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.

 insaniak wrote:
And here's thing thing with that: If you modelled your rhino with the ramps down, and the internal shutters removed, you woud be able to see through it. Yes, that would take some conversion... but once that model was on the table, that's how it would work, as per the LOS rules.

How a model is put together matters. A kneeling marine has different LOS to a standing one. A roughrider on a bike has different LOS to one on a horse (although nobody ever seems to complain about that either). And yes, a pod with the doors up blocks LOS differently to one with the doors down. In the grand scheme of things, with the number of different options available to change your models' LOS profiles even without scratchbuilding or converting, it's really not that big a deal.

Here's the thing though. With the rhino, someone would have to spend a great deal of effort to make it function as a non-LOS blocking vehicle. With the drop pod, it's the opposite. With no effort at all the pod completely can block LOS. Less to glue, less to paint, "extra" bits you can sell or trade away. And hey, bonus, gluing the doors shut usually helps the player fielding the pods. That's just lame. I'd rather go with the "icky" plan of allowing someone like you to actually disembark your troops out of the pod (unlike Poly Ranger who never would let you do that), as long as there is a single stand in which allows us both to see through a given spot where a pod resides. You get to keep using your old (and probably cool looking) PVC pods and you only had to make one non(?)-cool hole-y or see-through one. Or if I were desparate for a game (lol) maybe I would even play you with your door-less pods, but I'd probably make fun of them the entire game. As I would if someone modeled a marine on stilts.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:
No I didnt. I said IF they carried troops he would have to nominate which door was coming down to let them out. Pure and simple. And funnily enough i can imagine that door being down without insaniak having to break his model open. As im sure he could. Please read my posts.
Again... please with logic or rules (i really aren't fussy which) explain why a drop pod doesnt block LOS with the doors up or why the doors (all or any) have to be down...

HIS PODS ARE PVC PIPES. The doors don't open. Your imagination comment completely contradicted your earlier comment. No consistency. SMH.

I have 2 pre model pods that I built, and 1 regular drop pod model.

I tell my opponents this before games and show them the models.

They are different models and function differently in games, just like these models that are all Space Marine Scouts with Sniper rifles function differently from one another in the game for Line of Sight purposes, simply because GW modeled them differently.

The top left sniper is kneeling, he has a different line of sight than the others simply because his eyes are closer to the ground.

Poly Ranger wrote:
No I didnt. I said IF they carried troops he would have to nominate which door was coming down to let them out. Pure and simple. And funnily enough i can imagine that door being down without insaniak having to break his model open. As im sure he could. Please read my posts...

There is no need at all to nominate which doors are opening. The pod is an open-topped vehicle. Models just deploy from any point on the hull. The doors do not need to be open for this process to work.

I fail to see how it does. I am not a mean spirited person and would not make sombody break a model for the sake of a game. If he declares which door he exited out of then that door is open. If the door behind it is closed then i still cannot see through the drop pod so it makes absolutely no difference.
Anyhow ive asked you on repeated occassions to answer with either rules or logic and you are either unable or unwilling. Your only suggestions have been its beardy seemingly because you do not personally like the idea. Therefore i feel this debate is pointless with you.
Furthermore i am tired and will be teaching enough kids on their first day back at school tomorrow with the "i dont like it, i dont like it, i dont like it, *stomps feet*" attitude that im going to sign off now and get a good nights sleep. Enjoy your evening.

Super Newb wrote:
Here's the thing though. With the rhino, someone would have to spend a great deal of effort to make it function as a non-LOS blocking vehicle.

Cutting the interior louvre out and gluing the ramp in the open position isn't really a 'great deal' of effort.

And hey, bonus, gluing the doors shut usually helps the player fielding the pods.

So, let's assume I'm using a gunline army (which my regular marines pretty much are), and so my Command Squad dropping in a closed pod in front of my lines actually hampers me more than my opponent's close-combat oriented army. Is it still beardy?

That's the problem with making model judgements based on the perceived intention of the builder.

The other problem of course being the one I mentioned earlier... In a game where your LOS can be drastically affected by whether or not you choose to buy the model that is standing up or the one that is lying down, does it really matter if you occasionally have to take a step to the right in order to shoot past a drop pod?

Ok Insaniak we do seem to disagree on that point even though it will only make a difference in gameplay if you try and shoot 'through' the pod from the inside (which youbsay you cant do due to LOS). However we do agree on the main LOS issue which is the game effecting rule and the one which really matters. Have a good evening yourself as well.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why aren't the doors supposed to be up?

Because they 'blow off' and dudes come out of them?

Citation needed. you can shoot through a Land Raider if you can draw line of sight through a a Land Raider. If the LR was modeled with the doors open there is a possibility to be able to shoot through one.

Uh huh, just like I can model all of my marines as outlines instead of solid figures. I may as well give them unicorn horns to because both of these hypothetical situations aren't going to happen, or if they do are as rare as unicorns. I am not sure if you are arguing this way just to be funny, or if you find nothing distasteful in this game so long as a rule could possibly support it no matter how twisted the outcome. I mean hey, let me do a 180 on my example, why should I let my opponent shoot between my models? I should just make certain units containing marines made out of cylinders of clay, which when placed base to base allow no LOS through. Legal (probably) in-game and perfectly cool with you I'm sure.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

And hey, bonus, gluing the doors shut usually helps the player fielding the pods.

So, let's assume I'm using a gunline army (which my regular marines pretty much are), and so my Command Squad dropping in a closed pod in front of my lines actually hampers me more than my opponent's close-combat oriented army. Is it still beardy?

1) I don't use beardy because ... No offense but that word is ridiculous to me and I would feel like less of a person if I heard that word coming out of my mouth. Much like 'YOLO' which was all the rage for awhile. LOL.

2) My point is that LOS-blocking pods USUALLY help the person fielding them. Do you dispute that? Your comment up there completely disregards my actual point. I am not sure if that's because you misunderstood or you aren't arguing in good faith anymore, but you see that *always* is not what I am saying right? No, I said usually. It's usually helpful for the person fielding them AND the model is simplier to build, easier to paint and so on. That tips heavily into the LAME scale. Not as heavily as my imaginary cylindrical marines, but still in the LAME direction.

That's the problem with making model judgements based on the perceived intention of the builder.

Rich coming from the person doing their best to misperceive the written word of yours truly.

In a game where your LOS can be drastically affected by whether or not you choose to buy the model that is standing up or the one that is lying down, does it really matter if you occasionally have to take a step to the right in order to shoot past a drop pod?

Do you really think WAAC gamers would field models lying down if 1) it hurt their chances and 2) there weren't other options available? Please.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Here's the thing though. With the rhino, someone would have to spend a great deal of effort to make it function as a non-LOS blocking vehicle.

Cutting the interior louvre out and gluing the ramp in the open position isn't really a 'great deal' of effort.

Sad. It's almost like you're trying to score (irrelevant and pointless) points rather than deal with the actual arguments made. What about the side doors? Heck, why not make the Rhino some wheels and a box frame? You know, just because, for no reason at all. Which is basically your point with gluing the ramp down and curtting a big hole through the middle. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Which is why no one does it. Contrast that with the drop pods where people actually glue the doors shut because it's faster to build, easier to paint and usually more helpful to the person fielding it.

Uggh, this is going to be fun. To start with;

Poly Ranger wrote:
OPEN ONE OR TWO DOORS! NOTHING in the rules or in any logical fluff based or real life scenario says that you have to open every door of a vehicle to exit it. Thats pure and simple logic backed up with rules that do not EVER state that you have to open every access point to move out of a vehicle.

While it would not be MFA, wouldn't it be deploying for advantage? Seriously though, I've seen people scatter where only one or two doors were physically able to open due to terrain.

Super Newb wrote:
No one in their right mind would try to claim that the doors count as part of the hull, lol. Imagine disembarking within 6 inches of the opened door petals on the table!? LOL.

I've actually seen someone claim the doors count. The argument was that doors are not gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc. The other player said OK, that means I scatter even less and have a bigger footprint to disembark from.

Super Newb wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why aren't the doors supposed to be up?

Because they 'blow off' and dudes come out of them?

So you have a rule that says this? There is fluff support for it when it says the hatches are blown. Why is it people insist that "the hatches are blown" means that the doors simply have to open? If that is the rule then my opponent better affix explosives to his drop pod so that the hatches get blown when they land.

Uh huh, just like I can model all of my marines as outlines instead of solid figures. I may as well give them unicorn horns to because both of these hypothetical situations aren't going to happen, or if they do are as rare as unicorns. I am not sure if you are arguing this way just to be funny, or if you find nothing distasteful in this game so long as a rule could possibly support it no matter how twisted the outcome. I mean hey, let me do a 180 on my example, why should I let my opponent shoot between my models? I should just make certain units containing marines made out of cylinders of clay, which when placed base to base allow no LOS through. Legal (probably) in-game and perfectly cool with you I'm sure.

Go ahead. The outlines will be treated as normal models, and I rarely shoot at anything other then the closest unit unless I can draw LOS over the unit.

 insaniak wrote:

And hey, bonus, gluing the doors shut usually helps the player fielding the pods.

So, let's assume I'm using a gunline army (which my regular marines pretty much are), and so my Command Squad dropping in a closed pod in front of my lines actually hampers me more than my opponent's close-combat oriented army. Is it still beardy?

1) I don't use beardy because ... No offense but that word is ridiculous to me and I would feel like less of a person if I heard that word coming out of my mouth. Much like 'YOLO' which was all the rage for awhile. LOL.

2) My point is that LOS-blocking pods USUALLY help the person fielding them. Do you dispute that? Your comment up there completely disregards my actual point. I am not sure if that's because you misunderstood or you aren't arguing in good faith anymore, but you see that *always* is not what I am saying right? No, I said usually. It's usually helpful for the person fielding them AND the model is simplier to build, easier to paint and so on. That tips heavily into the LAME scale. Not as heavily as my imaginary cylindrical marines, but still in the LAME direction.

1) I don't use LOL because ... No offense but that acronym is ridiculous to me and I would feel like less of a person if I heard that word coming out of my mouth. Much like 'ROFL' which was all the rage for awhile.
2) I run Eldar and Tyranids. most of my shooting is close range and I rely heavily on cover. Nids vs Marines they are almost always taking their armour save except in CC so blocking my LOS doesn't really hinder me that much. My Eldar are fast enough that I can get around the DPs.

That's the problem with making model judgements based on the perceived intention of the builder.

Rich coming from the person doing their best to misperceive the written word of yours truly.

Interesting take from somebody arguing HYWPI without specifying that.

In a game where your LOS can be drastically affected by whether or not you choose to buy the model that is standing up or the one that is lying down, does it really matter if you occasionally have to take a step to the right in order to shoot past a drop pod?

Do you really think WAAC gamers would field models lying down if 1) it hurt their chances and 2) there weren't other options available? Please.

Wouldn't know. I'm the closest thing to that guy and most decisions I leave to my opponent. I actually don't know any WAAC players in my group.

 insaniak wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Here's the thing though. With the rhino, someone would have to spend a great deal of effort to make it function as a non-LOS blocking vehicle.

Cutting the interior louvre out and gluing the ramp in the open position isn't really a 'great deal' of effort.

Sad. It's almost like you're trying to score (irrelevant and pointless) points rather than deal with the actual arguments made. What about the side doors? Heck, why not make the Rhino some wheels and a box frame? You know, just because, for no reason at all. Which is basically your point with gluing the ramp down and curtting a big hole through the middle. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Which is why no one does it. Contrast that with the drop pods where people actually glue the doors shut because it's faster to build, easier to paint and usually more helpful to the person fielding it.

What arguments? So far I have yet to see a single RAW argument from you.

Super Newb wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why aren't the doors supposed to be up?

Because they 'blow off' and dudes come out of them?

Citation needed, I have not seen any rules that say the doors blow off.

Q1: If there are what kind of explosives must I use to accomplish this on my models? Q2: Is the charge going to be small enough not to damage my models, the table, myself and my opponent, or my FLGS? Q3: Are they legal explosives or is it compressed air? (The preceding three questions are all rhetorical questions).

Do you have an actual rule to cite?

Super Newb wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Citation needed. you can shoot through a Land Raider if you can draw line of sight through a a Land Raider. If the LR was modeled with the doors open there is a possibility to be able to shoot through one.

Uh huh, just like I can model all of my marines as outlines instead of solid figures. I may as well give them unicorn horns to because both of these hypothetical situations aren't going to happen, or if they do are as rare as unicorns. I am not sure if you are arguing this way just to be funny, or if you find nothing distasteful in this game so long as a rule could possibly support it no matter how twisted the outcome. I mean hey, let me do a 180 on my example, why should I let my opponent shoot between my models? I should just make certain units containing marines made out of cylinders of clay, which when placed base to base allow no LOS through. Legal (probably) in-game and perfectly cool with you I'm sure.

Do not assign bias where none exists.

It seems like you are falling into the same trap that many fall into where you think the game is realistic/Logical , or should be, but the game rules are just an abstract system we use to determine the outcome of a battle in the year 40,000.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Super Newb wrote:
2) My point is that LOS-blocking pods USUALLY help the person fielding them. Do you dispute that?

I absolutely dispute that. It was more true in 5th edition, not so much in 6th.

There are a lot of armies in this game that rely on close combat, and therefore benefit more from having more LOS-blocking terrain on the board, than regular codex Marines do. And everybody else with drop pods has better transport options, so they don't tend to see a lot of use outside of Codex armies.

...AND the model is simplier to build, easier to paint and so on. That tips heavily into the LAME scale. Not as heavily as my imaginary cylindrical marines, but still in the LAME direction.

How much effort a player puts into building something should have zero impact on whether or not it is considered to be modelling for advantage.

Do you really think WAAC gamers would field models lying down if 1) it hurt their chances and 2) there weren't other options available? Please.

You have missed the point. I wasn't making a statement about what a WAAC player would choose to field. I was pointing out that the choice of completely 100% legal GW model affects how the model interacts with LOS, even without getting into all the messy Modelling for Advantage discussion.

Sad. It's almost like you're trying to score (irrelevant and pointless) points rather than deal with the actual arguments made. What about the side doors? Heck, why not make the Rhino some wheels and a box frame? You know, just because, for no reason at all. Which is basically your point with gluing the ramp down and curtting a big hole through the middle. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Which is why no one does it. Contrast that with the drop pods where people actually glue the doors shut because it's faster to build, easier to paint and usually more helpful to the person fielding it.

The ramp I was talking about was the side door. There is no louvre inside the rear ramp.

Which is beside the point anyway, which was simply that the LOS thing from modifying a model works both ways... You can increase the LOS blocking ability of a model, and you can decrease it... and either way, LOS is blocked by the actual model on the table, not by what the model would look like if it was different.

And whether or not that is advantageous is completely situational. Decreasing the height of an ADL is advantageous if you want more models to be able to see over it. Increasing the height of an ADL is advantageous if you want to hide mode models behind it. Keeping your pod closed is advantageous if you want to hide models behind it. Opening it and ripping out the internal gubbinz is advantageous if you want to be able to put a gunline behind it to benefit from cover while still shooting... In 5th, you could just peek your heavy weapon out the side of the closed pod, and soak up casualties from the rest of the unit. In 6th, it's actually disadvantageous to have fewer models visible to the enemy.

So it's not as simple as 'You are doing this and so that's clearly modelling for advantage'... Because whether or not it is modelling for advantage depends entirely on whether or not the player actually gains an advantage from it.

And that's even ignoring the whole argument over whether or not assembling a model as per its assembly instructions can ever be considered modelling for advantage in the first place...

 Happyjew wrote:

Uh huh, just like I can model all of my marines as outlines instead of solid figures. I may as well give them unicorn horns to because both of these hypothetical situations aren't going to happen, or if they do are as rare as unicorns. I am not sure if you are arguing this way just to be funny, or if you find nothing distasteful in this game so long as a rule could possibly support it no matter how twisted the outcome. I mean hey, let me do a 180 on my example, why should I let my opponent shoot between my models? I should just make certain units containing marines made out of cylinders of clay, which when placed base to base allow no LOS through. Legal (probably) in-game and perfectly cool with you I'm sure.

Go ahead. The outlines will be treated as normal models, and I rarely shoot at anything other then the closest unit unless I can draw LOS over the unit.

Of course I can go ahead. But should I demand no one complains about me and my lameness? Bu bu but, it's technically ok, therefore no one can say how ridiculous I am being?

So far I have yet to see a single RAW argument from you.

Oh dear, that's what you think this is about? LOL. (I threw that lol in just for you man).

 DeathReaper wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why aren't the doors supposed to be up?

Because they 'blow off' and dudes come out of them?

Citation needed, I have not seen any rules that say the doors blow off.

Still no rules citation?

Should we consider your argument conceded?

 DeathReaper wrote:
As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Well of course, the game is abstract to some degree, it involves motionless plastic figures, not tiny moving little machines. But, as I've stated above, things like hollow marines (who never block LOS) or cylindrical marines (who when strung out base to base completely block LOS) may be technically legal, but they are also ridiculous and an insult to the game itself. Most here however are implying that such things would be Hip Hip Hooray AOK, because, you know, hey, technically they seem to be legal. If technically legal is your only criteria for what you think should be in the game, then you are a bad person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Still no rules citation?

Should we consider your argument conceded?

Oh boy, are you just trying to be funny or did you completely miss what I have been saying the whole time? Please tell me you have tricked me and that you are just trying to be funny.

Super Newb wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Well this is the rules forum...

And RAW is all that matters? That's what you are saying? Oh dear, now you have made me feel bad about you.

Super Newb wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So far I have yet to see a single RAW argument from you.

Oh dear, that's what you think this is about? LOL. (I threw that lol in just for you man).

Well this is the rules forum...

 insaniak wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
2) My point is that LOS-blocking pods USUALLY help the person fielding them. Do you dispute that?

I absolutely dispute that. It was more true in 5th edition, not so much in 6th.

Um, ok. That's odd. We're not going to get into that here. But boy is it strange you are contesting even this.

...AND the model is simplier to build, easier to paint and so on. That tips heavily into the LAME scale. Not as heavily as my imaginary cylindrical marines, but still in the LAME direction.

How much effort a player puts into building something should have zero impact on whether or not it is considered to be modelling for advantage.

You only cited half of my sentence there even though the entire sentence is relevant to your point? That's just plain dishonest. Also, note I was talking of LAME scales. Being lazy with building and painting a model is lame, more so when the laziness usually helps the builder.

Do you really think WAAC gamers would field models lying down if 1) it hurt their chances and 2) there weren't other options available? Please.

You have missed the point. I wasn't making a statement about what a WAAC player would choose to field. I was pointing out that the choice of completely 100% legal GW model affects how the model interacts with LOS, even without getting into all the messy Modelling for Advantage discussion.

YOU have missed the point. If you (the general you, not you specifically) want to win, you won't field models who adversely affect your chances. If you want to win with pods, it is likely completely LOS blocking pods will be chosen, because it compliments your game strategy. Unlike with every other vehicle in the game, there is no conversion, no effort, in fact there is less effort, instead of building and painting the last third of the model you glue it shut. But the point is the pods will be modeled a certain way to increase the chances of winning.

And whether or not that is advantageous is completely situational. Decreasing the height of an ADL is advantageous if you want more models to be able to see over it.

Why did you switch to ADLs all of a sudden? Weird. But hey, actually you are right. A WAAC gamer would most definitely build the drop pod with its doors, with magnets in place to give themselves all possible options in game. Need it to completely block LOS (typical plan), keep ALL the doors up. Need it to have LOS through? Take the doors off the table. Need it to have LOS through but you also want the petal doors on the table to provide additional cover for your guys? Peel the doors down at normal! HOORAY. Why not have a model that we can decide how it opens in order to give us the best chance of winning! Because that's what this game is all about, winning through modeling. LOL!

 DeathReaper wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So far I have yet to see a single RAW argument from you.

Oh dear, that's what you think this is about? LOL. (I threw that lol in just for you man).

Well this is the rules forum...

It is, and that's one of the Rules of the Rules Forum.

Please keep that in mind going forward here.

 Alpharius wrote:

Please keep that in mind going forward here.

Yeah, you think people wouldn't conveniently forget about RAI in here, but somehow it happened.

People don't forget about RAI. People do forget to specify when they are arguing RAI instead of RAW.

Though actually I shouldn't say RAI because we don't necessarily know the authors intent.

 Happyjew wrote:
People don't forget about RAI. People do forget to specify when they are arguing RAI instead of RAW.

Though actually I shouldn't say RAI because we don't necessarily know the authors intent.

I started off with a tongue-in-cheek house rule followed by more house rules. Who in their right mind would think I was arguing RAW? Don't be ridiculous.

Super Newb wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
People don't forget about RAI. People do forget to specify when they are arguing RAI instead of RAW.

Though actually I shouldn't say RAI because we don't necessarily know the authors intent.

I started off with a tongue-in-cheek house rule followed by more house rules. Who in their right mind would think I was arguing RAW? Don't be ridiculous.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/549436.page#6012897
That's the first post where you deviated from arguing RAI.
It's also where you started getting hostile.

Between this and the abuse in PMs I'm not laughing, out loud or at all.

rigeld2 wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
I started off with a tongue-in-cheek house rule followed by more house rules. Who in their right mind would think I was arguing RAW? Don't be ridiculous.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/549436.page#6012897
That's the first post where you deviated from arguing RAI.
It's also where you started getting hostile.

Wut? Please stay out of this if you can't [be bothered to] read [a] simple [progression of] posts properly. Oh boy. Edited further to add - I spoke of a house rule right before that and right after that. To even remotely imply that I was no longer talking about RAI is absurd. Re-read my next couple of posts to Happy Jew after the one you cited and see for yourself.

Super Newb wrote:
You only cited half of my sentence there even though the entire sentence is relevant to your point?

Given that I had already addressed the whole 'helpful to the person fielding them' thing from the previous quote, it was uneccessary to address it again in the next one. Not being 'dishonest', just not seeing the need to keep repeating myself.

YOU have missed the point. If you (the general you, not you specifically) want to win, you won't field models who adversely affect your chances. If you want to win with pods, it is likely completely LOS blocking pods will be chosen, because it compliments your game strategy.

No, I got that point. Were you have gone wrong in this thread is in the suggestion that this works both ways... A player who wants to win will use models that complement their strategy... but that doesn't mean that a player that is using a given model is doing so because they just want to win.

Or, to put it another way - A WAAC player using a specific model does not mean that every player that uses that model is a WAAC player.

Or that every player using that model is getting some advantage from it.

Unlike with every other vehicle in the game, there is no conversion, no effort, in fact there is less effort, instead of building and painting the last third of the model you glue it shut. But the point is the pods will be modeled a certain way to increase the chances of winning.

Unless the pod is just modelled that way because it is easier.

And it's not just about saving time painting. I've seen a number of people over the years who have left the doors shut on their pods simply because it is easier to put them on the table. Again, you're making generalisations based on the idea that leaving the doors closed is always done purely to garner an in-game advantage, and no matter how many times you make that claim, it simply isn't true.

Why did you switch to ADLs all of a sudden?

To present a different example. As I did with the rhino... The drop pod isn't the only thing that can be modified to change how it functions in game.

You have fixed on this idea that this is all about WAAC players, when it isn't. Most of the time when you see a pod with its doors shut, it's just going to be a player who decided not to bother painting inside, or who hates having to try to find room for the pod with the doors open, or who screwed up the assembly of the interior gubbinz, or who broken the hinges on one of the doors... there are any number of reasons to leave the doors up, and most of them have nothing to do with being a WAAC player.

Yes, WAAC players will find creative ways to improve their chances of winning. Well done, you have made that point. But it is completely irrelevant to the discussion on whether or not the doors can be left up on a pod. 'Will a WAAC player do it?' is not the sole criteria for determining whether or not something is, or should be, allowed.

Super Newb

 Manchu wrote:
The pitch is getting a bit intense ITT. Please remember Dakka Rule Number One is Be Polite. If you're going to argue passionately about toy soldiers, keep it to the on-topic points and leave out the sniping commentary. Thanks.

I am an impartial observer and am trying to learn, thank you everyone so far for your help and contribution, I appreciate it. I hope we can keep this civil, I don't want this thread to be shut down.

Super Newb, you have been continuously rude, and while I do value your opinions and knowledge, I will ask that you stop being rude to others trying to help. If you are intentionally being rude, you really need to take a step back and calm down. If you are unintentionally being rude, please read your posts carefully and, if you note that you are directing a "dis" at somebody, please revise.

Edit: And Super Newb, I do want you to keep posting, you have made many good points.

Edit2: Oh, and I have read every post thoroughly and have made notes for myself concerning the arguments for both sides so I can get good perspective on the topic. Thank you again everyone for your contribution.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, WAAC players will find creative ways to improve their chances of winning. Well done, you have made that point.

By modeling for advantage. Yes.

You helped me realize the best way for a lame gamer to field drop pods is to model them with magnets, so that they can be deployed in three main different ways, doors shut, doors off the table and doors on the table like petals. Quite a silly example of (legal) Modeling for Advantage. "Oh, my pod dropped here, after scatter? Let me see would it be better for me to have the doors off or on, off the table or on, partially off, partially on? I'll decide right now." Rinse and repeat everytime a pod goes down. LAME!

'Will a WAAC player do it?' is not the sole criteria for determining whether or not something is, or should be, allowed.

Glad you put should in there at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ryan_A wrote:
I am an impartial observer and am trying to learn,

Your questions were all answered on the front page. True LOS is how the game works which answers most questions, otherwise you don't have to include the harness, you don't have to include center column the harnesses attach to. You don't even have to include the doors.

As you have seen, if you include the doors they can be left up, or down, or taken off the table or any combination of those three can be done on each pod. If I were you and I cared about what my opponents think, I wouldn't take it to that extreme though because I'll reckon you'll get some funny looks if not some unfunny comments thrown your way.

Just one of those thing. I prefer people having the freedom to choose. As long as they don't open and close them during a game as and when they require :hah: