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.

My friend said he plays them without doors at all. Apparently his marines survive through atmospheric entry through sheer testicular fortitude.

I could not find a legitimate flaw with his argument.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
My friend said he plays them without doors at all. Apparently his marines survive through atmospheric entry through sheer testicular fortitude.

I could not find a legitimate flaw with his argument.

Or the doors are completely blown off on arrival. Either way works.

No he specified that they don't have doors.

Testicular Fortitude.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
No he specified that they don't have doors.

Testicular Fortitude.

Technically speaking, Marine Power Armor is capable of high environmental temperatures and hostile atmospheres like the relative void of space. So dropping with doors is mostly to avoid the battering of atmosphere and debris/shrapnel/flakk during the approach and landing.

My answer was more for a general concept of not installing doors.

 Charistoph wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
No he specified that they don't have doors.

Testicular Fortitude.

Technically speaking, Marine Power Armor is capable of high environmental temperatures and hostile atmospheres like the relative void of space. So dropping with doors is mostly to avoid the battering of atmosphere and debris/shrapnel/flakk during the approach and landing.

My answer was more for a general concept of not installing doors.

I'm going with "Testicular Fortitude".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So the doors that constitute 90% of the hull, aren't hull?

I would play it as they're no longer hull when they're deployed. They're sitting on the ground, and in my opinion, become a piece of terrain.

 Ghaz wrote:

Breazeal wrote:
the 40k FB page has removed the errata to the side of the photos for the FAQS (which were generally more accurate).

No, the text is still there.

I'm also not seeing the text..

Just the pictures??

To clarify, they previously had each set of questions/answers off to the right of each picture with more up to date rules that often conflicted with the pictures.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So the doors that constitute 90% of the hull, aren't hull?

I would play it as they're no longer hull when they're deployed. They're sitting on the ground, and in my opinion, become a piece of terrain.

Yet your opinion is contradicted by the FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So the doors that constitute 90% of the hull, aren't hull?

I would play it as they're no longer hull when they're deployed. They're sitting on the ground, and in my opinion, become a piece of terrain.

Yet your opinion is contradicted by the FAQ.

Not quite true. The question was if doors are ignored, not if they are part of the hull. Unfortunately for game purposes, that only matters for blocking Line of Sight and Deep Strike Mishap, nothing else.

They don't become a piece of terrain, however. Which is clearly what I was referring to

But still HOW is something that is 90%+ hull, not hull?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They don't become a piece of terrain, however. Which is clearly what I was referring to

If it was clear, then I would have noted it. Apparently you need to be more detailed in your responses. It's not like he defined the doors as a specific type of Terrain after all. No definition of Terrain makes them same as the open table, after all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
But still HOW is something that is 90%+ hull, not hull?

Why are the doors hull? Because it covers 90% of the insides when closed? The thing is classed as Open-Topped for a reason. Sure, they look like hull when closed, but then, so does the back door of a Rhino. If a Rhino's door is open in the back, I cannot use it to provide LoS or Range to the Rhino. Why then would the doors of the Drop Pod? Just because they are bigger and cover more model?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So the doors that constitute 90% of the hull, aren't hull?

I would play it as they're no longer hull when they're deployed. They're sitting on the ground, and in my opinion, become a piece of terrain.

Yet your opinion is contradicted by the FAQ.

I directly referenced their single stated opinion. I even referenced it. Hard to be more explicit, but Ihave now put it in bold to make it clearer.

So why aren't they hull? Rules quote please.

Although not very explicitly, the rules, combined with the FAQs, suggest that the doors are actually part of the hull.

The BRB does not have a definition of "hull", but it clearly says what is NOT part of the hull, namely "gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements". These features are ignored for every purpose, from movement to line of sight. Since those exceptions are clearly stated, one could think that anything that is not purely decorative is, in fact, part of the hull. Now, are the doors decorative? They certainly aren't, and the FAQs are pretty clear on that: since they can even block line of sight, while decorative elements are ignored for that purpose, then they are not decorative. And if they are not decorative, they are part of the hull.

 doctortom wrote:


Do you fire the weapon on the drop pod? The model shows the weapon to be on the inside, needing the doors to be open. If you're playing that the doors are closed and not see-through, then you shouldn't be able to fire the weapon. If you're able to fire the weapon, then you should be considering the doors open. No getting to completely block line of sight with them and still let them shoot.

Its Open topped .. so why shouldn't the weapon be able to fire out of it regardless of doors open or closed? My Dreads shoot out of my Lucius Pods when they come in and the doors are closed.

We play that the doors on normal pods count for nothing when they deploy...they in fact don't exist at that point. If you play it this way there is nothing to argue about. If your pods are glued shut, a reasonable look at LoS will determine if they have cover or not regardless of the doors placement. They don't block LoS or cause terrain checks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I directly referenced their single stated opinion. I even referenced it. Hard to be more explicit, but Ihave now put it in bold to make it clearer.

Chill man. You are getting worked up. Apparently it was not interpreted the same way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So why aren't they hull? Rules quote please.

Why would they be Hull? They are Doors. Rules quote please.

zedsdead wrote:

Its Open topped .. so why shouldn't the weapon be able to fire out of it regardless of doors open or closed? My Dreads shoot out of my Lucius Pods when they come in and the doors are closed.

We play that the doors on normal pods count for nothing when they deploy...they in fact don't exist at that point. If you play it this way there is nothing to argue about. If your pods are glued shut, a reasonable look at LoS will determine if they have cover or not regardless of the doors placement. They don't block LoS or cause terrain checks.

You can play any way you want, but this is a discussion about rule interpretations. As such, home rules or group agreements have no place here. Only actual rules count. And the GW FAQs specifically state that you look at the actual model for LoS, so closed doors DO block LoS.

The Lucius Pod is a very different case. Since it is a passenger of an open-topped vehicle, the Dread CAN shoot, you get to measure the distance from any point of the drop pod hull, and you can even shoot all around you (while the Dread itself could only shoot in its front arc if it wasn't embarked). But the weapon of the vehicle itself is NOT a passenger, and can ONLY shoot if it has LoS to the enemy, after you orient the gun in its direction. A Drop Pod with the doors closed, according to the rules, CAN'T use its storm bolter.

In your gaming group you can play differently, but those are the rules, you are consciously ignoring them. Which is fine, but your personal, unsupported interpretation has no place in a discussion about the rules themselves.

Teschio wrote:
You can play any way you want, but this is a discussion about rule interpretations. As such, home rules or group agreements have no place here. Only actual rules count. And the GW FAQs specifically state that you look at the actual model for LoS, so closed doors DO block LoS.

The Lucius Pod is a very different case. Since it is a passenger of an open-topped vehicle, the Dread CAN shoot, you get to measure the distance from any point of the drop pod hull, and you can even shoot all around you (while the Dread itself could only shoot in its front arc if it wasn't embarked). But the weapon of the vehicle itself is NOT a passenger, and can ONLY shoot if it has LoS to the enemy, after you orient the gun it its direction. A Drop Pod with the doors closed, according to the rules, CAN'T use its storm bolter.

In your gaming group you can play differently, but those are the rules, you are consciously ignoring them. Which is fine, but your personal, unsupported interpretation has no place in a discussion about the rules themselves.

Considering that we here on Dakkadakka are NOT GW, I think personal rules interpretations (and even, yes, houserules) are appropriate to bring up. Especially when the GW ruling is pretty darn dumb.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Considering that we here on Dakkadakka are NOT GW, I think personal rules interpretations (and even, yes, houserules) are appropriate to bring up. Especially when the GW ruling is pretty darn dumb.

Step 1: Take a look at the YMDC page, the first topic on sticky, called "Tenets of You Make Da Call" (link for your convenience: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page )
Step 2: Please read point number 4.
Step 3: Realize that a discussion regarding the proper interpretation of the existing rules is necessarily about RAW, not about HYWPI.
Step 4: Understand why what you just said makes little sense in this particular environment. There is a section for home rules, and it's not this one.

Fair enough. I'm still in favor of ignoring that ruling (it's just so dumb) but RAW... Yeah, doors are part of the hull according to the FAQ.

This is a huge problem with the "play-with-toys" granularity of true LOS under the current 40k rules.

A better, simpler, and far more elegant solution would be to consider a keyword "vehicles": Any non-hovering vehicles block LOS. Vehicles which hover provide a 5+ cover save to models being shot at. This applies to enemy models as well.

Simple, easy and universal. No fiddling, no faddling. And it uses abstracts (which are important in a rule set) as opposed to the literality of true LOS, "pew, pew, I shot your guy because I could see 15% of his shoulder pad."

 JNAProductions wrote:
Fair enough. I'm still in favor of ignoring that ruling (it's just so dumb) but RAW... Yeah, doors are part of the hull according to the FAQ.

Incorrect. The answer never mentions hull in the FAQ. Associating the doors as part of the hull is a unjustified leap.

I agree, I was never a fan of true LoS, I prefer astraction and universal rules (like it was in WHFB before 7th edition kicked in: LoS was so abstract that you could, among friends, even proxy models using empty bases). But the rules clearly state how LoS works, and the only sensible thing to do is to accept this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Incorrect. The answer never mentions hull in the FAQ. Associating the doors as part of the hull is a unjustified leap.

As I said before, the BRB never defines "hull". But it clearly and explicitly states what is NOT part of the hull. Therefore, the only universal definition is that any part of the vehicle that is not explicitly considered not part of the hull MUST be part of the hull. This is the only possible objective interpretation, everything else is completely subjective and therefore should be disregarded. And if we accept this premise, then the FAQs clearly indicate that doors are not decorative (they block LoS, and decorative elements never do that), and are therefore part of the hull.

Teschio the GW FAQ you use in your argument is still under "Draft" status.. so by all means the ruling is still under discussion and allowed in the premise of the forum. To claim that the doors are not decorative by the way of the "unofficial" Draft FAQ is arguable if you decide to accept the premise that these FAQS are official. However.. many..many of us don't consider Drafts as official at this time. So to claim that our ruling on the issue is a "House Ruling" is nonsense.

zedsdead wrote:
Teschio the GW FAQ you use in your argument is still under "Draft" status.. so by all means the ruling is still under discussion and allowed in the premise of the forum. To claim that the doors are not decorative by the way of the "unofficial" Draft FAQ is arguable if you decide to accept the premise that these FAQS are official. However.. many..many of us don't consider Drafts as official at this time. So to claim that our ruling on the issue is a "House Ruling" is nonsense.

Of course it's based on the Draft, I never denied it. But that draft, while still a work in progress, are the closest thing we have to a FAQ, and in every tournament where I live is accepted as the current interpretation. I have always been one for rules, not subjective interpretations, and even though they are still in Draft, they are the closest thing we have to an objective ruling, and therefore I accept them, even when I don't agree with them. Do I think the rule about drop pods is stupid? Sure I do, that's obvious. But if it was confirmed, then the doors are part of the hull, there's not much doubt about that.

PS: there is an even more ridiculous ruling in those FAQs, the one that says Scout re-deployments are done after the Seize the Initiative roll, and this makes absolutely no sense because there are effects that are specifically resolved AFTER the scout re-deployment but BEFORE you can StI, like Cluster Mines. Therefore, the FAQ is most obviously wrong, because it specifically contradicts a codex. BUT I follow it nevertheless, because I recognize the value of objective rule interpretations. And because every tournament around here uses them.

My playgroup modified the faq so that the pod drops in closed. Once it drops, he can open any and all doors he wants, but can leave some of them closed (like if it would go into a building or off the board, or onto models.

Then the disembarking unit cannot disembark from those points. They have to use one of the open slots. Normally that isn't a big deal, the wings are spread enough to only deny like an inch or so. But deepstriking right up against enemy units or reducing scatter to just barely miss them means they have that much further to disembark, potentially removing models from melta range.

We feel that this is the most thematic and correct way to play them.

You know, outside of squishing units under drop pods and doors, immediately charging out into c.c. ... But we can't have everything

Teschio wrote:

zedsdead wrote:
Teschio the GW FAQ you use in your argument is still under "Draft" status.. so by all means the ruling is still under discussion and allowed in the premise of the forum. To claim that the doors are not decorative by the way of the "unofficial" Draft FAQ is arguable if you decide to accept the premise that these FAQS are official. However.. many..many of us don't consider Drafts as official at this time. So to claim that our ruling on the issue is a "House Ruling" is nonsense.

Of course it's based on the Draft, I never denied it. But that draft, while still a work in progress, are the closest thing we have to a FAQ, and in every tournament where I live is accepted as the current interpretation. I have always been one for rules, not subjective interpretations, and even though they are still in Draft, they are the closest thing we have to an objective ruling, and therefore I accept them, even when I don't agree with them. Do I think the rule about drop pods is stupid? Sure I do, that's obvious. But if it was confirmed, then the doors are part of the hull, there's not much doubt about that.

PS: there is an even more ridiculous ruling in those FAQs, the one that says Scout re-deployments are done after the Seize the Initiative roll, and this makes absolutely no sense because there are effects that are specifically resolved AFTER the scout re-deployment but BEFORE you can StI, like Cluster Mines. Therefore, the FAQ is most obviously wrong, because it specifically contradicts a codex. BUT I follow it nevertheless, because I recognize the value of objective rule interpretations. And because every tournament around here uses them.

That's fine..in my area the Draft FAQs aren't accepted. In the Tournaments I attend they aren't accepted. In the Tournament I run (BFS) they aren't accepted. So its all subjective. Claiming I had no right to include my thoughts on the discussion based on "YOUR" acceptance of the Draft FAQS even though they are a "work in progress" and "unofficial" is insulting. Also basing that claim because "that's how you play it in your area" doesn't make it any less then your areas "House Rule". You accept it fine... but trying to shut my voice on the subject down by pointing to forum rules is a bit much imho.

PS: Drop Pods is the discussion at hand here.. so Scout moves have no place in the discussion. However ...."following forum protocol" I can add further nonsense to the GW FAQ regarding Drop Pods. In accordance to the FW Lucius Drop Pod rules. Doors are to go open to there full extent on deployment. However also mentions walking on the doors to grant cover. Would I be able to walk on those doors if it was "Hull" ? Not really. Would my flamer templates be started at the ends of the doors lying on the ground virtually giving me 15" flamer shots ?
Well its Forgeworld right ? so do those rules matter ? I think they do because they were created under the guidelines of how GW Pods work.
I can go on all day regarding the ridiculous "UNOFFICIAL" rulings GW has made about Drop Pods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr ghoti wrote:
My playgroup modified the faq so that the pod drops in closed. Once it drops, he can open any and all doors he wants, but can leave some of them closed (like if it would go into a building or off the board, or onto models.

Then the disembarking unit cannot disembark from those points. They have to use one of the open slots. Normally that isn't a big deal, the wings are spread enough to only deny like an inch or so. But deepstriking right up against enemy units or reducing scatter to just barely miss them means they have that much further to disembark, potentially removing models from melta range.

We feel that this is the most thematic and correct way to play them.

You know, outside of squishing units under drop pods and doors, immediately charging out into c.c. ... But we can't have everything

How does that work for Dreadnoughts using GW Pods.. would they have to emergency disembark if there was not enough room to open enough doors ? Once doors are open can models walk on them? Do they count as difficult/dangerous terrain ? Can the disembarked unit walk on them ?

The difference is that you talked about how you view the rules IN YOUR GROUP, I didn't. Mine was not a subjective interpretation, it was a LITERAL interpretation of some rules. Are the rules in a draft stage? Sure. But I did not make them up. Whether they are accepted or not, it's undeniable that they come from GW. We may not like them, some are openly ridiculous, but they are the closest thing we have to FAQs for now. Using them as a base for discussion is MUCH different than saying "in my group we don't like the rule, so this is how we interpret it". I am interpreting existing material, you are making things up. Putting those two behaviours on the same level is a false equivalence.

As for the FW rules, you should ask yourself how old are those rules. Many FW units have rules that were written for 6th edition, and even though they are still allowed today, you need to take that into consideration. In past editions, iirc, the doors were terrain, but this doesn't mean they are NOW. The Lucius still has the part about doors opening fully upon arrival, which was written in the rules for DPs in past editions, but NOT in this one. This is how outdated those rules are. Still, being all for RAW, I WOULD use the rules from FW in case of the Lucius DP, even though they are written for a past edition, but I will not extend them to regular DPs.

Teschio wrote:
The difference is that you talked about how you view the rules IN YOUR GROUP. Using them as a base for discussion is MUCH different than saying "in my group we don't like the rule, so this is how we interpret it". I am interpreting existing material, you are making things up. Putting those two behaviours on the same level is a false equivalence.

Where did I say this ? lol... you interpreted "We" as meaning all that ? lol...

I now understand your mind set. I guess your a forum MOD now as well and your responsibility is to direct the conversation to where you see fit and to interpret the motives of my comments ?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW....as far is literal rules go..yea I use literal ones, that are official.. until they become official they are nothing but test rules and unofficial and ill base nothing off of them.

zedsdead:

Dreads: same rules. It can emerge from any open door, but the door has to be able to fully (or at least mostly) land open to be able to disembark.

Shooting: counts and line of sight blocking, and shooting through another unit. 5+ cover, and the panels can block LoS to the inner gun just like a real life closed door.

For almost all purposes, doors are just open terrain. I kind of think they should be difficult (like moving over a wrecked vehicle for instance). Models from both sides may walk on the doors, must assault base pod to damage in cc.

Haven't thought about emergency disembark for a dread, but as we play it it is just like normal vehicle disembarking. If you can't fit the models, those models are destroyed as normal.

So I GUESS there could be an instance where a drop pod scatters into a perfectly round drop pod +1" hole in the middle of a swarm of rippers. When it lands, the marine player cannot legally choose to open any doors, so the unit inside can't disembark and is destroyed.

But just try to apply that into real world gameplay; it would take astronomical stupidity and luck to be able to pull that off. Its like tank shocking a planted storm surge. By the book, the storm surge is removed no doubts about that. But how are you ever going to get that flimsy box all the way up there without it exploding first?

It might sound bad at first, but its really cleaned up our games. We have like 6 or 7 marine players who all have access to pods. We worked it out together and we like the way it works.

Mr ghoti wrote:

It might sound bad at first, but its really cleaned up our games. We have like 6 or 7 marine players who all have access to pods. We worked it out together and we like the way it works.

And this Mr ghoti is in my opinion the most important thing right ?

unfortunately GW has yet to make an "official" ruling on drop pod doors beyond its new "Test" FAQs. Until that time, any rules regarding the DP Door is going to be some form of "house rule".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teschio wrote:
As for the FW rules, you should ask yourself how old are those rules. Many FW units have rules that were written for 6th edition, and even though they are still allowed today, you need to take that into consideration. In past editions, iirc, the doors were terrain, but this doesn't mean they are NOW. The Lucius still has the part about doors opening fully upon arrival, which was written in the rules for DPs in past editions, but NOT in this one. This is how outdated those rules are. Still, being all for RAW, I WOULD use the rules from FW in case of the Lucius DP, even though they are written for a past edition, but I will not extend them to regular DPs.

yes in older editions it did mention doors opening. And as you point out in the newest edition things have changed. Yes..there is no mention of doors opening in the SM:Codex. So the door issue shouldn't be even considered.
Its an opened topped vehicle. Open topped vehicles have no access points.
- Furthermore the doors/ramps/hatches and bases are "access points" in BRB pg 80 that's RAW on the description of those items.. it goes on to apply rules to those items on vehicles. Nothing about them being "Hull".

so RAW...and not my interpritation of the rules.. Or for that matter applying GWs test FAQ. Drop Pods are pretty simple in how they work.


Drop Pods have removed any description of doors opening in the SM codex
Drop Pod doors are at best "Access points" and not forced to open them as per the BRB pg 80 (rhino doors, Land Raiders ect have them... never played where they had to be open)
Drop Pods are "Open Topped".SM:Codex pg 158
Opened topped vehicles have no access points as per BRB pg 88

So there is no need to ever open a DP door to disembark from them.