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.

General Hobbs wrote:

There are no rules that specify how you deploy a drop pod and its doors, open or closed. There's no rule that says they all have to be opened.

That's correct. You can deploy with doors open, doors closed, or a mix of the two... because those are all valid ways to assemble the model.

There's no rule that says you have or do not have the option to change the configuration.

And so it is not an option.

You only have the option to do things that the rules tell you that you can do.

Can you quote for me the appropriate rule in the rulebook to support your position?

That would be 'The entire rulebook' which doesn't contain a rule that would allow you to change the configuration of the model once it is on the table.

 Weboflies wrote:
I can't imagine the Drop Pod portion not being completely rewritten before this goes "official"

I get the sense they put very little thought into this and are going to use the questions ad comments they generate as a means to hone in on where the weak spots are and what needs to be improved.

I sure hope that's what they're doing anyway, because that portion of it at least is a complete mess.

Indeed. Everyone should remember that this is a DRAFT. It is not an official FAQ yet.

 EnTyme wrote:
Also worth noting: A Captain model taken in the various formations (Gladius, Hunting Force, etc.) may be upgraded to Chapter Master (though the answer does admit that this isn't exactly fluffy)

That was silly answer. Just say yes or no. Now it's like "technically yes but you really shouldn't be doing it". If you don't want people doing it ban it. If you don't ban it don't start implying players are doing it wrong if they do it.

tneva82 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Also worth noting: A Captain model taken in the various formations (Gladius, Hunting Force, etc.) may be upgraded to Chapter Master (though the answer does admit that this isn't exactly fluffy)

That was silly answer. Just say yes or no. Now it's like "technically yes but you really shouldn't be doing it". If you don't want people doing it ban it. If you don't ban it don't start implying players are doing it wrong if they do it.

It's actually rather amusing to see the distinction between RaW and RaI spelled out in the FAQ. RAW, yes, it is legal. RaI, it's not what matches the fluff (usually) and not their preference.

It would help if they made captains not just a weaker/blander chapter master, making the CM upgrade a no-brainer. Next time around maybe let you choose titles for your captains to make them different or something.

You means one thing like:

20pts:: Master of the Fleet, gain Orbital Bombardment wargear.

10pts: High Executioner, gain +1 Attack.


10pts: Master of the Marches, all Non-Vehicle models with the same chapter tactics as the captain may use his Leadership for morale and pinning checks.

The types of things?

 Crazyterran wrote:
You means one thing like:

20pts:: Master of the Fleet, gain Orbital Bombardment wargear.

10pts: High Executioner, gain +1 Attack.


10pts: Master of the Marches, all Non-Vehicle models with the same chapter tactics as the captain may use his Leadership for morale and pinning checks.

The types of things?

...That's not bad. Having a bunch of captain-specialty options could bring them some sun-time again.

What if you just assemble the drop pod to have one or two doors open? Then you can deploy it with the door facing the direction you want the models to disembark from without having to worry about mishaps from an overall increased footprint.

Like with the rulebook errata they are adding corrections here and there below the pictures. The Apothecary answer was a mistake, it is now "No"

 Oaka wrote:
What if you just assemble the drop pod to have one or two doors open? Then you can deploy it with the door facing the direction you want the models to disembark from without having to worry about mishaps from an overall increased footprint.

You are why we can't have nice things.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
What if you just assemble the drop pod to have one or two doors open? Then you can deploy it with the door facing the direction you want the models to disembark from without having to worry about mishaps from an overall increased footprint.

You are why we can't have nice things.

Well I'm for sure going to use that if someone insists on me using these idiotic FAQ rules for the Pods.

Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)

This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.

 Oaka wrote:
What if you just assemble the drop pod to have one or two doors open? Then you can deploy it with the door facing the direction you want the models to disembark from without having to worry about mishaps from an overall increased footprint.

I'd be happy with that simply because I would know exactly what I was getting before you placed the pod.

Cheers

Andrew

 Jimsolo wrote:
Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)

This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.

Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)

This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.

Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!

Other than units that have to purchase grenades for the entire unit rather than per model, the grenade ruling made perfect sense to me. Drop pod doors, however, do not. Even the answer of "it depends on how it is modeled" is too vague for my tastes.

 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.

Drop pods are open topped, meaning you can disembark from where ever the feth you want.

The drop pods ruling *almost makes me think that GW staff don't actually play their own games*!

It's possible that some of these new rules supps *are not even playtested fully!*

/sarcasm

 Frankenberry wrote:
Man, dem drop pod rules tho.

Although truthfully I can't see many outside of the WAAC or TFG crowd arguing that deployment starts from the drop pod doors - shouldn't be an issue overall I don't think. Then again, given the responses so far, it appears it WILL be an issue - it's almost like GW doesn't know what drop pods are used for.

Although, from a game standpoint the whole model being counted for LOS and movement instead of just the hull makes sense.

Oh look, it has already begun. Now any new player following the RAW and the official FAQ is apparently TFG? What stupid remark. Hate the clarification all you want, but honestly drop pods have NEVER been clear. It always annoyed me that people would not count the fins or doors and walk over them, yet take cover. Or, when glued shut I am supposed to assume LOS through them when in reality the gaps through an open pod are actually quite hard to draw LOS through when you actually look down the barrels of your own vehicles or from your own infantry.

People need to actually play the rules first. If a player is takeing a drop pod heavy list and used them to block LOS then either he trapped a portion of his own guys behind that curtain, or he just screwed over his own LOS. Oh wait, you think this helps assault deathstars? Not really since he can't get to you through that wall of his own vehicles either. Honestly, there appears to be a double edged sword to either way you play it. If you drop them in open they are now HUGE. Good luck finding a clear spot to even land, and despite the owning player gaining some ground disembarking, you can now assault the tips of the pod as well. Personally I always felt they should be played as shut since there is no rule suggesting the doors remain open and honestly it avoids many assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am so happy about the rulings on chapter tactics as well. No more stacking abilities on deathstars or formations. Now if you add one foreign model to a unit with chapter tactics and they all lose them. This makes the game much easier and cleaner. If the trend follows into the other marine chapters, say goodbye to wolf stars. Or I should say, broken as feth wolf stars, i have nothing against a big bad unit so long as they aren't gaming rules from 3-4 different sources.

 Desubot wrote:

also really liked this one
"if you are reasonable about this, your opponents is unlikely to complain."

from the landspeeder one

fething GW. Just pick one. Say it's hull mounted or can swivel 45 degrees. I don't care what. Just say so.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)

This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.

Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!

Yeas. Clearly SM hate. They aren't one of the best armies in the game and the posterboys of the whole franchise. Nevermind that supplement with the insane powers and all the other support they get, clearly 1 grenade = SM hated.

Requizen wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)

This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.

Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!

Yeas. Clearly SM hate. They aren't one of the best armies in the game and the posterboys of the whole franchise. Nevermind that supplement with the insane powers and all the other support they get, clearly 1 grenade = SM hated.

Hahaha Space Maarine hatred. Oh boy you have not had to live life as a Tau player. Or Eldar.

LET'S STICK TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC HERE PLEASE.

 insaniak wrote:

There's no rule that says you have or do not have the option to change the configuration.

And so it is not an option.

You only have the option to do things that the rules tell you that you can do.

I would play with "deploy it the way you want it configured, and then leave it alone". It just makes it simple -- especially since if you can reconfigure -- then in which phase? That would matter, potentially a lot. If you could reconfigure any phase, you could open the doors, shoot, close the doors, and that just opens up a whole can of worms (and hurt).

However, that said, the FAQ says play it as modelled. The model has a hinge, so, much like a turret or a door on a land raider that's hinged, you can manipulate the hinged part as you wish. And really, if the Astartes could win 5% more battles by closing drop pod doors, I'm sure they'd happily hoist up the doors as shields, no differently than closing a land raider door after egress. The real issue is just that drop pods are exceptional because the doors are huge, on a model that people can field a lot of -- so we're asking for special rules for them.

Note that "play it as modelled" could potentially cause problems with other models, too. For example, you could play a storm raven with front and rear doors that open (this isn't even uncommon), and then open both to shoot through them, and then close both when you're done. Or even model a storm raven, land raider, or even rhino with side doors that you could shoot through (just model it with the doors open, or better, a hinge at the bottom that allows you to open/close it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)

Back when most of us had articulating doors, we did it exactly like you: mark the closed pod, scatter, open the doors you want (it made sense that you didn't have to open every door). However, now, I and the people I play with play with either drop pods door open or drop pods doors closed, because we tend to not want to rub off the paint around the hinges of our drop pods The fun thing, of course, is transporting drop pods with doors open. It's like, 1 drop pod to a box.

We always played with pods as partial cover, regardless of modelling, and nearly since the beginning, with doors as not counting as part of the model. When they first came out, we did play them with (open) doors as part of the hull, for a short time, but it was just impractical.

I always thought the simplest way to run drop pods is closed always. The are easiest to assemble and paint (not that that should matter to game rules) but more importantly you are making less assumptions. I hate it when people want to ignore the doors open or shut, it makes zero sense and has a very real impact on a game that functions on true line of sight. It's the same reason I hate melting through solid walls, go ahead and run through the crumbly ones, cool aid manning through a solid wall and then disallowing shots behind you makes zero sense as well.

I really don't think either method the FAQ presents is game breaking, there are obvious benefits and hindrances to either options for deployment. People worried about being fenced in need to realize this is possible in several other lists already using tanks. I mean white scar gladius, with scout moves, can end it's first turn 6 inches into an enemy deployment zone in dawn of war using rhinos and razorbacks, not half of them, ALL OF THEM. Those block LOS to any standard tank or infantry in the game as well. Better yet, the guys inside are guaranteed to be out of sight

 kronk wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

also really liked this one
"if you are reasonable about this, your opponents is unlikely to complain."

from the landspeeder one

fething GW. Just pick one. Say it's hull mounted or can swivel 45 degrees. I don't care what. Just say so.

They did pick one: "As per the model"... Which is exactly what the rules say to do.

If they had said 45 degrees, poeple would be arguing about exactly where that angle should be applied since the rail has more than a 45 degree run.

 insaniak wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

also really liked this one
"if you are reasonable about this, your opponents is unlikely to complain."

from the landspeeder one

fething GW. Just pick one. Say it's hull mounted or can swivel 45 degrees. I don't care what. Just say so.

They did pick one: "As per the model"... Which is exactly what the rules say to do.

If they had said 45 degrees, poeple would be arguing about exactly where that angle should be applied since the rail has more than a 45 degree run.

Perfect, then. Mine is mounted on a magnet and can swivel pretty far.

 kronk wrote:

Perfect, then. Mine is mounted on a magnet and can swivel pretty far.

Well, I will be bringing a protractor, just to make sure you don't exceed 45 degrees!

Part of me would like official diagrams, with arcs of fire, front/side/back sides, access points, fire points, etc all clearly labeled.

Not going to happen, but would clear up a lot of these types of arguments.

t seems to me that trying to DS 5, 9" diameter vehicles would be very difficult. Especially while trying to avoid other models and mishaps in a finite space. Attempting to do this while coordinating around objectives would also be problematic.

Deploying from the edge of the debarkation ramp doesnt seem crazy to me given that it never transports anything again, and you MUST disembark when it lands. Its a little extra deployment given its limitations. Especially its random landing spot and its massive, semi-circular foot print. Which, with my out dated high school diploma, says is about 60" (Pi*r squared, and 1" of clearance around the pod).

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Perfect, then. Mine is mounted on a magnet and can swivel pretty far.

Well, I will be bringing a protractor, just to make sure you don't exceed 45 degrees!

You don't need a protractor. The weapon's arc is represented quite nicely by the slide rail on which it is mounted.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Perfect, then. Mine is mounted on a magnet and can swivel pretty far.

Well, I will be bringing a protractor, just to make sure you don't exceed 45 degrees!

I've got my compass and graphing calculator. Game on!