Deploying from Drop Pods

[Cadarn]

When deploying from a vehicle, models can deploy up to two inches away from the exit.

 

How does this work with drop pods. Logic would state that the two inches would be measured from the main body of the pod, but I've heard mention on these boards of measuring the two inches from the edge of the assault ramp when disembarking from a Land Raider, so would it then be permissable to measure from the doors (petals) of the drop pod? Obviously this would then give a much greater distance for the model to be placed.

 

So the question would be, do you measure from the body of the pod or from the door? It seems rather cheeky to do so, but the principle is the same as measuring from the assault ramp on the raider. Of course, if the consensus is that it must be the body on both the raider and the pod, then that clears it up.

[Steelmage99]

Rulebook, Page 56.

 

Measurements to and from vehicles (without bases) are made to and from the hull. Exceptions are made for the shooting rules.

 

A person measuring to and from the assault ramp, is to all intent and purpose cheating.

[Iron_Chaos_Brute]

Correct.

Hull=vehicle. Closed Hatch=door.

[Cadarn]

Huzzah! Much appreciated guys.

[IanExMachina]

Actually, this might be a little complicated. Remember, the drop pod is an open-topped vehicle. The rules for disembarking from open-topped vehicles state that passengers can be deployed within 2" of any point on the vehicle. The doors are part of the vehicle, so it could be argued that you could deploy anywhere within 2" of a door. The errata and FAQ's say nothing that might contradict this interpretation, so read-as-written you can deploy anywhere within 2" of an open door.

 

Is it particularly sporting? No. Do I encourage doing it? No. But technically it is within the rules of the game, which means inevitably you are going to see someone do it.

[WarpSpawn]

Even the open topped rules require it be a point on the hull, however. They are just free of the requirement to use access points.

 

Otherwise, what's to stop people modeling a 6" long spike on the front of their open topped vehicle?

[IanExMachina]

The rule, under "Open-Topped Transport Vehicles" reads "Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point on the vehicle." Not 'Any point on the hull'. If it is part of the vehicle it is a valid disembarkation point. The easiest thing to do is to call the doors 'Decorative', but they are a pretty substantial part of the vehicle, an an integral part of the official GW model kit. Without an official ruling, it's something you and your opponent will have to agree on. I'm being a bit of a devils advocate, so I'll say again I think it's best to do things the fair way, but there is a valid argument for the correctness of the unfair option.

[SeattleDV8]

That cuts both ways though. If you wish to disembark from the tip of the door you also have to use the door to determine deep strike mishaps.

Door are not the hull and should not be treated as such.

[WarpSpawn]

The rule, under "Open-Topped Transport Vehicles" reads "Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point on the vehicle." Not 'Any point on the hull'. If it is part of the vehicle it is a valid disembarkation point. The easiest thing to do is to call the doors 'Decorative', but they are a pretty substantial part of the vehicle, an an integral part of the official GW model kit. Without an official ruling, it's something you and your opponent will have to agree on. I'm being a bit of a devils advocate, so I'll say again I think it's best to do things the fair way, but there is a valid argument for the correctness of the unfair option.

 

I admit it is not as clear as it should be but it is already established before this that all measurements to/from a vehicle are from the hull. I would therefore contest that, in the absense of an explicit statement to the contrary, it is still bound by that general measurement convention. The story I am sticking to is that the previous statement inserts an implicit limitation into that phrase, making it "Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point on the vehicle, measured from the hull."

 

Seems to me any other interpretation is far too open to abuse.

[nighthawks]

truce - you can measure form the closed door on the pod - it sticks out further than the hinge line and is effectively the hull when closed.

 

everyone happy?

[Lord Marius]

Otherwise, what's to stop people modeling a 6" long spike on the front of their open topped vehicle?

 

The risk of their opponent poking them in the eye with it...

Seems justifiable as a response if anyone tries it :D

 

This is one of those issues that only a funky new (well, new-ish) model with moving parts can cause. From all the times I've seen it come up as a discussion, either locally or Internet based, I've never seen a resolution that everyone can agree to completely. That said, I've also never seen or heard of anyone that had the nerve to try to abuse it.

 

I suppose my point is, whilst I don't agree completely with Warpspawn's conclusion (as it can be argued just as easily the other way - that the lack of anything explicit implies that 'any point' is irrespective of the hull), it certainly seems the sporting thing to do. For that reason, I agree with nighthawks that the drop-pod is best measured doors up.

[Scott-S6]

The rules for vehicles are very clear - measurements are to/from the hull.

 

In this specific case, it comes down to what is considered to be the "access point". The "access point" is not the door/ramp but the hole in the hull.

[Lord Marius]

The drop-pod doesn't have access points, as it is open-topped.

 

You have no references or rules to state that the hole in the hull of the drop-pod is the access point (though it is the only sensible choice), so it's impossible to actually refute those sneaky, single-minded, rules-lawyering types who could legitimately use this unsporting move.

 

The best that I think we can do on this front is to recognise that there isn't a definitive answer to be found in the rules as they are currently written.

[rat of vengence]

Okay, so we don't have a page reference, but we can still thump them with the book (hardback version) and say "NO!".

 

And repeat it until they get the hint... :rolleyes:

 

RoV

[Isiah]

Okay, so we don't have a page reference, but we can still thump them with the book (hardback version) and say "NO!".

 

And repeat it until they get the hint... :)

 

RoV

 

Rules for open-topped transport vehicles are found on page 70.

Rules vehicles and measuring to/from is on page 56.

 

You'll need to argue the toss whether the pods opened doors are "decorative" (so don't count for measuring), or are considered to be "any part of the vehicle" (so do count for measuring).

 

Of course, if the models doors are glued shut then the point is moot which makes the argument dependent on how the model is modeled rather than how it inherently is if you see what I mean :tu:. To be honest I've never encountered anyone measuring from the end of the ramp, though I know of several who have proposed this in various online tacticas. The list of items to ignore for measuring purposes on p56 are not exhaustive but merely examples – not that that means anything for the purposes of RAW as doors or ramps are not specifically mentioned as to be ignored. So...

 

If you can't decide, dice off.

[DevianID]

Okay, so we don't have a page reference, but we can still thump them with the book (hardback version) and say "NO!".

 

While this would be fun in many cases, it does nothing to resolve the issue.

 

I think, as someone else said, if you play the doors are a part of the vehicle, then there can be no 2 ways about it. The doors now can not be moved through or over by anyone, you can shoot and assault the doors as a vaild target, and when the vehicle blows up d6 inches you measure from every part of the doors.

 

Also, and maybe most importantly, because you can not change models in the middle of a game, make sure before your opponent deploys those pods, while they are off the table, he specificly shows how those drop pods are modeled. If some doors are up, then those doors can not be changed. If all are down, as stated each door counts for terrain/table edge purpose. If they are all up, the storm bolter can not fire, ever. Since your opponent says the doors count, there can be no droping the pod and then opening doors as seen fit depending on where the pod lands, the same way you can change infantry models to different poses to gain some advantage (replacing a crouching model with a standing model to shoot over a terrain feture and putting back the crouching model to block return LOS)

 

After all, fair is fair both ways.

[newach]

My own gaming group has argued over this, so I just emailed Games Workshop.

 

When they replie back, I will post what they said.

[Isiah]

My own gaming group has argued over this, so I just emailed Games Workshop.

 

When they replie back, I will post what they said.

 

Hmm yes that should make for interesting reading. I have found that emailing and also phoning GW with the same question often gets different results !! Which doesn't help <_<.

 

Cheers

I

[SeattleDV8]

That was true in the past, the guys answering the phones were noted for giving various different answers.

The E-mail now seems to be answered by one guy ,John Spencer, and is a much more consistant. As least he seems to give it some thought.

That said it is still his opinion and has little standing.

[jeffersonian000]

I was recently at a tournament where this exact issue came up. Most of the players playing drop pods did measure for disembarkment from the hull, however, one individual with over-sized Forge World drop pods was deploying dreadnoughts 2" from the end of the 6"+ hatch and later using the over-sized hatches to provide a cover save to his dreads and even blocking LOS by leaving most of the hatches up. He only played against opponents that were inexperienced players, so he was able to get away with using the model itself to his advantage, winning each game and coming in 2nd in the tournament.

 

Was this legal? Or more importantly, was it fair?

 

Keep in mind that his opponents did not question the practice until after the tournament was over, when the problem was mentioned and they realized what had occurred. Whether or not they should have brought it up at the time is immaterial, as their lack of experience with the rules and the fact that they were being steamrolled did play against them.

 

How would you respond if the same thing happened to you?

 

SJ

[DevianID]

Well the tourney organizers should be made aware, and the inexperienced players should speak up if they felt intimidated or if they feel their opponent purposefully broke a rule they were not aware of. If 3 people come up and all explain the same thing, then if it happens again in the future the judges will know what to do.

 

Also, if that happened against me, and I knew the opponent was trying to take advantage of me, the best resort would be to kindly point out that the forgeworld model he has supplied is of different dimentions than the official GW one, thus please either play the model as if it were the GW model, or remove the model that is not WYSIWYG from the army list. Harsh, but again we already established that I know the guy is trying to get over on me.

 

Also, as I mentioned before, before the drop pod deploys (before scatter dice are rolled) I would ask him which doors are up and down. Models can not change in the middle of a battle ala transformers. Just because a part can move on a model does not mean that there are rules saying you CAN move parts around on a model, in fact the models are described in many places of the book as being static figures. Of course, if he agrees the doors dont count as part of the model then he can raise or lower them as he sees fit, but he also cant use the doors to disembark from or to block LOS.

[Isiah]

Also, if that happened against me, and I knew the opponent was trying to take advantage of me, the best resort would be to kindly point out that the forgeworld model he has supplied is of different dimentions than the official GW one, thus please either play the model as if it were the GW model, or remove the model that is not WYSIWYG from the army list. Harsh, but again we already established that I know the guy is trying to get over on me.

 

The issue of it being a FW model and bigger (and their dread pod is bigger than a GW one) isn't an issue if the tourney judges allow FW models.

 

But the issue of how to treat such 'gameplay' is a good one with a good answer DevianID.

 

Cheers

I

[rat of vengence]

I was recently at a tournament where this exact issue came up. Most of the players playing drop pods did measure for disembarkment from the hull, however, one individual with over-sized Forge World drop pods was deploying dreadnoughts 2" from the end of the 6"+ hatch and later using the over-sized hatches to provide a cover save to his dreads and even blocking LOS by leaving most of the hatches up. He only played against opponents that were inexperienced players, so he was able to get away with using the model itself to his advantage, winning each game and coming in 2nd in the tournament.

Was this legal? Or more importantly, was it fair?

SJ

Can we go back to my 'Beat 'em over the head with the rulebook' for this one?

 

I would say he was seriously trying it on, successfully by the sound of it. He certainly shouldn't have been getting a cover save from lowered hatches for a dread! I would have to see it, but it certainly smells like cheating. No way lowered hatches are big enough to give a cover save to a walker. <_<

 

RoV

[Isiah]

I would say he was seriously trying it on, successfully by the sound of it. He certainly shouldn't have been getting a cover save from lowered hatches for a dread! I would have to see it, but it certainly smells like cheating. No way lowered hatches are big enough to give a cover save to a walker. :D

 

Be careful with the using the emotive word "cheating". It's only cheating if someone knows that they are doing something illegal, elsewise it's a mistake borne from a lack of understanding of the rules.

 

Cheers

I

[rat of vengence]

I would say he was seriously trying it on, successfully by the sound of it. He certainly shouldn't have been getting a cover save from lowered hatches for a dread! I would have to see it, but it certainly smells like cheating. No way lowered hatches are big enough to give a cover save to a walker. ;)

 

Be careful with the using the emotive word "cheating". It's only cheating if someone knows that they are doing something illegal, elsewise it's a mistake borne from a lack of understanding of the rules.

 

Cheers

I

Yup. Hence the provisio "I would have to see it..." in my statement. Still a good point though, it is not a good word to throw around.

 

B)

 

RoV