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.

Since the new FAQ has come out it has cleared up that deepstriking in to friendly models counts as impassable terrain and the deepstriking models are destroyed.

Would the same ruling count for drop pods meaning that the pod stops just before the friendly models because they now count as impassable terrain?

"friendly models count as impassable terrain for the purposes of Deep Striking" as per the 40k general FAQ. The drop pod would land 1 inch from the unit.

But were in the rules for drop pods does it state that they use the Deep Strike rules?

Banesword hit the nail on the head, drop pods don't deep strike.

I would go with your assessment DK but it IS a leap from one rule to the other, a very small leap, maybe a hop, or a stumble, maybe even a slight shuffle over, but it isn't RAW.

It's not raw but it might as well be, so I wouldn't bother worrying about it.

Check the SM codex faq also.

You stop playing until science discovers a way for two objects to occupy the same space, because that's what the rules require.

Or you just squeeze them in there.

I don't think it is the biggest leap in reasoning to assume that the rules for Deep Striking apply to Drop Pods in this case.

Friendly Models count as Impassible Terrain for Drop Pods.

Drop Pods can't land in Impassible Terrain and if they Scatter into it they just reduce their scatter.

Playing by RAW in this situtation creates a scenario that is neither practical nor advantagous.

No, playing by the RAW is not possible. Playing by the RAW means you have to break the laws of physics and those are the only laws I'm not prepared to break.

Thanks Ed, I needed a new sig.

Just note that I'm refering to a specific situation where it isn't possible to follow the RAW. The dim witted might believe I'm advocating ignoring the RAW all together.

Still makes for a good sig.

Hell, the 2nd one's a good sig too.