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:

Eihnlazer wrote:
RAI and the only way to play it without being an ass: .

That sort of comment adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

Throughout 4th edition (or at least the part of it before I gave up on the game in disgust and waited for 5th) I played a gunline marine army in pods. My LOS-blocking pods were generally far more of a hindrance to me than to my opponent.

This idea that people only use closed pods to garner better cover for their own models is a gross generalisation. Nobody should be considered an 'ass' for preferring to play by the actual rules when there is no particularly compelling reason to do otherwise.

It's only playing by the actual rules if you model your pods shut and insist that they be treated as such.

 Formosa wrote:
Closed is not open rigel it's as simple as that

But you do realize that does not matter at all right?

"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent." (IA: Apoc book)

If they are modeled in such a way as they can not move and they are closed, then that is literally their full extent of open.

Zero degrees open is "their full extent." on a model with static closed doors.

I don't think your two sides are ever going to agree.

The drop pod is quite honestly the worst model GW makes from a rules perspective. It's the only one that can be modeled different ways that impact the game so significantly differently. It's the only one that you're supposed to ignore parts of once it's deployed. I can't think of a single other model that you're supposed to pretend isn't there, either for LOS purposes when closed, or for positioning other models (when open).

The only real answer is come to an agreement with your opponent in a friendly game, or do what the TO says in a tournament.

We just use them as open. I just bought my first one the other day. I haven't built it yet but I did glance over it. It says not to glue the doors. Some guys do for easy storage or whatever but looking at all the pictures in the rule book as well as reading the rules makes it pretty clear how to us them. This whole argument seems really silly and an excuse to have an argument for the sake of an argument. Why cant we just have fun and play? Why do you have to make everything a pain?

I think a lot of people will get some helpful information from reading this.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/10/what-i-learned-from-cfo-of-enron-about.html

Gluing the doors shut doesn't change the original model concept, it borderlines on MFA actually, and based on the FW FAQ I'd say they are open.

Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while interpreting the meaning of the word "Open" is always a fun read while at work!

 wowsmash wrote:
We just use them as open. I just bought my first one the other day. I haven't built it yet but I did glance over it. It says not to glue the doors. Some guys do for easy storage or whatever but looking at all the pictures in the rule book as well as reading the rules makes it pretty clear how to us them. This whole argument seems really silly and an excuse to have an argument for the sake of an argument. Why cant we just have fun and play? Why do you have to make everything a pain?

1) It is "make[ing] everything a pain" to discuss the Rules as Written?
2) The pictures in the book are not rules.
3) It is an argument because some people break the Line of sight rules by saying they can see through a closed Drop Pod, which is not the case.
4) There are other ways to get the doors to stay closed other than gluing the doors. you could cement them, or paint them shut, or green stuff Etc...

Stormbreed wrote:
Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while playing a game based on imagination is always a great read while at work!

That is because fluff is not rules, unless you think the doors should have Explosives, Pneumatics, or similar affixed to them and a trigger to make the blowing the hatches happen...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 wowsmash wrote:
We just use them as open. I just bought my first one the other day. I haven't built it yet but I did glance over it. It says not to glue the doors. Some guys do for easy storage or whatever but looking at all the pictures in the rule book as well as reading the rules makes it pretty clear how to us them. This whole argument seems really silly and an excuse to have an argument for the sake of an argument. Why cant we just have fun and play? Why do you have to make everything a pain?

1) It is "make[ing] everything a pain" to discuss the Rules as Written?
2) The pictures in the book are not rules.
3) It is an argument because some people break the Line of sight rules by saying they can see through a closed Drop Pod, which is not the case.
4) There are other ways to get the doors to stay closed other than gluing the doors. you could cement them, or paint them shut, or green stuff Etc...

Stormbreed wrote:
Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while playing a game based on imagination is always a great read while at work!

That is because fluff is not rules, unless you think the doors should have Explosives, Pneumatics, or similar affixed to them and a trigger to make the blowing the hatches happen...

Even before I changed my post, I did say it is a "Great" read at work, I don't think anything should have Explosives in a game with fragile models, that would just be silly.

sangheili wrote:As for land raiders and rinhos they can open their doors to let them out and close em again...

What makes you assume that Drop Pods can't do the same...?

kranki wrote:Blown = fully expanded or opened (this one of its many past participle meanings)

In the context here, it can also just mean that the sealed doors are rapidly unsealed.

But the meaning of the word 'blown' is completely irrelevant, since the reference to the hatches being blown is fluff. There is no listed game effect for 'blown hatches'... and so we follow the normal vehicle rules, which list no requirement to physically open vehicle doors in order for models to disembark.

wowsmash wrote: This whole argument seems really silly and an excuse to have an argument for the sake of an argument. Why cant we just have fun and play? Why do you have to make everything a pain?

That works both ways...

Two things
1 - my quote about blown was taken from an actual dictionary definition your definition is complete fiction, your definition would only work if was written the hatch seals were blown then the noun would be the word seals and the adjective meaning unsealed.

2 - I also end that exact post making the point that fluff means jack all.

My post was to settle the earlier debate about drop pods not having doors but hatches and that blown doesn't mean opened, which I try and prove that in this context it means exactly that.

PS - fluff ain't rules I agree but it should aid in making informed decisions based all the facts IMO.

EDIT:
An error on my part.
Post removed.

 Nilok wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while playing a game based on imagination is always a great read while at work!

That is because fluff is not rules, unless you think the doors should have Explosives, Pneumatics, or similar affixed to them and a trigger to make the blowing the hatches happen...

Stormbreed wrote:
Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while interpreting the meaning of the word "Open" is always a fun read while at work!

DeathReaper, I would recommend using square brackets ([ ]) or something similar, when you alter a direct quote from someone to avoid confusion.
I understand the wish to shorten a quote so you can be more direct to a point, but it seems disingenuous or rude to just alter it to suit your own purpose without noting.

Except DR did not alter the quote. Stormbreed changed the post after DR quoted him.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while playing a game based on imagination is always a great read while at work!

That is because fluff is not rules, unless you think the doors should have Explosives, Pneumatics, or similar affixed to them and a trigger to make the blowing the hatches happen...

Stormbreed wrote:
Seeing people constantly ignore "Fluff" while interpreting the meaning of the word "Open" is always a fun read while at work!

DeathReaper, I would recommend using square brackets ([ ]) or something similar, when you alter a direct quote from someone to avoid confusion.
I understand the wish to shorten a quote so you can be more direct to a point, but it seems disingenuous or rude to just alter it to suit your own purpose without noting.

Except DR did not alter the quote. Stormbreed changed the post after DR quoted him.

I stand corrected, editing my first post.

If the sentence about "the hatches are blown" wouldnt be fluff (whicht it is!) but rules (which it is not!) that would automatically mean that space wolves drop pods have permission to be glued shut. No mention of blowing the hatches in the space wolves drop pod rules.

Your not allowed to model for advantage. Its clear enough the doors are supposed to be open. If I cant see you through my open door drop pod then I have no line of sight then I cant fire. Since you have modified your drop pod ie glued the doors there's no way to tell if I would have line of sight there for +5 cover. I agree with the TO. Your opponent shouldn't be penalized for you building your model differently then instructed.

 wowsmash wrote:
Your not allowed to model for advantage.

I keep hearing this, but is that actually a rule? Page number?

Its clear enough the doors are supposed to be open.

As they are on Land Raiders, Rhinos, and several other vehicles. Is it modelling for advantage if your opponent chooses to selfishly glue his land raider doors shut so you can't see through it? Seriously now, this is about the weakest argument possible.

Though I agree with you wowsmash, unfortunately there are no hard rules to make it definitive. GW eventually wrote rules for different weapon mountings on vehicles maybe on day they will sort out the doors open or closed conundrum but don't hole your breath

We all know GW are terrible at writing rules. Using that to justify this kind of nonsense is ridiculous. If you brought this to game night and tried this argument I would laugh all the while looking for someone else to game against.

RAW, the drop pod doors don't need to be open and have no permission to be opened during a game. True, the model is designed with a hinged door that can open and close, but so is the Storm Raven. True the transport capacity rule for the drop pod (not, not the drop pod assault rule) states that the 'hatches are blown' but this statement has no more impact on the game then the storm raven's transport capacity telling us that a dreadnought is carried in the rear grapple.

RAW, you can't assume line of sight. Either you can see something or you can't.

Forgeworld Becomes Official for Warhammer 40k

via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
immediately afterward (codex Inquisition) we'll be seeing the Forgeworld forces of the space marines and inquisition to update all those rules as well.

Also, while written to be polite, the sentence that says "while this should be considered official, check with your opponent" in the Forgeworld books is being changed.



So if that's true we can use that FW FAQ about drop pods I think.

"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent."

I'd say that is "all the way down" and it is supported by the GW fluff as well.

 wowsmash wrote:
Your not allowed to model for advantage.

See my earlier comment about my gunline marines. Keeping the doors shut is not automatically an advantage to the owning player.

Your opponent shouldn't be penalized for you building your model differently then instructed.

They shouldn't, and in a more competently written ruleset they wouldn't be, because model construction would have no impact on the rules.

This is 40K, however, where the choice of which set of legs you put on your models can have a huge effect on how they function in-game.

Stormbreed wrote:
So if that's true we can use that FW FAQ about drop pods I think.

"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent."

I'd say that is "all the way down" and it is supported by the GW fluff as well.

First, that is not an FAQ. I don't know where people are getting "this is from a FAQ" from, but, eh.
Second, if the doors are glued shut, then the full extent of opening would be 0 degrees open.

If the rules for the LDP said
" Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened all the way."
there would be an argument.

kranki wrote:
My post was to settle the earlier debate about drop pods not having doors but hatches and that blown doesn't mean opened, which I try and prove that in this context it means exactly that..

Drop pods do not have "Hatches" by your definition.

kranki wrote:
Hatch =a door on a floor or ceiling.

The Drop Pod doors are not on the floor or ceiling of the Pod...

Drop Pods have doors.

hey if people wanna glue their pods shut, by all means, block LOS with it...

blocks the LOS on the storm bolter inside the pod too, so it can never fire if your doors are glued shut..

RAI is 100% that the doors must count as open, and is not unclear, in the slightest... the FW FAQ and the models description, as well as the assembly instructions all say the doors open.

I dont see any fluff that says "neener neener, you cant see me" nor is there a defeacto RAW restriction on assembling models in such a was as to be game altering.

RAW speaking, doors closed or open are completely unaddressed, except for FW where they are explicitly open,

when RAW is neither for, nor against, either side, that is generally where RAI comes into play, and since this is a MFA question, people wont even agree that there is such a thing as MFA sometimes, so gonna be a loooooong thread.


TLDR: every tourney/friendly game I been too treats it as open.

 easysauce wrote:
hey if people wanna glue their pods shut, by all means, block LOS with it...

blocks the LOS on the storm bolter inside the pod too, so it can never fire if your doors are glued shut..

RAI is 100% that the doors must count as open, and is not unclear, in the slightest... the FW FAQ and the models description, as well as the assembly instructions all say the doors open.

I dont see any fluff that says "neener neener, you cant see me" nor is there a defeacto RAW restriction on assembling models in such a was as to be game altering.

RAW speaking, doors closed or open are completely unaddressed, except for FW where they are explicitly open,

when RAW is neither for, nor against, either side, that is generally where RAI comes into play, and since this is a MFA question, people wont even agree that there is such a thing as MFA sometimes, so gonna be a loooooong thread.


TLDR: every tourney/friendly game I been too treats it as open.

See, this I agree with. What I don't agree with is the "RAW the doors must open. If you don't open them (or seal them, or have a scratch built that does not have movable doors) you are modelling for advantage and are a cheater."

I have no problems playing either way, though almost everyone I play with treats the doors as being open.

 Happyjew wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
hey if people wanna glue their pods shut, by all means, block LOS with it...

blocks the LOS on the storm bolter inside the pod too, so it can never fire if your doors are glued shut..

RAI is 100% that the doors must count as open, and is not unclear, in the slightest... the FW FAQ and the models description, as well as the assembly instructions all say the doors open.

I dont see any fluff that says "neener neener, you cant see me" nor is there a defeacto RAW restriction on assembling models in such a was as to be game altering.

RAW speaking, doors closed or open are completely unaddressed, except for FW where they are explicitly open,

when RAW is neither for, nor against, either side, that is generally where RAI comes into play, and since this is a MFA question, people wont even agree that there is such a thing as MFA sometimes, so gonna be a loooooong thread.


TLDR: every tourney/friendly game I been too treats it as open.

See, this I agree with. What I don't agree with is the "RAW the doors must open. If you don't open them (or seal them, or have a scratch built that does not have movable doors) you are modelling for advantage and are a cheater."

I have no problems playing either way, though almost everyone I play with treats the doors as being open.

If there is a FW FAQ saying they must be open, and FW is not accepted into GW, we may have to change that feeling however. I was assuming based on the quotes earlier there actually is a FAQ, but I can't find it either.......

Stormbreed wrote:
If there is a FW FAQ saying they must be open, ...

There isn't. There is a FW Imperial Armour book that includes a drop pod that has different rules to the codex pods.

This is a tired argument that will never get resolved, but the majority voice (and the voice of reason) says they are open.

And if you must rely on such minutia as glued shut drop pods to make a difference in your games, quite frankly, you are doing it wrong.

The point I was making is that the doors are open when they land, you draw line of sight through the pod. (this was confirmed by friendly GW employees at a recent tournament).

I think you missed my thinly veiled sarcasm revolving around disembarkation.

My point is, if you try to cheat me by saying i can't draw LOS through your pod, I'll use your same BS reasons to use another rule saying your POS dreadnaught cannot disembark, therefore is destroyed.

Both remarks are wrong.. hence my classification as thinly veiled sarcasm.

 Skabfang wrote:
The point I was making is that the doors are open when they land, you draw line of sight through the pod. (this was confirmed by friendly GW employees at a recent tournament).

I think you missed my thinly veiled sarcasm revolving around disembarkation.

My point is, if you try to cheat me by saying i can't draw LOS through your pod, I'll use your same BS reasons to use another rule saying your POS dreadnaught cannot disembark, therefore is destroyed.

Both remarks are wrong.. hence my classification as thinly veiled sarcasm.

Except in one situation you are following the rules by not being able to draw LOS through a pod if its doors are shut. The other is blatent cheating not letting a unit disembark if the doors on the model are not open, as the disembarkation rules make not mention of doors open or closed, just access points...

 Skabfang wrote:
The point I was making is that the doors are open when they land, you draw line of sight through the pod. (this was confirmed by friendly GW employees at a recent tournament).

And the point being made in return is that you have this backwards.

If the doors are open, then you can draw LOS through the pod. If the doors are closed, there is no rule that tells us to pretend that they are open.


GW employees are not a source of 'official' rules, unless they happen to work in the development studio... and even then, they have been known to think that the rules function differently to what they actually wrote in the book (see KFF and vehicle saves in 4th and 5th edition...) Regular store employees have no 'official' training in the rules of the game... they're just going off their own knowledge of the rules, just like the rest of us.

My point is, if you try to cheat me by saying i can't draw LOS through your pod, I'll use your same BS reasons to use another rule saying your POS dreadnaught cannot disembark, therefore is destroyed.

The problem with that approach is that the former is based on actual rules, while your claim that the passengers can't disembark is not.

The doors being open or closed will have an impact on how the pod blocks LOS, because the LOS rules work by looking at the actual model on the table. It will have absolutely no effect on disembarking, because there is no requirement in the rules to open doors on the model in order for passengers to disembark.