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.

Id actually be totally fine with someone gluing the doors of their drop pod shut. Considering it has no firing points it would mean to me that the storm bolter inside could also never draw line of sight and never fire. You wanna use it for LOS block you don't get to use it as a gun. When a unit disembarks from a transport that small there's a very small chance you wont be able to draw LOS somewhere on the squad and grant the +5 cover save even if they pull shenanigans

sturgeondtd wrote:
I was playing a game this weekend, Necron v. Space Marines, and was using a Annihilation Nexus formation so I could use my dust collecting pie plate when my opponent landed a drop pod right in front of my Doomsday Ark. Once the doors were down his Iron Clad came out on the opposing side and sat there for a turn (after missing his melta shots). On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it. Not knowing what to cite, I went with it, but it kept being a problem as I was basically wedged in from that point on due to terrain, allowing him to run up a squad straight behind it to be out of sight. Essentially making my Ark a sitting duck without being able to shoot.

Can you shoot large/small blast weapons through drop pods? If so, what can I cite if my opponent contests it?

If he has los to you, you have los to him.

 Phydox wrote:

sturgeondtd wrote:
I was playing a game this weekend, Necron v. Space Marines, and was using a Annihilation Nexus formation so I could use my dust collecting pie plate when my opponent landed a drop pod right in front of my Doomsday Ark. Once the doors were down his Iron Clad came out on the opposing side and sat there for a turn (after missing his melta shots). On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it. Not knowing what to cite, I went with it, but it kept being a problem as I was basically wedged in from that point on due to terrain, allowing him to run up a squad straight behind it to be out of sight. Essentially making my Ark a sitting duck without being able to shoot.

Can you shoot large/small blast weapons through drop pods? If so, what can I cite if my opponent contests it?

If he has los to you, you have los to him.

 insaniak wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
More-over, if he shot at your Doomsday Ark with his dread's melta, but then said you couldn't see him to shoot, there are some serious shenanigans afoot.

Not necessarily. Due to vehicles drawing LOS from their weapons, it's entirely possible for one vehicle to be able to shoot another, while their target can't draw LOS to return fire.

If they say the doors are shut and block Los I say doors are shut you can't shoot the gun. Can you shoot through a Knights legs? I believe you can.

Righteousrob wrote:
If they say the doors are shut and block Los I say doors are shut you can't shoot the gun.

And you would be correct, as I pointed out right back at the start.

LOS works both ways.

Can you shoot through a Knights legs? I believe you can.

You can shoot between a Knight's legs, assuming nothing is blocking the space there. You can't shoot through them.

If the doors are shut you can't shoot through them he can't go out I would argue.

To be honest this is a typical tfg, he just wants to win and abuse rules and discussion.

Insoniak don't want to be rude but all your arguments make think you use this tactic and are happily defending it. Are you really believing this or do you just want to troll?

arthorn wrote:
If the doors are shut you can't shoot through them he can't go out I would argue.

By that logic you can't go out any transport doors that are glued shut.

But the rules are clear the vehicle is open topped and so the entire hull counts as an access point, whether the doors open or not.

To be honest this is a typical tfg, he just wants to win and abuse rules and discussion.

I glue my drop pod doors shut. I'll go back to what I said above - clearly this is a problem with you, not me. I'm sorry you're forced to play in an environment where anything another player does that you disagree with you're forced to assume is WAAC TFG behaviour. That doesn't mean that's the case, though. There's an awful lot of convenience in gluing the doors shut, in the same way you would glue a rhino's or land raider's doors shut.

Insoniak don't want to be rude but all your arguments make think you use this tactic and are happily defending it. Are you really believing this or do you just want to troll?

You might want to check the little bit that comes under his user name on the side panel, the bit that reads [MOD]... try clicking it to see what his stance on trolling might be.

Ghaz wrote:

 Phydox wrote:

sturgeondtd wrote:
I was playing a game this weekend, Necron v. Space Marines, and was using a Annihilation Nexus formation so I could use my dust collecting pie plate when my opponent landed a drop pod right in front of my Doomsday Ark. Once the doors were down his Iron Clad came out on the opposing side and sat there for a turn (after missing his melta shots). On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it. Not knowing what to cite, I went with it, but it kept being a problem as I was basically wedged in from that point on due to terrain, allowing him to run up a squad straight behind it to be out of sight. Essentially making my Ark a sitting duck without being able to shoot.

Can you shoot large/small blast weapons through drop pods? If so, what can I cite if my opponent contests it?

If he has los to you, you have los to him.

 insaniak wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
More-over, if he shot at your Doomsday Ark with his dread's melta, but then said you couldn't see him to shoot, there are some serious shenanigans afoot.

Not necessarily. Due to vehicles drawing LOS from their weapons, it's entirely possible for one vehicle to be able to shoot another, while their target can't draw LOS to return fire.

morganfreeman wrote:At least based on what the OP is saying, his opponent was saying that he flatly could not fire through the drop-pod because it was essentially solid, not because his weapons could specifically not draw LoS.

So essentially, again based on what the OP said, he fired his dread through it but then turned around and said the 'Cron player could not fire through the drop-pod because it was a vehicle.

arthorn wrote:
If the doors are shut you can't shoot through them he can't go out I would argue.

There is no requirement in the rules for the doors on a transport model to physically move in order for embarked models to get out. It would cause all sorts of problems with most people's transport vehicles if there were.

To be honest this is a typical tfg, he just wants to win and abuse rules and discussion.

What abuse of the rules are you seeing here?

That's a serious question. Models that block LOS ... block LOS. It's that simple. Leaving the doors up on your drop pod is no more abusive than choosing the standing vs the kneeing legs for your Firewarriors or Astrimperial Guardiamsiumsmen.,

Insoniak don't want to be rude but all your arguments make think you use this tactic and are happily defending it. Are you really believing this or do you just want to troll?

I've been playing that vehicles block LOS for as long as vehicles have blocked LOS...

I 'sort of' use this tactic... I don't have any GW pods. Mine are made of industrial piping, and so don't have functional doors. Before that, I was using pods made of Pringles cans with foamcore fins added on, again without functional doors. Since 2004 I have received not one single complaint from an opponent that they couldn't see through my pods.

Honestly, this is made into a far bigger issue online that it ever is in real life. The simple fact is that even with the GW pod open, most of the time you can actually see sweet bugger-all through them, particularly if your opponent hugs them for cover. And your opponent dropping one down with doors closed and deploying the unit behind them is really no different, LOS-wise, to him running a rhino or razorback forward and deploying the unit behind them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

morganfreeman wrote:At least based on what the OP is saying, his opponent was saying that he flatly could not fire through the drop-pod because it was essentially solid, not because his weapons could specifically not draw LoS.

So essentially, again based on what the OP said, he fired his dread through it but then turned around and said the 'Cron player could not fire through the drop-pod because it was a vehicle.

The OP didn't say that he fired the dread's melta at the ark. Just that he fired it. Presumably it was at a different target.

The rules via TLOS are pretty unambiguous - if you can see through a model to the target on the other side, you can shoot it.

If you can't see it, such as the doors to the pod being shut, you can't see it.

In the case of the OP, the arguement the opponent was offering is totally unsupported by the rules.

This has been quite the interesting post, to clear up a few things

My opponent was new to the game and had a few things wrong rule wise (he did not have a rule book, but said he "memorized the rules" one such rule was saying that models with combi weapons can fire both weapons in succession) however I do not believe he was doing anyone of these in order to win or even cheat.

As far as the dread goes, he DID fire it's melta into my Ark (the front tip was NOT blocked by the pod when he did this), I was trying to pivot and shoot the low power blast through the drop pod, or shoot the flayers (weapons along the side of the ark, and thus requiring no pivot) through the pod into the dread. I asked if he would be ok with me shooting this way, since I could clearly see the dread through the pod, all doors were down, and this is when he said it does not make sense to allow my shot to be able to go through the pod.

insaniak wrote:The OP didn't say that he fired the dread's melta at the ark. Just that he fired it. Presumably it was at a different target.

It sure seemed that way to me based on how he described the other guys reasoning.

sturgeondtd wrote:On my turn I wanted to shoot it with my Low Power shot, however my opponent argued that a drop pod contains so many things such as that missile launcher and pylons that I would not be able to see or for that matter shoot through it.

In other words, the guy refused because the shot space was too small. Without it being open, there is no way to tell, especially when we don't know how high the DD Ark was sitting to be able to "see" its shot through.

sturgeondtd wrote:
This has been quite the interesting post, to clear up a few things

My opponent was new to the game and had a few things wrong rule wise (he did not have a rule book, but said he "memorized the rules" one such rule was saying that models with combi weapons can fire both weapons in succession) however I do not believe he was doing anyone of these in order to win or even cheat.

As far as the dread goes, he DID fire it's melta into my Ark (the front tip was NOT blocked by the pod when he did this), I was trying to pivot and shoot the low power blast through the drop pod, or shoot the flayers (weapons along the side of the ark, and thus requiring no pivot) through the pod into the dread. I asked if he would be ok with me shooting this way, since I could clearly see the dread through the pod, all doors were down, and this is when he said it does not make sense to allow my shot to be able to go through the pod.

If you do play him again, just go through the line of rules with him and point out that IF he wants to open the doors and use the pods weapon, then he must accept that true line of sight can be drawn through the pod

 Charistoph wrote:

In other words, the guy refused because the shot space was too small. Without it being open, there is no way to tell, especially when we don't know how high the DD Ark was sitting to be able to "see" its shot through.

See the clarification in the post above yours... The dread was shooting around the pod. The ark was shooting through it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

In other words, the guy refused because the shot space was too small. Without it being open, there is no way to tell, especially when we don't know how high the DD Ark was sitting to be able to "see" its shot through.

See the clarification in the post above yours... The dread was shooting around the pod. The ark was shooting through it.

So we get to ignore the other person's reasoning just because? If he at least claimed the doors blocked it, I could see it, but saying the insides blocked it without opening it up? No.

Was he being That Guy? Maybe, maybe not. It can be very hard to tell with new players (or at least, ones who claim they are new). If it was a guy I know had been in the game for a long time, it would definitely be on the maybe side.


I have long ago made the determination that if I ever get Drop Pods, they are being built doorless, just to avoid this issue. They blow open anyway, mine can just blow all the way off.

 Charistoph wrote:

So we get to ignore the other person's reasoning just because?

No. Why would we?

I think you're a little confused about who had said what in this thread.

In the example in the OP, the pod was open. The discussion on the effect of doors being closed came later.

anyone that claims I can't shoot though the drop pod is MFA if the doors are up and a WAAC player in my mind.
I stop the game right there and pack up and get a new game as pods some turn one.

To claim it's the same as other doors is bull gak as other doors have no game effect. Also is the rule that says you ignore the doors on pods gone

There was never a rule that said that you ignore the doors.

How is building the model as designed modelling for advantage?

The attached is from the Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force datasheet from the Kauyon and new Angels of Death supplements. You can't claim it's simply modelling for advantage when it's pretty clearly an accepted and officially endorsed way of assembling the model.

 insaniak wrote:
There was never a rule that said that you ignore the doors.

How is building the model as designed modelling for advantage?

I can't find it so must be old it stated that you ignore the doors so you can walk on them and other such stuff.

The doors were designed to open to make them not do so so they can block los is MFA as they were meant to open



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
The attached is from the Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force datasheet from the Kauyon and new Angels of Death supplements. You can't claim it's simply modelling for advantage when it's pretty clearly an accepted and officially endorsed way of assembling the model.

They do a lot of stuff for art to claim it's for rules is BS but no worries to me you are TFG and I rather not play you or your ilk.
Drop pods were not designed to be deployed as LOS blockers

Oldmike wrote:
The doors were designed to open to make them not do so so they can block los is MFA as they were meant to open

The doors were, clearly, also designed to close.

They do a lot of stuff for art to claim it's for rules is BS but no worries to me you are TFG and I rather not play you or your ilk.
Drop pods were not designed to be deployed as LOS blockers

So what rules are you basing the fact the doors must be open on? So far as I can tell you're basing it only on either your opinion, the instructions (which also aren't rules) or art. You've given no evidence whatsoever to show that drop pods are designed to have their doors open.

Really it seems obvious to me that you're TFG here - the one with the problem with not liking how the rules work and taking issue with how someone else chooses to model their models. So long as they're playing consistently within the rules you've got no right to assume they must be trying to win at all costs.

Indeed, if you'd even read the thread you'll have noted that I play allowing line of sight to be drawn through my glued-shut drop pod doors, with standard cover saves granted.

Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods. The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.

I'm sure there was an old faq that said the opening of doors was just a modelling feature and should not be used in games.

I'm having a hard time finding it though

Oldmike wrote:
Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods. The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.

So the 'No Glue' icon means that the doors must be open? Then why not tell you to glue the doors open instead? By telling me not to glue the doors it seems to me that they want me to be able to move the doors if I wish.

 jokerkd wrote:
I'm sure there was an old faq that said the opening of doors was just a modelling feature and should not be used in games.

I'm having a hard time finding it though

I remember this also but can't seem to find it

Oldmike wrote:
Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods. The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.

The instructions tell you to not glue them so that they can be opened and closed.

The is nothing inherent about not gluing then that would require them to be placed on the table open.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldmike wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
I'm sure there was an old faq that said the opening of doors was just a modelling feature and should not be used in games.

I'm having a hard time finding it though

I remember this also but can't seem to find it

You can't find it because it doesn't exist.

5th edition told us to ignore 'decorative' parts of the vehicle for LOS purposes. Given that they make up the majority of its hull, though, it's hard to argue that the pod doors are just decorative.

Most players ignored the doors if they were open, though, as otherwise the pod has a stupidly large footprint.

You're probably right. While I'm sure there is one, I'm much less sure it was an official publication. more likely a third party tournament FAQ

Oldmike wrote:
Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods.

No, they were blanket statements describing me as that fething guy, with no qualification. If you'd read how I choose to play you'd have had no reason to describe me as such.

The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.

Do you mean the instruction booklet page I've attached below? It's all I could find doing a quick search online, but there doesn't appear to be a "no glue" icon I can see.

The doors open and close. You're claiming because they can open and close they should be opened, which is the same logic as claiming that because they open and close they should be closed.

Any other support you can come up with for your opinion being anything more than just your opinion?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Oldmike wrote:
Yet you also ignored that the statements were based on not being able to shoot thou the pods.

No, they were blanket statements describing me as that fething guy, with no qualification. If you'd read how I choose to play you'd have had no reason to describe me as such.

The instructions state the doors are to be opened with the no glue icon.

Do you mean the instruction booklet page I've attached below? It's all I could find doing a quick search online, but there doesn't appear to be a "no glue" icon I can see.

The doors open and close. You're claiming because they can open and close they should be opened, which is the same logic as claiming that because they open and close they should be closed.

Any other support you can come up with for your opinion being anything more than just your opinion?

So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage.

 EnTyme wrote:
So the instruction you just linked show the doors open, and yet you model them glued closed. Based on this, you are deliberately going against the assembly instructions in order to gain an advantage. That is the literal definition of modeling for advantage.

The instructions he posted doesn't show an assembled model. Is it modeling for advantage then if he assembles the model?