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.

There is so many issues or shenanigans to drop pods now.
It is in the space marine players best interest to pin those doors to open and close.
You can make impenetrable walls that block line of sight and movement.
You can open and close those doors to fire whenever you want or block your opponent from firing.
You can drop the door and disembark up to 9in away from the model.
You can surround a unit in drop pods and lock it in place opening doors as needed to form a circle. And your opponent can't move within 1in of the droppod.
You can just block access to an objective by camping it with an open drop pod.
There is so many issues with this rule.

gungo wrote:

You can open and close those doors to fire whenever you want or block your opponent from firing.

Slight clarification there: You can choose whether to deploy them with the doors open or closed... but there is no rule that would allow you to change how the model is configured once it's actually on the table.

The drop pod ruling has to be the most daft thing I think I have ever seen come out of GW...

The area denial, disembark, and other shennanigans are, well, absurd.

Can we get them with ceramite armor too?

casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?

The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.

 oni wrote:

casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?

The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.

It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...

 oni wrote:

Interesting... Multiple iterations of (Chapter Tactics) cancel each other out. Also, characters without (Chapter Tactics) that join a unit null (Chapter Tactics) for the whole unit.

Where does it say that? It only talks about characters from BA/DA/SW/GK nulling Chapter Tactics, Inquisitors are still fair game, no?

I'm a bit confused about the flamecraft ruling. Does that mean that salamanders only get 4+ FNP from flamer weapons only? not heavy flamers, for example? What about ork burnas?

And it's been said, but the drop pod rule seems pretty crazy. I know it's a draft, but 35 points for like a 8" impassable terrain bubble is nuts. The other way for a giant LOS blocking pillar isn't much less crazy.

 insaniak wrote:

 oni wrote:

casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?

The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.

It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...

What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm a bit confused about the flamecraft ruling. Does that mean that salamanders only get 4+ FNP from flamer weapons only? not heavy flamers, for example? What about ork burnas?

And it's been said, but the drop pod rule seems pretty crazy. I know it's a draft, but 35 points for like a 8" impassable terrain bubble is nuts. The other way for a giant LOS blocking pillar isn't much less crazy.

Flames listed under the Flamer weapons in the rule book. which i think burnas are listed under as well or otherwise is explained in the codex.

just because it uses a template doesnt make it a "flamer weapon" which makes sense.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm a bit confused about the flamecraft ruling. Does that mean that salamanders only get 4+ FNP from flamer weapons only? not heavy flamers, for example? What about ork burnas?

They get benefits against the list of Flamer weapons in the rulebook. Flamer weapons are further defined in the new FAQ.

Q: Are alien and daemonic flame weapons like Ork burnas, Flames of Tzeentch, Baleful Torrent, etc., treated as flamer weapons for rules that interact with them?
A: Only if the entry in their codex specifically notes it is a flamer weapon as described in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

 EnTyme wrote:
I can't access Facebook from work, so the best part of my Wednesday is trying to guess what exactly everyone is so outraged about.

a) base LOS of pod whether doors are glued or open(glued, it's invisible barrier, open, open)
b) disembarking from any point of open doors...That's hell of a large area to select where to disembar
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.

 oni wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 oni wrote:

casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?

The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.

It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...

What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.

its open topped...doesnt that make access points moot?

 oni wrote:

What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.

Drop pods are open topped. The access point is any part of the hull.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 oni wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 oni wrote:

casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?

The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.

It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...

What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.

its open topped...doesnt that make access points moot?

I was just about to say the exact same thing.

So interesting quandry, if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull, even when deployed, I assume this means marines can no longer disembark and stand on the doors, as part of the model placement rule?

Open topped vehicle passengers can disembark from any point of the vehicle. (pg. 88) So you might be able to make a claim to disembark from the tips of the doors.

On pg. 72, when talking about measuring from vehicles, it allows us to ignore decorative elements. One could make an argument that pod doors are decorative, and thus don’t count. This would prevent them from creating a massive impassible footprint.

Overall I think the FAQs make sense, but could use a little refining.

 gameandwatch wrote:
So interesting quandry, if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull, even when deployed, I assume this means marines can no longer disembark and stand on the doors, as part of the model placement rule?

yep. nore can friendly models walk through the leafs ether.

so if you want to move around a drop pod. you need to seriously WALK around the entire drop pod..

the doors are low enough to provide no cover though.

if they are wrecked they become difficult terrain. neet

what a headache.

tneva82 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.

Thing is now, that is a big HUGE foot imprint you have to deepstrike now. Since you can't open and close the doors, you either model them open for "road block" and farther disenbarkemnt but take the hit in where you may not be able to deep strike exactly where you want because of the bigger foot print, which is what, double the size now deep striking it with the doors open?

 Nevelon wrote:
Open topped vehicle passengers can disembark from any point of the vehicle. (pg. 88) So you might be able to make a claim to disembark from the tips of the doors.

On pg. 72, when talking about measuring from vehicles, it allows us to ignore decorative elements. One could make an argument that pod doors are decorative, and thus don’t count. This would prevent them from creating a massive impassible footprint.

Overall I think the FAQs make sense, but could use a little refining.

Too bad FAQ specifically specified the doors are not ignored. They are part of the model. They are not ignored for game purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
Thing is now, that is a big HUGE foot imprint you have to deepstrike now. Since you can't open and close the doors, you either model them open for "road block" and farther disenbarkemnt but take the hit in where you may not be able to deep strike exactly where you want because of the bigger foot print, which is what, double the size now deep striking it with the doors open?

True that. But still choice is marine players...He can deploy them doors closed. Still good LOS blocking.

Want accuracy? Smaller footprint. Want roadblock? Deploy doors wide.

 gameandwatch wrote:
[...]if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull[..]

Does the FAQ say they are part of the hull? Or just part of the model?

Avadar wrote:

 gameandwatch wrote:
[...]if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull[..]

Does the FAQ say they are part of the hull? Or just part of the model?

as people have said, pods are open topped, so the whole thing is hull as far as disembarking is concerned.

 gigasnail wrote:

Avadar wrote:

 gameandwatch wrote:
[...]if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull[..]

Does the FAQ say they are part of the hull? Or just part of the model?

as people have said, pods are open topped, so the whole thing is hull as far as disembarking is concerned.

Not why I was asking, but, were does it say that in the book? As far as I remember it only says that all of the vehicle is
considered to be an Access Point. I do not see a correlation between Access Point and hull (might be missing it).

I can see how that could allow a larger disembarking footprint; but if it is not a hull, would it prevent model from walking through/close to it?

So what happens to people who found the drop pod model too finicky and glued the doors shut? Their guys can never get out?

Making the doors functional just makes the model more complicated in the game.

it would make sense to ignore the drop pod doors for gaming purposes...

but either way its a win-loose scenario for both sides... because dont forget that you must place the droppod WITH OPEN doors before rolling to scatter
so on one hand you can deny a hell lot of boardspace from the enemy... on the other hand thought, it will be hard to place the damn thing on a crowded board or near the table edges >

welp, the maze strat dream is officially real. WALLS FOR THE WALL GOD! TOWERS FOR THE TOWER THRONE!

bogalubov wrote:
So what happens to people who found the drop pod model too finicky and glued the doors shut? Their guys can never get out?

Making the doors functional just makes the model more complicated in the game.

Nope. It's still hull. Instead you have drop pod sized LOS blocker as you can't see through the pod.

Avadar wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:

Avadar wrote:

 gameandwatch wrote:
[...]if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull[..]

Does the FAQ say they are part of the hull? Or just part of the model?

as people have said, pods are open topped, so the whole thing is hull as far as disembarking is concerned.

Not why I was asking, but, were does it say that in the book? As far as I remember it only says that all of the vehicle is
considered to be an Access Point. I do not see a correlation between Access Point and hull (might be missing it).

I can see how that could allow a larger disembarking footprint; but if it is not a hull, would it prevent model from walking through/close to it?

edit actually i shouldnt say that ima look it up and be right back


its in the measuring distances and stuff in the vehicle section.

ignore gun barrels, dozerblades antenna banners and other decorative things. i dont think doors are really decroative.

also its mentioned in the shooting section for vehicles as well.

RedNoak wrote:
it would make sense to ignore the drop pod doors for gaming purposes...

but either way its a win-loose scenario for both sides... because dont forget that you must place the droppod WITH OPEN doors before rolling to scatter
so on one hand you can deny a hell lot of boardspace from the enemy... on the other hand thought, it will be hard to place the damn thing on a crowded board or near the table edges >

Assuming marine player simply doesn't deploy them with doors closed. Which he can do. As many players already have glued them to ease the life(those opening doors can be pain and since before there wasn't gaming wise difference generally...).

Now he can go for whichever he feels gives him best advantage.

tneva82 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I can't access Facebook from work, so the best part of my Wednesday is trying to guess what exactly everyone is so outraged about.

a) base LOS of pod whether doors are glued or open(glued, it's invisible barrier, open, open)
b) disembarking from any point of open doors...That's hell of a large area to select where to disembar
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.

Okay yeah. That's a bunch of crap. If drop pods are really that powerful, they should cost at least as much as a Razorback. I'm gonna go ahead and self-impose a houserule against my drop pods so that the doors are just decorative. They don't block LoS, you can't measure from the doors, feel free to move across the doors. The only part of the model that matters is the chassis (the vertical portion).