Drop Pods and true LOS

[Astral Platypus]

I had a heated disagreement over this a few months back.

I had just landed a drop pod with Long Fangs and Logan Grimnar inside.

I shot a Landraider and a rhino with the squad, blowing them both up.

My opponent attempts to shoot THROUGH the drop pod at my squad, which is where the argument began.
His interpretation is that the hatches to my Drop Pod were supposed to be open (the doors are beat up, so now the Drop Pod is glued shut) giving him LOS to my squad, which he would not have had otherwise.

My interpretation is that you cannot shoot through a vehicle.

Which is correct?

Also of note:
I went to the bathroom, partially to take a break from the argument, and when I came back one of the hatches and two of the support struts for said hatch of my drop were laying on the table. The guy had tried to open it.

[memnarch_129]

I feel for you on the broken pod. The guy should not have tried to open a glued model regardless. The concensus Ive seen is that you can draw line of sight through the Pod but that the squad gets a cover save because of shooting through the supports.

[DarkLink]

1. You play what's actually on the table. There's no "doors supposed to be open" or "doors supposed to be shut".

2. If the guy actually broke your model trying to force it to conform to his view of the rules, you might want to find someone else to play.

[SonicPara]

The official way to play a Drop Pod model is for the "petals" to be down and the pod to be open, allowing models (via TLOS) to fire through the pod. As mentioned before, when shooting through the pod you are almost always granting a cover save to the target unit due to the cluttered nature of the interior of a drop pod.

Gluing the pod shut and then hiding behind TLOS is modelling for an advantage and not only is an illegal use of a drop pod model but also is a practice that will rub many the wrong way. Yes TLOS is part of the game but modelling for an advantage is not and is almost unanimously considered unacceptable.

To avoid any future disputes and possible game-ruining arguments, I would recommend playing the drop pod as if the pod was open (fun fact, the "petals" actually don't even count as part of the vehicle for placing models and measuring distances) even though your model is not able to do so. That said the guy, while correct about how to play drop pods, had no right to mess with your drop pod model so you are absolutely in-the-right to be upset about it.

[somerandomdude]

I'd like to ask, do you ever shoot with the weapons of the Drop Pod? How do you have them modeled?

If they're on the inside (the established mounting point) then they would not be able to fire by TLoS. If they're on the outside, you're modeling for advantage, and should allow a little leeway for your opponents. I'm not going to defend someone who tried to force something with your models and caused one to break, but if he hadn't had done that then I would say (in the hypothetical I presented) you were the one who was a poor sport.

If you do fire your weapons, even though you'd never be able to draw LoS, then you should allow your opponent to fire through the drop pod as well. You're already breaking the rules, you might as well let everyone break that rule.

[blackarmchair]

Adam from the space wolves blog posted an article on this awhile back. Seems there's something of an answer in the GW Grand Tournament FAQ

http://space-wolves-grey.blogspot.com/2009/06/drpo-pod-faq.html (article here)

I like this solution. It's rather elegant and adds a tactical decision to the process.

In terms of rulebooks and official FAQs there's nothing forcing you to open your drop pods they block your LoS the same as your opponent's. To anyone who tells you that you have to open your hatches to disembark insist that they must do the same on all of their glued-shut rhinos and see what they say (a vehicle is a vehicle and disembarking works the same).

My Drop Pods are all glued shut, the doors kept falling open and it annoyed me. We always play it with TLoS and I have yet to get a complaint. Sounds like you bumped into a jerk lol

[SonicPara]

To anyone who tells you that you have to open your hatches to disembark insist that they must do the same on all of their glued-shut rhinos and see what they say (a vehicle is a vehicle and disembarking works the same).

This is an incorrect comparison. Transport tanks like Rhinos, Chimeras, and Devilfish have clearly defined "hatches" where models are able to open, embark/disembark, and then close them again. The Space Marine Drop Pod has no such hatches as defined by their rules. Instead, they have doors that blow open and then stay open to allow the embarked unit to disembark and for the on-board weapon (storm bolter/deathwind missile launcher) to begin firing at the enemy. Therefore, by both RAW and RAI (this is made clear by the model having a BS and a weapon which is located on the inside of the pod. As pointed out before, if the drop pod was intended to be closed then the weapon would not be usable) the drop pod does not have resealable hatches like other transports and has to obey the specially explained disembarking process detailed in the Drop Pod's entry.

Playing it any other way is modelling for advantage and is illegal in the core rules of 40K. As with all rules in the game system, you and your opponent are able to create house rules but playing a pod as having closed doors is not the true way to play it and so you have no grounds on which to object if an opponent attempts to shoot through your drop pod model.

[volrath8754]

Well I know a lot of people don't care for adepticon's INAT but yet again it answers a question. Here is what adepticon has to say about the issue:

"If the doors cannot be opened (they are glued in place or a player is using a model that doesn‟t have doors that open/has a solid core), both players must agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see „through‟ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can play that the model blocks line of sight „as is‟ in which case the Space Marine player will be unable to fire the Drop Pod‟s weapon (a trade-off for the improved line of sight blocking ability of the model)."

Thus if you and you're opponent can't come to an agreement before the game you would be forced to dice off before the game began and that would be that. I personally hate the petals getting in the way and glue mine shut so I feel you're pain man.

[hisdudeness]

"If the doors cannot be opened (they are glued in place or a player is using a model that doesn‟t have doors that open/has a solid core), both players must agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see „through‟ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can play that the model blocks line of sight „as is‟ in which case the Space Marine player will be unable to fire the Drop Pod‟s weapon (a trade-off for the improved line of sight blocking ability of the model)."


The best answer I have ever found. If they are up, no gun. If they are down, cover. Simple, causes no additional problems and fits the rules.

[Lemt]

I don't think that leaving some petals up or some down is an abuse either. You can fire in the direction the petals are left up, but for that you gain better cover. I think it's a fair trade-off.

They guy who broke the Drop Pod trying to open it is not someone I'd play again with, BTW.

[BuFFo]

His interpretation is that the hatches to my Drop Pod were supposed to be open (the doors are beat up, so now the Drop Pod is glued shut) giving him LOS to my squad, which he would not have had otherwise.


Drop pod doors open up when they land. You do not have a choice. People in this thread seem to not be able to read words. When a drop pod lands, its doors open. There is no may, or choice here.

It doesn't matter if your doors are broken or not, what you did could be considered cheating.

How about you be a good sport, play by the rules written for your drop pod, and count the doors as open as they are supposed to be, in stead of using the excuse that the doors are broken, thus glued, giving you a borderline cheater's advantage.

If I played you, I wouldn't even let you use the drop pods unless you counted them as opened, otherwise, find someone else to play, otherwise I am gluing giant sails on my ork vehicles to block line of sight to your entire army, disregarding what the rules say on this subject just like you did.

[Lemt]

Drop pod doors open up when they land. You do not have a choice. People in this thread seem to not be able to read words. When a drop pod lands, its doors open. There is no may, or choice here.

It doesn't matter if your doors are broken or not, what you did could be considered cheating.

How about you be a good sport, play by the rules written for your drop pod, and count the doors as open as they are supposed to be, in stead of using the excuse that the doors are broken, thus glued, giving you a borderline cheater's advantage.

If I played you, I wouldn't even let you use the drop pods unless you counted them as opened, otherwise, find someone else to play, otherwise I am gluing giant sails on my ork vehicles to block line of sight to your entire army, disregarding what the rules say on this subject just like you did.

NOWHERE do the rules ever say the drop pod petals have to be open. You can justify it from the fluff, but even then only one petal would have to be open for the troops to disembark. The "if the petals are closed, you can't fire" makes sense RAW and RAI, so that seems the best option.

And you could place giant sails on your ork vehicles, but the rules DO say that extra stuff you add to official models don't matter with LoS.

[Lerra]

I've got a few scratch built drop pods, and the doors don't open. Functioning doors was beyond my ability as a modeler.

I've always played that the drop pod blocks LoS but it can't fire its weapon. That's how other people with old scratch-built drop pods tend to play, too, and over the years I've only gotten one objection, and that was from a guy who claimed that the whole squad was destroyed because they couldn't disembark through the hatches. We ended up 4+ing it.

Most squads are too big to hide completely behind a drop pod anyway. Plus, if you hide behind the drop pod, the squad won't be able to shoot at anything after it comes down, and imo that's half the reason to take a drop pod: melta at a tank turn 1, or 10 bolters rapid firing at something turn 1. Tbh, I would rather have access to the storm bolter, but it seems like a fair compromise to me.

If I bought new drop pods, I'd probably either model them with the doors glued shut or without the doors entirely. Those starfishes are damned annoying, with the doors always flopping around and getting damaged, or being unable to open due to models or terrain in the way, and then models have a hard time walking over the doors. Much easier to play without the doors imo.

[BuFFo]

NOWHERE do the rules ever say the drop pod petals have to be open. You can justify it from the fluff, but even then only one petal would have to be open for the troops to disembark. The "if the petals are closed, you can't fire" makes sense RAW and RAI, so that seems the best option.

And you could place giant sails on your ork vehicles, but the rules DO say that extra stuff you add to official models don't matter with LoS.

Right in the drop pod rules, page 69 under the Transport rules, "Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and the passengers must immediately disembark, as normal." This isn't a choice. I guess if you argue that the hatches don't have to be open, you could argue that the passengers don't have to immediately get out and wait inside?

"Oh, the rules don't say blown 'open'"

Read the next batch of rules for being open topped. Why is the Drop Pod no longer a sealed environment? because the hatches did blow open. What? Can the marines just close the doors and make it sealed again, thus losing it's open topped status? No, they can't.

Drop pod lands, hatches open, marines come out, pod becomes open topped.

"Oh, but the part about the hatches being blown is fluff"

Wait, but within the same sentence, we are told to disembark the marines. Are you saying that is fluff as well, or are you saying there is fluff AND rules within the very same sentence, and you get to cherry pick which one you want to do? Under the headline "Transport" every sentence is a rule. Interjecting poor excuses like "oh, i want this part of the rule to be fluff" is wishing at it's finest.

As I said, if you want to cherry pick and call part of the rule fluff, then why don't you keep your marines tucked inside because I am calling that part of the rule fluff as well? Surely Marines can decide to just stay inside if they want.

[blackarmchair]

This is an incorrect comparison. Transport tanks like Rhinos, Chimeras, and Devilfish have clearly defined "hatches" where models are able to open, embark/disembark, and then close them again. The Space Marine Drop Pod has no such hatches as defined by their rules. Instead, they have doors that blow open and then stay open to allow the embarked unit to disembark and for the on-board weapon (storm bolter/deathwind missile launcher) to begin firing at the enemy. Therefore, by both RAW and RAI (this is made clear by the model having a BS and a weapon which is located on the inside of the pod. As pointed out before, if the drop pod was intended to be closed then the weapon would not be usable) the drop pod does not have resealable hatches like other transports and has to obey the specially explained disembarking process detailed in the Drop Pod's entry.

Playing it any other way is modelling for advantage and is illegal in the core rules of 40K. As with all rules in the game system, you and your opponent are able to create house rules but playing a pod as having closed doors is not the true way to play it and so you have no grounds on which to object if an opponent attempts to shoot through your drop pod model.

Show me a rule that says the hatches must be open. You claim that RAW it must be.

If you want to claim it blocks the gun that's fine; a stormbolter is not highly relevant (for me at least) but if it were illegal for a vehicle to block the LoS of its own guns every land raider and predator would be illegal for blocking half the arc of it's sponson guns.

Heck, if you look at the diagram in the BRB a leman russ can shoot through it's own treads. Fluff-wise, yes the hatches on a drop pod would open, but then again what's to prevent them from closing them or only blowing a single hatch open?

--------------
@BuFFo

Where are you seeing that? It says that nowhere in my SW codex. All it says is that passengers must immediately disembark and then under open-topped it says that the drop pod is not a "sealed enviornment" (w/e that means). To me nothing here COMPELS you to open the pod...

[JxKxR]

I'm with Buffo on this one as soon as the drop pod enters play the doors fly open and you can shoot through it with cover saves. You might not be able to hide a whole squad behind it but you could hide a dreadnaught so I say no to the doors staying shut. As for keeping some petals up and some down I wouldn't be happy about that. Now if you were using scratch built drop pods like Lerra I would just discuss it with the opponent and compromise.

As for the guy who broke your pod I have a rule, "If you break my models you have to pay for a new one." That's fair right?

[Morgan Darkstar]

wow i actually don't believe some of the posts in this thread im sorry but in EVERY picture i have ever seen of a droppod in a game it has been open.

if you have glued it closed or scratc built it then thats fine as long as you come to a compromise with your opponent

but to use the argument "it doesn't say i have to put the petals down is quite frankly a

BLATANT ABUSE OF THE RULES to gain extra cover i.e. CHEATING

[JxKxR]

wow i actually don't believe some of the posts in this thread im sorry but in EVERY picture i have ever seen of a droppod in a game it has been open.

if you have glued it closed or scratc built it then thats fine as long as you come to a compromise with your opponent

but to use the argument "it doesn't say i have to put the petals down is quite frankly a

BLATANT ABUSE OF THE RULES to gain extra cover i.e. CHEATING

Yup.

[Astral Platypus]

I get what you guys are saying, and will play it that way. The argument I was having with the guy was about shooting through a vehicle AT ALL, which you have never been able to do before. I guess it didn't occur to me that a drop pod would be different now with 5th ed.

[Lemt]

Right in the drop pod rules, page 69 under the Transport rules, "Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and the passengers must immediately disembark, as normal." This isn't a choice. I guess if you argue that the hatches don't have to be open, you could argue that the passengers don't have to immediately get out and wait inside?

"Oh, the rules don't say blown 'open'"

Read the next batch of rules for being open topped. Why is the Drop Pod no longer a sealed environment? because the hatches did blow open. What? Can the marines just close the doors and make it sealed again, thus losing it's open topped status? No, they can't.

Drop pod lands, hatches open, marines come out, pod becomes open topped.

"Oh, but the part about the hatches being blown is fluff"

Wait, but within the same sentence, we are told to disembark the marines. Are you saying that is fluff as well, or are you saying there is fluff AND rules within the very same sentence, and you get to cherry pick which one you want to do? Under the headline "Transport" every sentence is a rule. Interjecting poor excuses like "oh, i want this part of the rule to be fluff" is wishing at it's finest.

As I said, if you want to cherry pick and call part of the rule fluff, then why don't you keep your marines tucked inside because I am calling that part of the rule fluff as well? Surely Marines can decide to just stay inside if they want.

Just read it again, and yeah, seems I WAS wrong. You've convinced me. It's eaither rules OR fluff, and people tend to pick out only what they want.

Not that it really affects me. I play tyranids 100% assault, so LoS and all that jazz doesn't really matter for my army.

[Morgan Darkstar]

I get what you guys are saying, and will play it that way. The argument I was having with the guy was about shooting through a vehicle AT ALL, which you have never been able to do before. I guess it didn't occur to me that a drop pod would be different now with 5th ed.

it just occurred to me that it would be easier to think about it as area terain in regards to shooting through it.

[Astral Platypus]

it just occurred to me that it would be easier to think about it as area terain in regards to shooting through it.

Good idea. I think I just need to play more games in 5th ed than I did in 2-4, and maybe not mention Space Wolves when I ask rules questions.

[JxKxR]

Good idea. I think I just need to play more games in 5th ed than I did in 2-4.

ALWAYS a solid idea! :D

[Morgan Darkstar]

Good idea. I think I just need to play more games in 5th ed than I did in 2-4, and maybe not mention Space Wolves when I ask rules questions.

i wouldn't worry about it there are rules in 5th ed that are so ambiguous everyones gotten something wrong.

I sometimes wish that more people would think about trying to have fun with the the game than picking apart its rules.

btw the guy was an *** for breaking your model, what did he have to say for himself?

[Astral Platypus]

Lol. He didn't say anything, or look me in the eye. We finished the game with my interpretation of the rules, which I kinda feel guilty about now. He just tends to have slightly different notions of personal property than most gamers do.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Lol. He didn't say anything, or look me in the eye. We finished the game with my interpretation of the rules, which I kinda feel guilty about now. He just tends to have slightly different notions of personal property than most gamers do.

nah dont feel guilty, what he did was far worse than a rules disagreement.

[Demonus]

lol anyone who broke my models while i was in the bathroom would be experiencing first hand a dotted eye from my fist.

+1 to buffo in this thread. i cant believe some of you posters. my doors are closed! you cant shoot my bad *** marines cause we are hiding behind our open topped drop pod!

[BuFFo]

Good idea. I think I just need to play more games in 5th ed than I did in 2-4, and maybe not mention Space Wolves when I ask rules questions.

I am not familiar with Space Wolves at all.

If their rule for drop pods do not tell you to open up the doors/blow the hatches/fart on venus like the Space Marine book does, then keep it closed!

I am only quoting the rule from the Space Marine codex, not the other codex chapters.

Sorry if it seemed I implied it this way!!! Flog my butt thrice please!!!!

[UltramarineFan]

We play it so that we assume the petals are all down but if you do the 'up or down' method then you really should be forced to have at least one of them down, otherwise the unit would not be able to get out.The only issue i have with choosing whether they are up or down is if you look at the model, there's no real way of getting from one 'section' to another, so if you are in one pair of seats, using the door closest to you looks to be the only way out.

[blackarmchair]

@UltramarineFan

That's exactly how we do it. You open a hatch or two and that's the firing arc of the weapon inside. That's how the WH40K GT FAQ says to do it, that's how INAT says to do it.

But apparently I model for advantage and am a cheater even though countless gamers at my FLGS agree with me as do official and semi-official FAQs. I can't believe some of the things people post (looking at you Darkstar).

[Morgan Darkstar]

@UltramarineFan

That's exactly how we do it. You open a hatch or two and that's the firing arc of the weapon inside. That's how the WH40K GT FAQ says to do it, that's how INAT says to do it.

But apparently I model for advantage and am a cheater even though countless gamers at my FLGS agree with me as do official and semi-official FAQs. I can't believe some of the things people post (looking at you Darkstar).

well i could continue this argument........... and i will :p

if you do model like this then you ARE modeling for an advantage. dont deny it.
Regardless of what unofficial faq's say "btw what official FAQ are you talking about i will go read it if you tell me" i dont play competitively so i dont care what rules tornaments decide on. if you and your friends are happy playing like that its cool but myself several others on this forum and everyone i have ever played with disagree.

[SonicPara]

Show me a rule that says the hatches must be open. You claim that RAW it must be.

A drop pod does not have clearly defined hatches similar to rhinos and razorbacks. The models inside are only able to disembark (and must immediately when it arrives) because the thing is open topped after it lands (doors are blown open). If you claim that the doors close again like the doors on a rhino or razorback, then you are incorrect as there are no such hatches on the drop pod. This is were RAW clearly defies your way of playing the model. If you claim that the drop pod is a sealed environment then you are breaking several rules at once.

Firstly, you are abusing TLOS by modelling for advantage.

Secondly, you are not disembarking your unit immediately as there are no hatches that allow you to do so if the drop pod is a sealed environment as you suggest.

And lastly you are abusing the "Most Important Rule" by letting your desire to gain an advantage get in the way of the sporting mentality that 40K requires of its players to function.

As said earlier, you are completely free to add in a house rule to change how drop pods work but doing so without clearly stating that you are modifying the rules and therefore giving your opponent the opportunity to reject it is blatant cheating and an abuse of TLOS by modelling for advantage.

This may seem harsh but since people that play pods this way tend to cling to their unfair advantage, I'm trying to explain it in terms that no one would be able to confuse and ignore.


btw what official FAQ are you talking about i will go read it if you tell me

He is referring to a 40K tournament FAQ that explained how the drop pod would be used in the tournament. He is mistaking a tournament specific FAQ (house rule) for actual official rules to be applied to 40K forever. Such a FAQ addresses only how the Drop Pod will be used in that specific tournament and therefore cannot be cited when playing games outside of the event.

[Tynskel]

hmmm...
I think people need to look up the idiom for 'blowing the hatch'.
For example, Gus Grissom almost died because of his space capsule's 'blown hatch'. The the door was blown off. Gone.

[Morgan Darkstar]

A drop pod does not have clearly defined hatches similar to rhinos and razorbacks. The models inside are only able to disembark (and must immediately when it arrives) because the thing is open topped after it lands (doors are blown open). If you claim that the doors close again like the doors on a rhino or razorback, then you are incorrect as there are no such hatches on the drop pod. This is were RAW clearly defies your way of playing the model. If you claim that the drop pod is a sealed environment then you are breaking several rules at once.

Firstly, you are abusing TLOS by modelling for advantage.

Secondly, you are not disembarking your unit immediately as there are no hatches that allow you to do so if the drop pod is a sealed environment as you suggest.

And lastly you are abusing the "Most Important Rule" by letting your desire to gain an advantage get in the way of the sporting mentality that 40K requires of its players to function.

As said earlier, you are completely free to add in a house rule to change how drop pods work but doing so without clearly stating that you are modifying the rules and therefore giving your opponent the opportunity to reject it is blatant cheating and an abuse of TLOS by modelling for advantage.

This may seem harsh but since people that play pods this way tend to cling to their unfair advantage, I'm trying to explain it in terms that no one would be able to confuse and ignore.



He is referring to a 40K tournament FAQ that explained how the drop pod would be used in the tournament. He is mistaking a tournament specific FAQ (house rule) for actual official rules to be applied to 40K forever. Such a FAQ addresses only how the Drop Pod will be used in that specific tournament and therefore cannot be cited when playing games outside of the event.

Thank you for putting this in such a well thought out way.

ah a tournament faq well thats coverd by my statement on said events.

[blackarmchair]

It's a GW Grand Tournament FAQ.

As in produced by GW, you're splitting hairs now. Just because one is USED for a tournament and one is printed for the general populace doesn't make one FAQ any less based in reason or any less official. The only real difference is which webpage you download it from.

The fact that INAT has corroborated this only strengthens the argument.

http://space-wolves-grey.blogspot.co...o-pod-faq.html (article here).

I do play competitively, but even before I did we always played it that way. Your model is what it is and TLoS is the name of the game, as a rule of thumb you shouldn't "imagine" that a model is something it's not (unless both players agree to a house rule).

[Tynskel]

bah, INAT is crap, even if it copies GW. There are soooooooooo many issues with INAT that do not make a lick of sense. I wouldn't use INAT as your 'back-up' on how to determine rules. Yes, it is good to know what it says, hence why I have read it, but I do not use it to tell me how to play.

Kinda like the Bible, good to know what it says, but you wouldn't catch me following it! Neither the Koran, nor other garbage not based upon reason.

[somerandomdude]

If you want to claim it blocks the gun that's fine; a stormbolter is not highly relevant (for me at least)

Statements like these suggest modeling for advantage.

"I know this isn't the way the official model is, and there's a downside to doing it this way, but that downside actually has very little in game effect so I'm okay with it."

That may not be the way you meant it, but that is what it sounds like, and while I'm not about to shout "CHEATER" I can't help but hear a little voice in my head saying it.

Also, an FAQ for a specific tournament, whether officially from GW or not, doesn't necessarily mean that this is the correct way to play it. An FAQ to the codex (on GW's main website) would be used in ALL GW tournaments, as well as many local and large-scale tournaments. You can say that it provides support for you, but for those of us who live in different areas, some sort of universal ruling would be much more appropriate.

Right now, I'm not sure where to go to find that FAQ you're talking about, and no one who doesn't already know about it would either. Even if I did find it, how exactly should I present that to the locals? "Well, I know there's nothing on the official website, but this one tournament they did they ruled that it went this way. Oh, and blackarmchair on the BoLS forum does it this way too."

[SonicPara]

It's a GW Grand Tournament FAQ.

As in produced by GW, you're splitting hairs now. Just because one is USED for a tournament and one is printed for the general populace doesn't make one FAQ any less based in reason or any less official. The only real difference is which webpage you download it from.

As mentioned before, a tournament FAQ is a tournament FAQ. It has zero application outside of said tournament. Many tournies have rule modifications and this is no different. The fact that GW produced it doesn't mean anything either. It is still a dedicated tournament FAQ, it is simply how the organizers decided they wanted their tournament to run at the time. Tournament FAQs and blanket FAQs are not the same thing as tournament rules-modifications can change independently of 40k and often to suit the competitive scene's meta-game. Tournament 40K and Core 40K are very much different things and citing a ruling for one in support of the other is not a solid ground to defend the illegal use of a model.


Your model is what it is and TLoS is the name of the game, as a rule of thumb you shouldn't "imagine" that a model is something it's not (unless both players agree to a house rule).

This is the favorite way for people who model for advantage to hide from the truth of their cheating. You can believe what you want and no amount of clear and concise evidence through RAW and RAI can change your mind but don't be surprised or offended if you come across an opponent that fights you on this and ends up pulling their models and labeling you a cheater. The way you insist on playing your drop pods is cheating according to the core rules unless you have a pre-approved house rule in place.

To avoid this, simply discuss your modified Drop Pod rules with them pre-game and ask permission to use them.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Your model is what it is and TLoS is the name of the game, as a rule of thumb you shouldn't "imagine" that a model is something it's not (unless both players agree to a house rule).

"i have now decided to model all my trygons underground, and have also decided to extend the barrels of the lascannons on my predator to 12" :p

[Brass Scorpion]

If you're playing strictly by 5th edition rules, LOS is "true", so if he can see part of the squad through the Drop Pod he can shoot, but they are likely obscured and get a cover save. Given how much clutter is inside Drop Pods, if they are properly assembled, it's questionable whether there's much of a shot there at all, but again, it's supposed to be "true LOS". Gluing the pods shut to avoid the possibility is questionable. If they can't be opened, whether done for advantage or simple convenience, how that situation was going to be handled should have been discussed before the game to avoid biased disagreements during the game. Live, learn, move on.

[BuFFo]

If you're playing strictly by 5th edition rules, LOS is "true", so if he can see part of the squad through the Drop Pod he can shoot, but they are likely obscured and get a cover save. Given how much clutter is inside Drop Pods, if they are properly assembled, it's questionable whether there's much of a shot there at all, but again, it's supposed to be "true LOS". Gluing the pods shut to avoid the possibility is questionable. If they can't be opened, whether done for advantage or simple convenience, how that situation was going to be handled should have been discussed before the game to avoid biased disagreements during the game. Live, learn, move on.

My friend has glued his drop pod doors shut. This was before he learned they had to be open.

We play his drop pod as actually not really being there, I can see through it no problem, but what I am shooting at always gets a 4+c save. Works for me as a nice compromise.

Peace!

[Lemt]

If anyone insists on using TLoS, that's fine with me. Page 16 states that certain parts of models should be ignored when tracing LoS. If you want to model the petals closed, fine. But since you can't really know what can be seen or not (because you chose to model it that way), shooting through the Pod should be allowed, but always granting a 4+ cover save (unless something else modifies it, of course).

If anyone objects to this, point to the part where it says the petals are blown off on landing.

[blackarmchair]

Wow. We've always played Drop Pods with TLoS rules and no one has EVER complained and now all anyone here can say is cheater...

I originally glued the hatches shut because they wouldn't stay shut and kept braking. It annoyed the crap out of me.

There's no clear rule stating how the Drop Pod must be modeled. If someone wants to model it open and keep fire lanes open - so be it. If they want to model it closed and block LoS that's fine too. It's a tactical decision and it blocks/grants LoS to both players equally. Someone called cheese on the SW book earlier, I often run 15 Long Fangs and keep my Drop Pods shut even when it blocks my own shots.

I understand people playing it both ways but there's certainly good reasons to do both. I really can't understand how using only the pieces given in a GW kit and putting them where the instructions tell you to put them is "modeling for advantage"...

[somerandomdude]

I really can't understand how using only the pieces given in a GW kit and putting them where the instructions tell you to put them is "modeling for advantage"...

Odd, don't the instructions for Drop Pods have the "Do Not Glue!" symbol on the page about putting the doors on the body?

Edit: And did you read my post? I didn't call you a cheater, a voice in my head. Like I said, it's the comment you made earlier that suggests modeling for advantage.

[Tynskel]

Wow. We've always played Drop Pods with TLoS rules and no one has EVER complained and now all anyone here can say is cheater...

Welcome to the Intrawebz.

[SonicPara]

Wow. We've always played Drop Pods with TLoS rules and no one has EVER complained and now all anyone here can say is cheater...

I originally glued the hatches shut because they wouldn't stay shut and kept braking. It annoyed the crap out of me.

There's no clear rule stating how the Drop Pod must be modeled. If someone wants to model it open and keep fire lanes open - so be it. If they want to model it closed and block LoS that's fine too. It's a tactical decision and it blocks/grants LoS to both players equally. Someone called cheese on the SW book earlier, I often run 15 Long Fangs and keep my Drop Pods shut even when it blocks my own shots.

I understand people playing it both ways but there's certainly good reasons to do both. I really can't understand how using only the pieces given in a GW kit and putting them where the instructions tell you to put them is "modeling for advantage"...

Playing the Drop Pods as closed and blocking TLOS is a house rule and your meta allows it, this is fine. Gluing the hatches shut because the Drop Pod kit doesn't have an effective way of allowing you to open and close the petals aside from using magnets is fine. What isn't fine is your blatant disregard for the clear use of Drop Pods explained both in the codex and in this thread exhaustively. If you still insist to do so without establishing the house rule with your opponent first, then yes you are cheating. It is a willful breach of the rules without consulting the opponent first for their consensus.

As most of us have explained over these last 4+ pages, there are extremely clear instructions both through the Drop Pod's description and its basic data present in the codex. Leaving the doors closed and claiming that it blocks LoS is NOT a tactical decision, it is an attempt at cheating in order to gain an unfair advantage in order to win a game. Deciding otherwise is a house rule and while acceptable if both parties agree to it beforehand, it is still a modification to the core rules for the Space Marine Drop Pod in Warhammer 40,000.

Here is a tip not from someone citing rules but from a Space Marine player to another. Give up your pursuit of this advantage and adapt your tactics to overcome the handicaps that come with a Drop Pod. Not only will it make you a more flexible and versed tactician but it will also avoid any ugly rules disputes which I promise you will happen eventually if you continue to play Drop Pods this way without consulting your opponent prior to the game.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Odd, don't the instructions for Drop Pods have the "Do Not Glue!" symbol on the page about putting the doors on the body?

Yes in fact they do.

[BuFFo]

Odd, don't the instructions for Drop Pods have the "Do Not Glue!" symbol on the page about putting the doors on the body?

For a reason.... :p

Peace!

[blackarmchair]

It may say do not glue but it doesn't say to leave them open...

The rules don't either.

Just because I follow the rules the same as anyone else and it may be advantageous for me in a few isolated instances does not make me a cheater. I have never seen anyone bicker so much about a few squad inches of visibility....

[SonicPara]

It may say do not glue but it doesn't say to leave them open...

The rules don't either.

Without glue the doors flop down like they are supposed to when you place the Drop Pod down. The rules both clearly state and imply that they are open, you have just chosen to ignore all direct quotes and logical interpretations that explain this...over and over again.


Just because I follow the rules the same as anyone else and it may be advantageous for me in a few isolated instances does not make me a cheater. I have never seen anyone bicker so much about a few squad inches of visibility....

You don't follow the rules the same as everyone else, the overwhelming amount of voices in this thread going against your way of playing them is evidence of this. This isn't bickering. You are advocating the illegal use of a model in a thread that exists to clarify the proper way to use Drop Pods, this is an argument over misinformation. I personally don't care how you choose to play Drop Pods but this thread exists to inform other people of the proper way to use them and advocating your own way of using the models without attaching the disclaimer that it is a house rule that must be discussed prior to play is dangerous. This is the reason for my opposition.

I have already explained to you several times why playing Drop Pods as TLOS blocking bricks is illegal and cheating unless otherwise agreed upon, so I won't bother putting forth a clear explanation again. It is obvious that you are not going to admit your fault so I will stop trying and let my past posts in this thread speak for themselves on the argument.

For those that come in this thread looking for a quick and simple answer, here you go: Drop Pod doors are blown open upon landing (hence the open topped, immediate disembarking, and weapon mounted on the inside on a 360 degree mount) and are fair game for firing through via TLOS. However, due to the cluttered interior of a Drop Pod, whatever target is being shot at through the Drop Pod will almost always gain a 4+ cover save against the shooting attacks.

[blackarmchair]

No. You are mischaracterizing the argument.

There is NOT a clear rule. Your interpretation is reliant upon how you and many you know play the game. There is no explicit ruling.

Various tournament FAQs agree with my point of view - I understand these are not cannon for many - but this does show that I'm not crazy. People who's job it is to interpret the rules agree with my point of view.

If you want to play it differently than me, that's fine. I'm grown up enough to accept alternate points of view. All I am saying is that there is no explicit ruling; both interpretations make sense and however you and your local players do it is fine.

No one here - myself included - is a cheater.

[SonicPara]

No. You are mischaracterizing the argument.

There is NOT a clear rule. Your interpretation is reliant upon how you and many you know play the game. There is no explicit ruling.

Various tournament FAQs agree with my point of view - I understand these are not cannon for many - but this does show that I'm not crazy. People who's job it is to interpret the rules agree with my point of view.

In an extremely narrow sense you are correct. There is no line in the codex that states "After placing the drop pod model, drop all of the doors." However, this does not mean that there are not bits of information that confirm the ruling of opening the petals as the correct one and these have all been covered before.

Firstly is the mounting of the weapon inside and on a 360 degree mount, meaning that the doors all around the pod have to be open in order for the weapon to utilize its mount. Having select doors open while others are closed is not a legal manuever as such a thing is not detailed in the rules or fluff sections of the Drop Pod entry.

Secondly, the Drop Pod entry makes no note of hatches while every single transport in every single codex (Space Marines included) have clearly defined hatches for embarking/disembarking. The Drop Pod instead is open topped which allows for disembarking, this is possible because all of the pods petals are blown out upon landing.

Next, the fluff section of the Drop Pod entry depicts a Drop Pod and how it functions. Ignoring this just suggests striving for an advantage where one should not exist.

Lastly, the instructions for building a Drop Pod kit specifically advise not to glue your doors shut. When this is combined with placing the model on the table, the petals flop down exactly as described in the Space Marine codex. Now I can't even believe this is being cited as evidence but you have driven this argument to an insanely ridiculous level with your desire to legitamize your style of using Drop Pods.

By RAI and RAW (lack of transport hatches in entry) the drop pod opens its doors when it lands. Playing it any other way is a house rule. Tournament organizers advising to play it differently is them consciously creating a house rule for their tourney. If it wasn't a rules modification, then they wouldn't have to describe the process by which to play it for their tourney; it would already be the understood way to play the model before the tournament.


If you want to play it differently than me, that's fine. I'm grown up enough to accept alternate points of view. All I am saying is that there is no explicit ruling; both interpretations make sense and however you and your local players do it is fine.

Please don't patronize me about maturity, this is an argument about the proper way to use a model by the core rules. Such a thing is important as discounting one rule and not labeling such an act as a house rule is dangerous and opens the game up to open modification and corruption without clarity of how the rules were originally intended to act. In the context of this game, this is a serious thing to resolve.


No one here - myself included - is a cheater.

If you and your opponent are in agreement about how to play Drop Pods, then you are correct. If you spring such a house rule on a player and deny them their TLOS through your drop pod regardless of argument, then that is a breach of the rules.

[blackarmchair]

Firstly is the mounting of the weapon inside and on a 360 degree mount, meaning that the doors all around the pod have to be open in order for the weapon to utilize its mount. Having select doors open while others are closed is not a legal manuever as such a thing is not detailed in the rules or fluff sections of the Drop Pod entry.

The rulebook talks about this, despite the weapons listed firing arc certain models do not work this way.
"Turret-Mounted weapons can usually rotate 360 together with the entire turret, unless the design of the model prevents this" (BRB pg59). Thus a drop pod with it's doors glued shut cannot fire but it does not preclude gluing the doors shut.


Secondly, the Drop Pod entry makes no note of hatches while every single transport in every single codex (Space Marines included) have clearly defined hatches for embarking/disembarking. The Drop Pod instead is open topped which allows for disembarking, this is possible because all of the pods petals are blown out upon landing.

The drop pod doesn't have hatches because it's open-topped just like every other open-topped vehicle in this game. There are hundreds of scratch-built battlewagons out there that vary from the GW kit in many ways that might glean a player some advantage and no one is calling cheese. All open-topped vehicles do not have "access points" because the whole vehicle is an access point. Fluff aside nothing about being an open-topped vehicle means that the doors must be opened.


Next, the fluff section of the Drop Pod entry depicts a Drop Pod and how it functions. Ignoring this just suggests striving for an advantage where one should not exist.
Yeah, and in the fluff a single space marine can take down hordes of guardsmen and a single bolter shreds hordes of men. This game is an extrapolation on fluff not a perfect representation of that fluff. If you're really reaching into story elements that have nothing to do with the game to find rules then I propose that you are the one trying to create rules.


Lastly, the instructions for building a Drop Pod kit specifically advise not to glue your doors shut. When this is combined with placing the model on the table, the petals flop down exactly as described in the Space Marine codex. Now I can't even believe this is being cited as evidence but you have driven this argument to an insanely ridiculous level with your desire to legitamize your style of using Drop Pods.
Despite being glued shut or not glued shut they still needn't be open. I really don't appreciate this sort of ad hominem attack, my argument (though different than yours) is just as (if not better) evinced in credible sources as is yours. There are both items in the rulebooks/codexes AND in official tournament FAQs (GW not only INAT) to support my point of view. Mine is not the only way to play but it most certainly is not "insanely ridiculous."


By RAI and RAW (lack of transport hatches in entry) the drop pod opens its doors when it lands. Playing it any other way is a house rule. Tournament organizers advising to play it differently is them consciously creating a house rule for their tourney. If it wasn't a rules modification, then they wouldn't have to describe the process by which to play it for their tourney; it would already be the understood way to play the model before the tournament.
Absolutely not. FAQs exist because there are uncertain rulings in this game, there are plenty of models/rules that have ambiguities about them; not everything is immediately evident as you suggest. So no, there is no "rules modification" at play here. It's a matter of interpretation and you are again mislabeling my argument.




Please don't patronize me about maturity, this is an argument about the proper way to use a model by the core rules. Such a thing is important as discounting one rule and not labeling such an act as a house rule is dangerous and opens the game up to open modification and corruption without clarity of how the rules were originally intended to act. In the context of this game, this is a serious thing to resolve.
You know, if you acted more civilly perhaps you wouldn't need feel patronized. I have been very good about sticking to the issue here whereas you have accused me of cheating and have called my argument "insanely ridiculous" (I'm not 100% sure what that even entails...). My point of view is not an insane one, it's a damn reasonable one shared by many people - just not by you. I am mature enough to accept this, your point of view is valid it is simply not one that I share. My demeanor begs the same respect which you thus far have not been nice enough to grant me. So I am sorry if you feel patronized, if you act respectfully I assure you the issue will not arise again.


If you and your opponent are in agreement about how to play Drop Pods, then you are correct. If you spring such a house rule on a player and deny them their TLOS through your drop pod regardless of argument, then that is a breach of the rules.

If you and your opponent are in agreement about how to play Drop Pods, then you are correct. If you spring such a house rule on a player and deny them their ability to use Drop Pods in a completely legitimate way regardless of argument, then that is a breach of the rules.

[Lemt]

I'll quote the SM codex entry for the Drop Pod:

"Once the Drop Pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark, as normal. Once passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Pod for the remainder of the game."

THIS IS RULES TEXT. Note how the rules don't say "some hatches are blown", "you may choose not to blow the hatches", "you may blow the hatches, disembark, then carefully place the hatches back" or anything of the sort. The rules ORDER YOU TO BLOW THE HATCHES.

If your model has the hatches glued shut (something I understand, because those buggers tend to get in the way) I'll shoot across them giving whatever's behind a 4+ save. If you want to shoot the weapon inside with the model shut, cool. Go ahead. That's how it's suppossed to work.

If your model is closed, and you try to use it as fully opaque cover, not allowing me to shoot through it, you're cheating.
If your playgroup or local tournament decides to CHANGE the Drop Pod rules, that's fine, as long as you agree before the game.

[Fellend]

I'll quote the SM codex entry for the Drop Pod:

"Once the Drop Pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark, as normal. Once passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Pod for the remainder of the game."

THIS IS RULES TEXT. Note how the rules don't say "some hatches are blown", "you may choose not to blow the hatches", "you may blow the hatches, disembark, then carefully place the hatches back" or anything of the sort. The rules ORDER YOU TO BLOW THE HATCHES.

If your model has the hatches glued shut (something I understand, because those buggers tend to get in the way) I'll shoot across them giving whatever's behind a 4+ save. If you want to shoot the weapon inside with the model shut, cool. Go ahead. That's how it's suppossed to work.

If your model is closed, and you try to use it as fully opaque cover, not allowing me to shoot through it, you're cheating.
If your playgroup or local tournament decides to CHANGE the Drop Pod rules, that's fine, as long as you agree before the game.

Personally I agree with everything said here except the cheating part, I'd more call it abusing the rules than cheating. Creative reading is a valuable skill but in warhammer it's a bit annoying

[Lerra]

I'd just like to point out how unsporting it is to accuse someone of cheating because they interpret the rules differently than you do. It's name calling and it only escalates the argument.

[Demonus]

Personally I agree with everything said here except the cheating part, I'd more call it abusing the rules than cheating. Creative reading is a valuable skill but in warhammer it's a bit annoying

"Cheat implies conducting matters fraudulently, especially for profit to oneself"-dictionary.com

Sounds like what is going on here. Deliberately keeping the doors closed to give an advantage to his own troops, and then feverishly defending his point of view despite multiple people telling him this is incorrect.

/shrug.haters gonna hate. cheaters gonna cheat.

[Lerra]

Cheating is a very serious accusation. Around here, there is a blacklist for cheaters and thieves which is shared between all of the gaming stores. It's a lifetime ban.

There is a huge difference between someone who uses weighted dice to get a cash prize and someone who is a rules lawyer or argues a viewpoint that you don't like. One is criminal and one is not.

[blackarmchair]

Exactly Lerra. Thank you.

@Lemt
As per your quote of the C:SM book open to the drop pod page in my SW codex. I'll quote it for you:

"Once a Drop Pod has landed, all passengers must immediately disembark. Once Passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Pod for the rest of the game." (Page 47 Codex: Space Wolves).

I think you'll find that entry to be quite different from the C:SM and the BA one. You'll notice it says nothing about hatches being opened or closed. Thus both interpretations are valid and acceptable. The logical compromise is the one that most tournament FAQs use which is that both are fine, you just have to compromise the gun inside if you leave the hatch closed.

@Demonus
Your definition is accurate. So your premise is valid but you have failed to demonstrate the necessary condition of fraudulent behavior. To date no one has shown me a concrete rule preventing a drop pod from leaving its hatches closed. I understand that you don't like it and if that is the case I encourage you not to play it that way. But in a competitive event there is nothing in the rules precluding the use of drop pods in the manner I have described.

[Paul]

Exactly Lerra. Thank you.

@Lemt
As per your quote of the C:SM book open to the drop pod page in my SW codex. I'll quote it for you:

"Once a Drop Pod has landed, all passengers must immediately disembark. Once Passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Pod for the rest of the game." (Page 47 Codex: Space Wolves).

I think you'll find that entry to be quite different from the C:SM and the BA one. You'll notice it says nothing about hatches being opened or closed. Thus both interpretations are valid and acceptable. The logical compromise is the one that most tournament FAQs use which is that both are fine, you just have to compromise the gun inside if you leave the hatch closed.

Many times we have wargear different across codices. This is nothing new. SW can do it, SM can't. SW drop pods also have fewer spaces, so maybe that's to make room for the door-closing machinery.



@Demonus
Your definition is accurate. So your premise is valid but you have failed to demonstrate the necessary condition of fraudulent behavior. To date no one has shown me a concrete rule preventing a drop pod from leaving its hatches closed. I understand that you don't like it and if that is the case I encourage you not to play it that way. But in a competitive event there is nothing in the rules precluding the use of drop pods in the manner I have described.

Actually, yes, people have shown you the "hatches blown" rule several times. It's a concrete rule quoted word for word above. To say that there is nothing in the rules is to lie.

[blackarmchair]

No. What people have found is a description in the SM codex that says "hatches blown".

It doesn't say Wolves have to do it. It doesn't say Templar have to do it. I'd have to check but it doesn't say Dark Angels have to do it.

Concordantly, there are multiple iterations of serious competitive events playing the rule differently. This isn't rocket science, it's an ambiguous rule there are PLENTY of them in this game.

If you want I'll grant you that C:SM may have to use it's Drop Pods with the hatches open. I don't play 'nilla marines so I didn't check their book when I first posted in this thread. But it would seem that it most definitely doesn't work that way for wolves and I will check on the others.

[Lerra]

The DA codex has the same wording as the Ultramarine codex. Not surprising - the DA codex was basically the beta test for the vanilla codex and it uses mostly the same wording.

[Demonus]

No. What people have found is a description in the SM codex that says "hatches blown".

It doesn't say Wolves have to do it. It doesn't say Templar have to do it. I'd have to check but it doesn't say Dark Angels have to do it.

Concordantly, there are multiple iterations of serious competitive events playing the rule differently. This isn't rocket science, it's an ambiguous rule there are PLENTY of them in this game.

If you want I'll grant you that C:SM may have to use it's Drop Pods with the hatches open. I don't play 'nilla marines so I didn't check their book when I first posted in this thread. But it would seem that it most definitely doesn't work that way for wolves and I will check on the others.

from spacewolf codex:

"Whilst the enemy is still reeling from the compound blow, the HINGED SIDES OF EACH DROP POD WILL EXPLODE OUT AND DOWN TO FORM DISEMBARKATION RAMPS"

It thhen reads that once deployed, a Drop Pod is no longer a sealed environment, it is counted as Open-Topped"

Now if you want to house rule that you can close the doors back up, Id be fine with that, but it wouldnt not be an instant thing. Your DP would be open until next movement phase, at which time id allow you to close the doors and make it a giant metal piece of terrain.

Of course, if your friends are fine with how you play it, go for it. I use Forge World stuff in my games, I let my chaos friend use a basilisk converted to chaos in his Iron Warriors army. Just dont feign ignorance in how it should be played when others have spelled it out for you.

cheers!

[blackarmchair]

The section your quoting is fluff not rules, as in from the story paragraphs before the rules section.
(the bold underline looked fun so I tried it too)

As I explained previously there are many things in fluff that are not represented in rules. The rules are a representation of of fluff but fluff does not equal rules.

If fluff equaled rules then my Terminators would never die and a single grey hunters pack could mow through hordes of IG veterans and tanks and each space marine army could only take a few meltaguns as they are supposed to be rare sacred relics.

But that isn't true, it has no in-game effect and neither does your counter-argument.

[BuFFo]

"Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and the passengers must immediately disembark, as normal."

I choose to read the part about disembarking as fluff, thus, I can now keep my marines inside the drop pod.

Wow, it must be great playing the game like this! I can also barely feed myself and I poop myself at times.

[Demonus]

lol their seatbelts didnt unfasten, so they are stuck inside.

a sealed drop pod would probably have a terrible center of balance, so in theory a MC could push it over, and roll it off the board yes?

[Lemt]

Since I do not know the wording and templating of the SW codex, I can't comment on that one.

[blackarmchair]

"Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and the passengers must immediately disembark, as normal."

I choose to read the part about disembarking as fluff, thus, I can now keep my marines inside the drop pod.

Wow, it must be great playing the game like this! I can also barely feed myself and I poop myself at times.

It's not an issue of "choosing" to read something as fluff. The part Demonus was referencing earlier came from the few paragraphs of story on each page that precede the actual rules.

Whereas disembarkation is clearly and directly stated in all codexes and is therefore not in question.

Your sarcasm is cute (I'm not being a smartass I really do appreciate that kind of humor) but not really warranted here. What I am and have been proposing is not against any rule whereas all the books explicitly say in very clear terms that the squad must disembark upon entering play.

@Lemt
You needn't read it I quoted it for you.
Click Here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440177a&prodId=prod170003a&rootCatGameStyle=) if you need the book.

[JxKxR]

You know what blackarmchair, NO. The hatches are blown and down that's how it's open topped the whole game, that is how the space marines get out, and that is how the gun inside shoots. If you play it that way and your opponent is ok with it then fine, but don't say that is how it should be played or that it is any more than a house rule. You are being overly stubborn.

I will say to the others that he doesn't seem to be a cheater, but just a misguided soul.

[blackarmchair]

@JxKxR
I'm not saying that's how it SHOULD be played.

All I've been saying (and listen close because this is apparently really difficult for some people to understand) is that the rule is not clear and either way is technically correct due to a lack of explicit ruling on the issue.

The core ruling does not tell us in any explicit terms what to do
(I understand that some codexes do - we'll limit this discussion to SW as I don't have any of the other codexes with me).

Fluff ideas might dictate that the hatches must be blown.

Tournament FAQ (both official GW FAQ and INAT) dictate that they needn't be.

There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that both ways to play are legal and there is certainly NOTHING explicit contradicting either method.

Not blowing the hatches is a totally legitimate way to play. It is not modeling for advantage (it's a standard GW kit for god's sake) and it's not cheating as it does not violate any rule.

You can capitalize the word no all you like but thus far no one has shown me a rule in the BRB or in Codex: Space Wolves that says the pods need to be open (this is because there isn't one). As much as you dislike it, leaving the hatches shut is perfectly legal and it will stay that way until some official FAQ or new codex says otherwise.

Now, if you don't like the rules I suggest you create a house rule preventing it.

[BuFFo]

It's not an issue of "choosing" to read something as fluff. The part Demonus was referencing earlier came from the few paragraphs of story on each page that precede the actual rules.

Whereas disembarkation is clearly and directly stated in all codexes and is therefore not in question.

Your sarcasm is cute (I'm not being a smartass I really do appreciate that kind of humor) but not really warranted here. What I am and have been proposing is not against any rule whereas all the books explicitly say in very clear terms that the squad must disembark upon entering play.


I am glad you are able to read into my sarcasm and not take me too harshly like many online do.

I respect your opinion. Our opinions may differ, but I respect our differences, none the less.

Fight the good fight!

[blackarmchair]

Ah, Thanks BuFFo. I really respect someone who can have an argument keep a sense of humor.

Despite the discourse here I'm really not a cheesy jerk (apart from having a space wolves army of course) I just like the mind puzzle of rules queries and debates.

[Astral Platypus]

I just like the mind puzzle of rules queries and debates.

You should find an old codex and wrap your head around 2nd edition close combat

[Demonus]

Mmm second edition close combat.

So if you have the doors closed, how do your marines get out? Or do you just keep them in the Drop Pod? Honestly your argument doesnt make any sense, I have never heard anyone other than you come to this conclusion that this is a rule (and not a house rule) but like Buffo says, you are entitled to your own opinion.

Cheers.

[steelmage99]

So if you have the doors closed, how do your marines get out? Or do you just keep them in the Drop Pod?

Cheers.

I guess he gets them out the same way that those of us that have glued the land Raider and Rhino hatches shut gets our models out.

I don't have a dog in this race, but the rules for Disembarking are not dependent on the models ability to actually physically open the doors.

[blackarmchair]

Mmm second edition close combat.

So if you have the doors closed, how do your marines get out? Or do you just keep them in the Drop Pod? Honestly your argument doesnt make any sense, I have never heard anyone other than you come to this conclusion that this is a rule (and not a house rule) but like Buffo says, you are entitled to your own opinion.

Cheers.

A lot of things in this game don't make sense, but I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about what I'm proposing.

The SW codex says nothing about the hatches of a drop pod being opened or closed. The model - fully assembled - has hatches that may be open or closed. And nothing about disembarkation nor from any other rule aspect of the game dictates that the pod need be open on the tabletop. There is nothing to suggest that it needs to be open or closed thus both are acceptable and legal.

To further support this claim there are several competitive events I have shown which play it exactly the way I have described. I'm not saying that leaving it closed is fluffy, I'm not saying it's the only way to do it; all I'm pointing out is that the rules do not preclude leaving it closed and there are certain advantages and disadvantages to be gleaned from this play style.

It's not a "house rule", and I am not cheating as I am not breaking any rule. And there's really nothing to refute that claim.

[Paul]

A lot of things in this game don't make sense, but I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about what I'm proposing.

The SW codex says nothing about the hatches of a drop pod being opened or closed. The model - fully assembled - has hatches that may be open or closed. And nothing about disembarkation nor from any other rule aspect of the game dictates that the pod need be open on the tabletop. There is nothing to suggest that it needs to be open or closed thus both are acceptable and legal.

To further support this claim there are several competitive events I have shown which play it exactly the way I have described. I'm not saying that leaving it closed is fluffy, I'm not saying it's the only way to do it; all I'm pointing out is that the rules do not preclude leaving it closed and there are certain advantages and disadvantages to be gleaned from this play style.

It's not a "house rule", and I am not cheating as I am not breaking any rule. And there's really nothing to refute that claim.

I actually agree with blackarmchair. The SW Codex does not, indeed, make any mention of blown hatches or open doors in the rules section like the Ultramarine codex does.

I can justify this to my fluff-bunny self by saying that the reduced transport capacity is to make room and weight for the necessary door control mechanisms.

[Demonus]

I can justify this to my fluff-bunny self by saying that the reduced transport capacity is to make room and weight for the necessary door control mechanisms.


hehe there ya go, except for the fact that BA have a 10 capacity drop pod, and their doors blow out. looks like an oversight in the "rules" of the codex. its clearly in the "fluff" of the SW codex as quoted it in my post above.

like I said, its a moot point as Ill never play blackarmchair in a match, so Ill let him go on playing however he wants :)

[Denzark]

With full disrespect intended to some of you children, I can't believe this has generated 8 pages.

It is not essential for the models to physically be able to do what the game is simulating them doing. Boltguns don't actually have to fire .75 calibre rounds. Turrets don't have to actually move around. men don't sprint and bayonet each other.

Further to this, troops manage to disembark from vehicles without hatches being able to open. The argument that the hatches 'blow' is only of import to people who blow. A logical follow on would be 'the hatches open physically, but the troops' legs don't move so they can't disembark.

You even have a GW fax stating the marines' have sufficient technology to leave the doors in harms way closed and go out the safe side!

I see 2 reasonable solutions - either play the doors are all open, or in accordance with the fax, some can. If they are all open, you can fire through even if TLOS doesn't exist. Also, the onboard weapon can fire. Just use common sense. If you play some doors closed, then those doors block TLOS both in and out.

Think of vehicle firepoints - how many are a hard plastic opaque slit and yet we still fire out? How many rear hatches open?

What next - I can't physically fit 12 models on bases in a chimaera so the capacity is now 8?

Modelling it closed to block TLOS is as crap as claiming the doors MUST PHYSICALLY OPEN. You can always shoot through a landed drop pod, unless using the faq that some doors may open in the safe direction form the enemy.

End of.

[Demonus]

fyi, here is the response I got from GW Customer Service. Take it as you will:


Thanks for writing in to us! When Drop Pods are deployed, they are always assumed to have their doors opened so this will give an enemy a cover save if you shoot through them. Once they’ve landed the doors are open for the rest of the game as written in the description for Drop Pods on page 69 of the Space Marine codex:

“Once the Drop Pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark, as normal. Once passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Pod for the remainder of the game.

Fire Points and Access Points: Once deployed the Drop Pod is no longer a sealed environment and is therefore counted as being open topped.”

The way I interpret this wording is that once deployed, the doors are opened and can not be closed any more for the purposes of shooting.

Thanks!

Dave Swan
Customer Services Manager
Games Workshop
Customer Service

[blackarmchair]

Sorry to Dave Swan.

Phil Kelly says different, he wrote so on page on 47.

If I go ask the GM at my local GW a question and he tells me the wrong ruling that doesn't change the codex (if that were the case a LOT of things would be different). The fact of the matter is GW has an official staff of writers for their codexes and they're the ones who publish the FAQ.

I'm sure if you ask enough GW employees someone will agree with you but it doesn't change the ruling IN THE CODEX and IN OFFICIAL GW GT FAQs as well as IN INAT. This is a well-documented and well-supported argument and emailing random Customer Service employees doesn't undo that.

You're really reching here lol

[Guardsman]

Modelling it closed to block TLOS is as crap as claiming the doors MUST PHYSICALLY OPEN. You can always shoot through a landed drop pod, unless using the faq that some doors may open in the safe direction form the enemy.

End of.

This sounds about right. Just because you glue the doors closed doesnt meant they cant be fired through, hence "open-topped vehicle". If your marines can disembark even though you dont have to physically open the doors like any other transport vehicle, then you can fire through the drop pod 'as if' the doors were open and get a cover save, not block TLOS.

Having SW hide behind a drop pods does them a great dishonor anyway. They are no true Sons of Russ.

[hisdudeness]

fyi, here is the response I got from GW Customer Service.


With this you just lost the argument. Customer Service is not consistent with answers, nor is it a valid rules source. Quoting Customer Service (or local GW store staff) automatically causes most people to ignore anything further you have to say about the matter. This is akin to using 'Hitler' or '****' in a political argument.

[Denzark]

This sounds about right. Just because you glue the doors closed doesnt meant they cant be fired through, hence "open-topped vehicle". If your marines can disembark even though you dont have to physically open the doors like any other transport vehicle, then you can fire through the drop pod 'as if' the doors were open and get a cover save, not block TLOS.

Having SW hide behind a drop pods does them a great dishonor anyway. They are no true Sons of Russ.

An awesome first post Guardsman, welcome!

[Morgan Darkstar]

Phil Kelly says different, he wrote so on page on 47.

If I go ask the GM at my local GW a question and he tells me the wrong ruling that doesn't change the codex (if that were the case a LOT of things would be different). The fact of the matter is GW has an official staff of writers for their codexes and they're the ones who publish the FAQ.

I'm sure if you ask enough GW employees someone will agree with you but it doesn't change the ruling IN THE CODEX and IN OFFICIAL GW GT FAQs as well as IN INAT. This is a well-documented and well-supported argument and emailing random Customer Service employees doesn't undo that.

I have got to agree with you here that only an official faq could change the rules.

for what its worth i appologise for the Cheating remark, it's not something that should be thrown around. This isn't a schoolyard after all, and most of us are adults. you are correct that in the SW codex there is nothing written to instruct you to put the hatches down, in my case i would regardless. importantly though that would be a personal decision.

I hope i havent caused any hard feelings. in the heat of the moment i tend to speak or post without thinking something my friends regularly scold me for.

[Xas]

this discussion has made me curious.

I took my (unfortunatelly but for this test very usefully unpainted) droppod and deployed a squad of my blood angels (red VS grey is a very easy to spot contrast) behind it on my desk. I lowered my eye to were a marine's head would be and actually CHECKED TRUE LOS.

gues what I found?

you cannot really see trough a blown open, standard GW plastic droppod.


I know it looks quite open and spaced from a normal PLAYERS VIEW but the models view is really different.
There are some angles where you can see a good portion of the other side but the pod must be aligned quite special for it to work.


so basically your argument now is reduced to if a pod without a modelled stormbolter can shoot it (by finding a rule that forces you to open) or not (if your actually allowed to stay completely shut).

ohh and it shurely still matters for anything higher than a marine rhino chassi (didnt test landraider) albeit most vehicles will be long enough so you can shoot it (with cover) anyways (again depending on facing!)



I really have to show that to my local crowd tomorrow (and especially will update my oponents before games on this) as we have been playing droppods as "see trough /w 4+ cover" for ages.


apparently those FAQs and GW replies show that they dont even know their own product :D

[SonicPara]

you cannot really see trough a blown open, standard GW plastic droppod

You are correct though, as you pointed out later in your post, there are countless other situations where a unit could draw TLOS through a Drop Pod. Most commonly for me this is my Lascannon guys in my Tactical squads drawing TLOS through my dreads' Drop Pods and of course my enemies drawing TLOS through the drop pods to hit the exposed sides or rear of the dreads. This is why it is so important to get the rule right. Drawing TLOS through drop pods is an important aspect to the balancing of how Drop Pods work on the table, both for and against the player using them. It is one of the factors into their point cost and core design, just like the attributes of other models play into their intended roles and point costs.

[blackarmchair]

This sounds about right. Just because you glue the doors closed doesnt meant they cant be fired through, hence "open-topped vehicle". If your marines can disembark even though you dont have to physically open the doors like any other transport vehicle, then you can fire through the drop pod 'as if' the doors were open and get a cover save, not block TLOS.

Having SW hide behind a drop pods does them a great dishonor anyway. They are no true Sons of Russ.

Welcome to the forum! Please read the thread your posting in before you contradict people though.

We've covered that, the open-topped nature of the vehicle has no bearing on the hatches of the pod.

Fluff-wise I agree with you, the hatches should open for disembarkation (although nothing says they can't close them after or open only one or two hatches) but there is nothing in the rules that says open-topped vehicles must be modeled with all hatches opened.

If you read the rules for drop pods in most marine codexes it does say that the hatches of the pod must be opened when the pod is deployed. However the Space Wolf book has different wording which does not require you to open the hatches. RAW it is perfectly legal.

@Morgan Darkstar
Don't worry, I understand totally.

[Guardsman]

Welcome to the forum! Please read the thread your posting in before you contradict people though.

We've covered that, the open-topped nature of the vehicle has no bearing on the hatches of the pod.



Not so much a contradiction as an affirmation of "open topped" meaning that it's open. And I did read the whole thread, its what prompted me to join BoLS and respond.

But what this whole discussion seems to boil down to is spirit of the game vs. RAW. Do the Space Wolves have these special drop pods that are different than all the other marines and can stay closed and block TLOS? Or was there a mistake made in the writing of the codex and they neglected to include the proper wording about the "doors being blown off upon landing"? Only the writers can answer that question.

Until then, based on whether you play only to win, or also because you love the game and are willing to make certain concessions based on logical, assumed conclusions to keep things fair, your opponent(s) must decide if your interpretation is worth playing against.

But you have a completely valid argument blackarmchair and seem to capitalize nicely off it.

[Lerra]

you cannot really see through a blown open, standard GW plastic droppod.


I've found the same thing. Usually if there is a squad of 10 standing near the drop pod, only one or two models have TLoS to the squad behind the drop pod, and usually they can only see a tiny fraction of one guy's shoulder pad. I've had to get out the laser pointer for that one many times, as most people do tend to assume that every gun has LoS through an open drop pod.

[blackarmchair]

Until then, based on whether you play only to win, or also because you love the game and are willing to make certain concessions based on logical, assumed conclusions to keep things fair, your opponent(s) must decide if your interpretation is worth playing against.

But you have a completely valid argument blackarmchair and seem to capitalize nicely off it.

Honestly, I do both.

This isn't something I'd pull in a friendly game. I most likely wouldn't even pull this at a local tourney. Hell, I might never do it at all. It's just a little something I noticed when I went back to re-read the drop pod rules for a friend who's a bit new to the game.

I do love the game, and I do play both competitively and non-competitively. When I play games among friends we let little rules like this slide but in any reasonably competitive atmosphere it's highly important to me that all the rules be followed to the letter (only fair and standard way to play this game).

Plus the idea of landing 3-4 drop pods turn 1 in front of some poor sap's dev squad is hilarious :D

[Paul]

Plus the idea of landing 3-4 drop pods turn 1 in front of some poor sap's dev squad is hilarious :D

Especially when it's a ML dev squad and each of those pods is an easy KP.

[Tychii]

Hmm i see both points of view, but to be honest i dont feel like this way of playing drop pods is in a spirit of the game nor is it fair

because really it also doesn't state that the unit has to be placed at the open hatchs either -- so you could just pop open 1-2 doors facing the enemy and blast away with whatever weapons are inside then plop down your dread on the other side out of line of sight -- and under the interpretation of the way you play there is nothing for you to argue that you cant do that... so i just feel like this is really taking something quite too far --

either way if you have something glued up that isn't really supposed to be (based on the spirit of the game and the lore and stuff from all the back ground) you should probably just run it by your opponent before hand so that you can avoid an argument that you can kinda foresee
-Daniel

but thats just the way i would play it -- your welcome to do whatever you want really -- but dont get mad when my all my models are crouching and blasting through little holes and walls that I put on my vehicles because nothing is really said otherwise about it

[Mikey87]

Another quick question.
If someone drops a drop pod, can he decide where his troops will come out and keep some of the doors of the drop pod closed for TLOS-reasons? Short. Can a player choose which hatch goes open?

thanks.

[gcsmith]

depends, SM clearly not as all hatches are blown, and if your playing in spirit i would say all down, but if ur in america due to american faq u can keep some up and be a douche :p

[nojinx]

I get what you guys are saying, and will play it that way. The argument I was having with the guy was about shooting through a vehicle AT ALL, which you have never been able to do before. I guess it didn't occur to me that a drop pod would be different now with 5th ed.

5th Edition uses the True Line of Sight rule now. Can you see it? Then you can shoot it.

[nojinx]

Another quick question.
If someone drops a drop pod, can he decide where his troops will come out and keep some of the doors of the drop pod closed for TLOS-reasons? Short. Can a player choose which hatch goes open?

thanks.

Based on the passage that Buffo quoted, I would say that any hatch that does not open has broken the rule stating that the hatches are blown when the unit disembarks.

[blackarmchair]

Wow thread necromancy everywhere.

Anywho, it wouldn't really matter whether the hatches were all open or none were opened because the vehicle is open-topped regardless of how it is modeled.

The rules state that the pod is open-topped, this rule stands apart from this threads discussion about whether or not the hatches need to be modeled open or not.

[Tynskel]

open-topped is a different from 'the hatches are blown'.

[blackarmchair]

Yes.

Open-topped is included in the BrB as a rule. It is clearly defined and well-explained.

"Hatches are blown" is an ambiguous wording appearing in SOME space marine codexes. It means nothing and has no defined in-game role. Some people like to apply it to their games given fluff but there is nothing compelling one to do so.

Think about it, one could model an Ork battlewagon with an ard case and still play it as open-topped in casual as well as in competitive play and no one would take issue with it. A vehicle being open-topped is an attribute of the vehicle regardless of how it is modeled.

Similarly, even if a drop pod was modeled as shut it would not cease to be open-topped.