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.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I see what you're saying, but the lack of an exclusion from the TLOS rule isn't what I meant (my bad for not being clear enough ). Does page 8 explicitly state that the parts of the model which you cannot draw line of sight to still block line of sight to other models?

No.
It says to use TLOS. Does a models wing block line of sight? I know my Flyrants wings are not transparent.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The common convention is that you cannot draw line of sight TO downward-deployed pod doors. (You have to draw LOS all the way to the pod.) The minority argument is that those same doors that you ignore for LOS purposes (when drawing LOS to the pod) will not be ignored when drawing LOS through the pod. And I don't really understand that.

It's because you're lookign at two completely different situations.

The doors when they are down are ignored because the alternative creates silliness. If you allow LOS to the open doors, then you're treating them as a part of the hull and so models would also be able to disembark from them. If you disallow disembarking from the outstretched doors, then you also have to remove them from LOS consideration in the interests of fairness.

When the doors are up, there is no reason to do this. By trying to ignroe the doors for LOS in that situation, you're changing the LOS rules for no good reason, and just creating a situation where players have to try to extrapolate what can and can't be seen through the pod without actually being able to see it.

Essentially, the pod with the doors up is free to follow the actual rules as written. You measure to the hull, and the physical parts of the pod block LOS as per the normal LOS rules.
With the pod doors down, convention says to modeify the rules slightly in the interests of keeping the pod playable, because playing by the RAW is awkward, and potentially renders the pod useless, particularly if you are using more than one or two of them.

I don't have my book on my (sorry ) but does page 8 really specify both of those things? (That the banners/wings/etc both are not counted for establishing LOS to the model AND that banners/wings/etc DO count for establishing LOS through/over the model?)

An exception to the LOS rules is created for certain parts of the model so that they don't count for drawing LOS to the model. No such exception is made for the model blocking LOS... so these parts still block LOS as normal.

It isn't so much that the rules allow them to block line of sight, it is more that the rules establish an exception for using them to target the model in question. So it isn't so much a stated in the rules in that exact wording, but it is derived from the lack of a rule giving you permission to ignore wings to trace line of sight to other models. One of those 'follow these basic rules, except in this one instance' sort of thing that you will find throughout the books and codex.

While it doesn't make logical sense that it works both ways, depending on if your targeting the model in question or models behind it, that is how it works.

Well then, I learned something today.

It's rare that I find some aspect of the 40k rules that I can't justify in my mind to make it make sense, but this one qualifies. Oh well. It's a game, after all, not a simulation. I can deal.

Roll a d6

Lungpickle wrote:
Roll a d6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54VJWHL2K3I

Wow! A lot of talk on here but not a lot logical discussion to support the pro or anti perspective.

I play DPs in lists composed of 4 to 10 pods and always ensure that the doors are modeled such that they can be deployed. If a DP were ot have the doors glued in the shut position then the unit is unable to deploy. Reasons being are two-fold;

1) The model kit instructs the door pins to be free of glue, the model is intended to have doors that open. There shouldn't need to be a rule in the book to explain that the doors are to opened the model kit covers this with the instuctions.
2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing. The event of a hatch failure would create the situation of a DP with doors in the closed position. In that case, the weapon mount inside would not only be unable to fire but the unit inside would be unable to deploy.

You can argue rules all day long on this and complain how GW srewed up the wording on how a toy model is unclear. However, if anyone of my opponents were to try and play his DPs with closed doors, claim blocking LOS, and credit GW with faulty rules to justify it I would tell him to hit the bricks. Just my opinion and position.

meh, reason one is rather shaky on it's own. Assembly instructions =/= rules. reason 2 is unfounded and circular.

IMO the best reason (other that practical game balance/MFA/Consensus ones) for requiring the doors to open is the StormBolter. I know of no hull or turrent mounted weapon that is inside the hull.

also - I was sorely temped to link that d6 video, but was trying to stay on task.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
W
2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing.

That is not what the entry in theSM Codex says.

"Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers..." P.69 SM Codex (Emphasis mine)

"the hatches are blown", not blown open, just blown.

please get the quote correct.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Wow! A lot of talk on here but not a lot logical discussion to support the pro or anti perspective.

I play DPs in lists composed of 4 to 10 pods and always ensure that the doors are modeled such that they can be deployed. If a DP were ot have the doors glued in the shut position then the unit is unable to deploy. Reasons being are two-fold;

1) The model kit instructs the door pins to be free of glue, the model is intended to have doors that open. There shouldn't need to be a rule in the book to explain that the doors are to opened the model kit covers this with the instuctions.
2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing. The event of a hatch failure would create the situation of a DP with doors in the closed position. In that case, the weapon mount inside would not only be unable to fire but the unit inside would be unable to deploy.

You can argue rules all day long on this and complain how GW srewed up the wording on how a toy model is unclear. However, if anyone of my opponents were to try and play his DPs with closed doors, claim blocking LOS, and credit GW with faulty rules to justify it I would tell him to hit the bricks. Just my opinion and position.

1)Free of glue meaning they can be open or tada Closed. Otherwise how do those pesky SM's get out of their Rhinos.

2)Common sense does not apply to WH40k.
Nothing states if a door does not open a unit may not disembark.

If they're not glued, you open them. If they're glued, disembark as normal, and the pod can block LOS. This goes both ways though - shooting with the pod's weapon follows the TLOS rules (i.e., it cannot draw LOS to anything if the doors are closed).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
W
2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact to facilitate rapid deployment would be incapable of closing.

That is not what the entry in theSM Codex says.

"Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers..." P.69 SM Codex (Emphasis mine)

"the hatches are blown", not blown open, just blown.

please get the quote correct.

Why bother blowing the hatches open rather than unseal them?

I think the main argument I see for drop pods being open and not wholly LoS blocking is that they're designed as lightning strike craft. It doesn't make sense to throw down your drop pods and have them sit there to be shot to pieces with men inside. In fact this, to my knowledge, has never been portrayed in any 40k media.

As well, given the nature of the Drop Pod navigation system (which is disabled on landing and immediately moves to targeting functions), it seems only logical from the fluff that the doors are blown open automatically (as the machine spirit seems to no longer handle the basic operations of the pod, aside from weapons systems.

It's possible that a flaw could keep a drop pod's side from opening correctly, but given the possibility of scatter, it makes no military sense to have certain doors not open while others do.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact

Not only common sense, it's RAW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact

Not only common sense, it's RAW.

Find the rule saying the doors must be opened

Page and graph will suffice.

 Hashbeth wrote:

I think the main argument I see for drop pods being open and not wholly LoS blocking is that they're designed as lightning strike craft. It doesn't make sense to throw down your drop pods and have them sit there to be shot to pieces with men inside. In fact this, to my knowledge, has never been portrayed in any 40k media.

I think you've missed the point of the discussion slightly.

Nobody is contesting the idea that the drop pod's doors open to allow the troops to disembark. The argument its simply that there is no more reason, rules wise, that this has to be portrayed by open doors on the model than there is any other transport vehicle. Fluff wise, the assault ramp on the land raider has to open to let the troops out... But that doesn't mean that you physically have to open that ramp.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact

Not only common sense, it's RAW.

Find the rule saying the doors must be opened

Page and graph will suffice.

Quoted multiple times in this thread, it's in the Drop Pod's rules. Thanks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

2) Common sense dictates that hatches (doors) that are blown open upon impact

Not only common sense, it's RAW.

Find the rule saying the doors must be opened

Page and graph will suffice.

Fined the rules stating Doors must be ignored when placing the model. other wise by leaving the doors up you are MFA, as you are reducing the footprint size of the model. to enable you to place it on the board easier.

Oh that's right there isn't any.

Sigvatr - nope, no rules saying the doors must be opened. There is a piece of fluff saying the hatches are blown - if you are saying those are rules, I assume you attach small explosive bolts to your model? As simply lowering them does not fit the contextual meaning of "blown"?

Cerbrus - again, you are stating you must open the doors. Find a rule requiring that.

there isnt one. It isnt "modelling for advantage" to leave your stock assembled model with the doors closed on a drop pod any mroe than it is on a land raider.

You have zero rules support for your position.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigvatr - nope, no rules saying the doors must be opened. There is a piece of fluff saying the hatches are blown - if you are saying those are rules, I assume you attach small explosive bolts to your model? As simply lowering them does not fit the contextual meaning of "blown"?

Cerbrus - again, you are stating you must open the doors. Find a rule requiring that.

there isnt one. It isnt "modelling for advantage" to leave your stock assembled model with the doors closed on a drop pod any mroe than it is on a land raider.

You have zero rules support for your position.

I have the deep strike rules actually and the pods rules them selfs. Stating that the model must be placed on the table, and must not be placed on area terrain or with 1" of a enemy model. The doors are part of that model. By not opening the doors you are reducing the footprint of the model and thus MFA. You would be the first to moan if I put my terminators on 25mm bases so I can get a tighter and smaller circle formation in order to deep strike it in easier.

If you want to rule lawyer then so will I... Simple.

Themselves

Find a rule that you must OPEN the doors before placing the model. Page and graph will suffice

If you reread your posts you will notice a total lack of proof for the assertion you are making that you must open the doors. Note; "hatches are blown" is not "doors must be opened", before you attempt to try that failed argument out.

How is it "MFA" to use the stock model in a stock pose? Please explain

Finally: you may want to tone down the negatives you are throwing about others motives. I have simply asked you, as per the tenets of the forum that you are posting in, to back up your argument with a writtne rule. You have been unable to do so

Further refusal to provide the explicit rule stating "when placing the drop pod the doors must be opened out" (or some such rule) will be accepted as concession that you are making a HIWPI argument and not one based on rules.

cerbrus2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigvatr - nope, no rules saying the doors must be opened. There is a piece of fluff saying the hatches are blown - if you are saying those are rules, I assume you attach small explosive bolts to your model? As simply lowering them does not fit the contextual meaning of "blown"?

Cerbrus - again, you are stating you must open the doors. Find a rule requiring that.

there isnt one. It isnt "modelling for advantage" to leave your stock assembled model with the doors closed on a drop pod any mroe than it is on a land raider.

You have zero rules support for your position.

I have the deep strike rules actually and the pods rules them selfs. Stating that the model must be placed on the table, and must not be placed on area terrain or with 1" of a enemy model. The doors are part of that model. By not opening the doors you are reducing the footprint of the model and thus MFA. You would be the first to moan if I put my terminators on 25mm bases so I can get a tighter and smaller circle formation in order to deep strike it in easier.

If you want to rule lawyer then so will I... Simple.

Yes, the doors are part of the model.
Do you open the doors on your Land Raiders, Rhinos, or other vehicles? No? You're modeling for advantage as well then.
Oh - there's no rule requiring doors to be opened? Okay.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Themselves

Find a rule that you must OPEN the doors before placing the model. Page and graph will suffice

If you reread your posts you will notice a total lack of proof for the assertion you are making that you must open the doors. Note; "hatches are blown" is not "doors must be opened", before you attempt to try that failed argument out.

How is it "MFA" to use the stock model in a stock pose? Please explain

Finally: you may want to tone down the negatives you are throwing about others motives. I have simply asked you, as per the tenets of the forum that you are posting in, to back up your argument with a writtne rule. You have been unable to do so

Further refusal to provide the explicit rule stating "when placing the drop pod the doors must be opened out" (or some such rule) will be accepted as concession that you are making a HIWPI argument and not one based on rules.

The doors are part of the model. Ther is no rule stating that the doors must be ignored, considering they are designed to open. I'm simply showing you that there is more than one way to skin a cat. There is only a rule stating that the model must be placed. It does not say the model must be placed and the doors ignored. Asking me to show you the rules to say doors must be opened when p,acing them. Is like asking you to show me the rule that says you can keep them closed. The rules are permissions. And there is no permission rule to support either argument. It's a simple fact that 8 pages long of the same argument is stupid. And will only be solved by a FAQ or a dice roll among players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

cerbrus2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigvatr - nope, no rules saying the doors must be opened. There is a piece of fluff saying the hatches are blown - if you are saying those are rules, I assume you attach small explosive bolts to your model? As simply lowering them does not fit the contextual meaning of "blown"?

Cerbrus - again, you are stating you must open the doors. Find a rule requiring that.

there isnt one. It isnt "modelling for advantage" to leave your stock assembled model with the doors closed on a drop pod any mroe than it is on a land raider.

You have zero rules support for your position.

I have the deep strike rules actually and the pods rules them selfs. Stating that the model must be placed on the table, and must not be placed on area terrain or with 1" of a enemy model. The doors are part of that model. By not opening the doors you are reducing the footprint of the model and thus MFA. You would be the first to moan if I put my terminators on 25mm bases so I can get a tighter and smaller circle formation in order to deep strike it in easier.

If you want to rule lawyer then so will I... Simple.

Yes, the doors are part of the model.
Do you open the doors on your Land Raiders, Rhinos, or other vehicles? No? You're modeling for advantage as well then.
Oh - there's no rule requiring doors to be opened? Okay.

Actually all the pics from m battle reports show my rhino doors and land raider doors open. Even the hatch on the rear of my devil fish get opened. It makes for better pics. Plus I botherd to paint the inside of them as we'll

cerbrus2 wrote:
Actually all the pics from m battle reports show my rhino doors and land raider doors open. Even the hatch on the rear of my devil fish get opened. It makes for better pics. Plus I botherd to paint the inside of them as we'll

But you don't have any rules requiring the doors to open - you just do so because it looks cool, right?
And in fact, in a permissive rule set, you need permission to alter the model once it's in play...
You have no permission to do so, do you?

Cerbrus - so, can you please find a rule that says the doors must be opened, otherwise you are ignoring them?

Can you explain the MFA comment, on a stock model in a stock pose? Anything?

You have NO rules based argument that states the doors must be opened when landing. None. Thtat is because there are NO RULES requiring this. None.

The sooner people accept that is the case, the easier this thread becomes.

cerbrus2 wrote:
Fined the rules stating Doors must be ignored when placing the model. other wise by leaving the doors up you are MFA, as you are reducing the footprint size of the model. to enable you to place it on the board easier.

Oh that's right there isn't any.

The doors being up does not make the pod able to be placed on the board easier...

The doors being open actually hurts the enemy more than the person with the drop pod. A player with 3-5 drop pods can section off the battlefield quite nicely, and make you fight his fight.

Since the doors are not ignored, there is a huge disembark zone for all those sternguard in a pedro scoring, and that is a lot of combi melta/combi plasma coming the opponents way. All from 6 5-man scoring units in 3 pods.

please get the quote correct.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing. Had I been quoting I would have referenced a page number and placed the wording in quotations.

Clearly you were not quoting, as your statement had nothing to do with the actual rule. you were not even paraphrasing. your assertion was completely incorrect.

2)Common sense does not apply to WH40k.
Nothing states if a door does not open a unit may not disembark.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
So you have to ask yourself why do I want those DPs to block LOS? Is it to protect my unit from return fire after I hit the table, or make the unit a non-viable target for a charge? This is a modeling for advantage situation clear and simple

Deploying a stock build unmodified GW model with the doors closed is "a modeling for advantage situation clear and simple"? (This is clearly not MFA).

Do you require Land Raiders, Rhinos etc... to be modeled with functioning doors?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing. Had I been quoting I would have referenced a page number and placed the wording in quotations.

Clearly you were not quoting, as your statement had nothing to do with the actual rule. you were not even paraphrasing. your assertion was completely incorrect.

Not at all, it just did not agree with your thinking plain and simple. You can argue all that you want about my "assertions", but it makes them no less valid than yours.