call them...)

First, it does matter what you call them. Doors open and close. Hatches do not. The Codex is very specific about calling this a hatch, and a normal entry/exit on a Rhino/LR an Access Point. It is what makes the 2 units different.
The Codex states the Hatches are blown (and don't be ignorant...we ALL know exactly what that means). They are explosively removed allowing instant egress.

Regardless how someone misbuilds the model for whatever reason (the instruction sheet NEVER has you gluing the hatches shut. It does show you gluing the structural ribs in place with the doors in the open position).

Leaving the doors shut when you deploy the pod does not require them to be glued.
Not doors. HATCHES. The language is specific in the Codex and key to how the pod is played. A "door" may be opened and shut as needed. A hatch is either in place or removed. The Pod lands and "blows its hatches"...they are removed.

If the Pods Hatches were intended to close...

Nobody has said that they are intended to close. They have just pointed out that there is no actual requirement to open them.

So if you don't open them how do you disembark? Playing them as if they were in place (blocking LoS) means they had to open to let you out, then close again to block LoS. That is NOT the Codex description of what happens.

... and make the pod blocking LoS, they would have called them Access Points (5 of them) and used the same rules as a Rhino access point.

Open topped vehicles don't have access points.

And neither do drop pods. They have hatches with their own unique rule in the codex. The Hatches are blown and all models must disembark. No models may re-embark.