Deploying from Drop Pods

[LPetersson]

I haven't actually played with or against a real drop pod (only substitutes) but I would've thought that when the hatches blow, the marines would run down the hatch...

 

Just a thought.

[nighthawks]

the DP ramps make for an impressively large dismbarkation area, should you rule them legally "the hull" of the vehicle. likewise, selectively dropping hatches in order to create a LOS barrier is pretty unsporting.

 

there was a thread specifically about this, but I think DevianID has the most playable compromise (for pickup games and tournament type play) because it keeps the owner of the pod from choosing what interpretation he prefers at the time of deployment (deepstrike) in order to gain the maximum benefit.

 

but I personally believe that the hull is basically the pod floor and the ramps are not part of it (but I would allow that the closed ramps ARE hull) and that the open petals MAY provide cover (though NOT for a walker!!) and would not be difficult ground, nor considered part of the vehicle so everyone could move over it. also, if modeled closed (glued shut), the pod is a WYSIWYG terrain piece, blocking all LOS through it. if open then if LOS can be drawn through it, fine. I would allow a closed pod to use its SB as it is part of the model, by the rules. rhinos often don't have one modeled, but they all get one. same here. petals that cannot open because of terrain you just have to leave shut. go with WYSIWYG on that, too.

[Democratus]

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.

 

There are no rules that I could find in the BRB prohibiting models from moving over a friendly vehicle. So there's nothing stopping models from moving over the doors so long as they don't exceed their move allowance.

 

The rest of what you wrote here is good. Explosions will be spectacular!

 

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.

 

I'd need to see a page reference for this rule. I certainly can't find anything stating this. In practice I have seen many models change configuration during a game (defiler legs and arms, the door on the front of a Land Raider, etc.) so changing the config of a model seems to be kosher both by RAW and by convention.

 

 

If they are all up, the storm bolter can not fire, ever.

 

A model never blocks its own line of sight, per RAW. So the storm bolter is not prevented from firing by the doors of the Drop Pod. If there is a rule stating otherwise, please point it out.

 

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.

 

Again, while you can't replace a model with another during play. There's nothing stating that a model can't change it's position/configuration. Turrets can spin, defiler legs can move, and hatches can open and close. Best to get some house rules (or tournament rules) to ban ad-hoc hatch opening and closing if you want to make it an issue of legality on the table.

[Isiah]

There are no rules that I could find in the BRB prohibiting models from moving over a friendly vehicle. So there's nothing stopping models from moving over the doors so long as they don't exceed their move allowance.

What about p11 a model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size.

 

So if the doors were down and are to be considered part of the hull than they can't be moved over surely?

 

Cheers

I

[angronn]

If they are all up, the storm bolter can not fire, ever.

 

A model never blocks its own line of sight, per RAW. So the storm bolter is not prevented from firing by the doors of the Drop Pod. If there is a rule stating otherwise, please point it out.

 

Untrue. FAQs have indicated that hull-mounted weapons (say, a Hunter-killer missile on a Predator) cannot draw line of sight through the vehicle (as in, you can't fire through your own turret). Thus, if the doors are up, the storm-bolter cannot see.

[nighthawks]

yes but if the doors are up due to poor modeling skills, or the desire to throw together 10 DPs and get to playing, or whatever, the player should not be penalized for buy, assembling, and presumably painting a GW model by removing from it standard equipment that has a known 360° arc of fire (sans the "wings" every 72°) deny the missile launcher, as the upgrade cannot by WYSIWYG, but not the storm bolter.

 

other than that, Angron remembers well (BRB FAQ)

[rat of vengence]

I have a scratch built pod, and it certainly doesn't open, but now there are actual pods, I never play it as having any more than a stormbolter. I have played my GW pod many times, and noone has ever told me the marines cannot stand on the lowered doors. Of course, I don't lay on the cheese and try to deploy 2" from the end of the door either... :(

 

2" from the hull is fine for me.

 

RoV

[angronn]

yes but if the doors are up due to poor modeling skills, or the desire to throw together 10 DPs and get to playing, or whatever, the player should not be penalized for buy, assembling, and presumably painting a GW model by removing from it standard equipment that has a known 360° arc of fire (sans the "wings" every 72°) deny the missile launcher, as the upgrade cannot by WYSIWYG, but not the storm bolter.

 

other than that, Angron remembers well (BRB FAQ)

 

Is that RAW? ;)

 

I wouldn't be a jerk and disagree with allowing 360 degree storm-bolter shots from a drop pod with permanently shut doors, but then this argument (whether to measure from the doors, and whether to tactically open/close doors) wouldn't be happening, so you wouldn't need to be a jerk about it. I think the point was that DevianID was suggesting that if someone is a jerk in trying to measure from the doors, they should suffer the full implications of their jerkishness.

[nighthawks]

that's about as "raw" as it gets. but I think we are in agreement.

[Democratus]

There are no rules that I could find in the BRB prohibiting models from moving over a friendly vehicle. So there's nothing stopping models from moving over the doors so long as they don't exceed their move allowance.

What about p11 a model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size.

 

So if the doors were down and are to be considered part of the hull than they can't be moved over surely?

 

Being on top of something is not the same as "moving through the space occupied by" it. To move through the space occupied by an object you must be inside of it. A model on top of a tank is not occupying the same space as the tank. It is above the tank.

 

@Angron: The rules never state that a vehicle can not draw Line of Sight through itself. Nor do they ever limit the LOS of any weapons. There is a section of rules which discusses the firing arcs of the following weapons: Turret-mounted, hull-mounted, sponson-mounted, pintle-mounted. All of these have a fixed "arc of sight" rating. Only the Sponson-mounted weapons mention the hull of the vehicle limiting this arc. Is there an FAQ somewhere that changes the LOS rules for weapons?

[angronn]

There are no rules that I could find in the BRB prohibiting models from moving over a friendly vehicle. So there's nothing stopping models from moving over the doors so long as they don't exceed their move allowance.

What about p11 a model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size.

 

So if the doors were down and are to be considered part of the hull than they can't be moved over surely?

 

Being on top of something is not the same as "moving through the space occupied by" it. To move through the space occupied by an object you must be inside of it. A model on top of a tank is not occupying the same space as the tank. It is above the tank.

 

Do you really play that your Terminators can walk over the top of your Land Raider to get to the other side? Do people place Devastators on top of their Rhinos to have better LOS? No. Only skimmers, jetbikes and jump-pack troopers have specific rules allowing them to move OVER other models.

 

@Angron: The rules never state that a vehicle can not draw Line of Sight through itself. Nor do they ever limit the LOS of any weapons. There is a section of rules which discusses the firing arcs of the following weapons: Turret-mounted, hull-mounted, sponson-mounted, pintle-mounted. All of these have a fixed "arc of sight" rating. Only the Sponson-mounted weapons mention the hull of the vehicle limiting this arc. Is there an FAQ somewhere that changes the LOS rules for weapons?

 

Pg 2 of the most recent BRB FAQ. Specifically, this line:

 

However, if you mount the same storm bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it will have a ‘blind spot’

[Oldenhaller]

I want to piggyback my terminators so they're in a 4' high monkeypile to gain a shooting advantage... ;)

 

~O

[rat of vengence]

Hey, if you piggyback them, template and blast weapons can only target one level! Take that plasma cannons and Tz Flamers!

 

;)

 

RoV

[jeffersonian000]

I remember back in the day when the only rule for how many orks could ride in an open top trukk was how many you could pile up on top of it. Any that fell off, of course, was not counted as being onboard. Those where awesome sights to see!

 

As to drop pods, I'm cool with pieces standing on top of the doors that are already down, without requiring any movement restriction. I'm even cool with people claiming a cover save from a given door if it’s between their figure and an enemy unit firing at it. I just question the tactic of riding the door down and hopping off the end to gain 4"-6" of extra movement. If it’s a legitimate tactic, then cool! If not, then players need to be vigilant in stopping the bad practice when they encounter it.

 

SJ

[Isiah]

Exactly and hence this discussion. It seems there is no resolution to this issue though as some are going to argue the open-topped 2" from any point of the vehicle rule, others the measuring from the hull rule.

 

As someone sensibly said earlier, if poss discuss with oppponent before the game, or dice-off during it.

[Caleth]

For what it's worth, we've adopted a simple solution in our gaming group. The "vanes" are the extent of the hull, when you come charging down that ramp your leaving the interior of the vehicle. So much like running in off the board edge, your models are entering from the interior of the DP. We play with lots of ruins and to avoid the issues that would arise from not being able to get out if a door hits a ruins we just assume the doors are down and the extent of the hull is the furthest point of the vane. No need to flip up the doors every time you want to shoot, no worries about if the ramps were down, no issues with (IMHO) general jackassery off a 5" ramp and a 2" deployment.

 

It also makes some sense because in an in games situation to damage the DP you'd need to at least hit the vanes. shooting the doors once their down would be rather silly. Oh no the ramp got shot up and it blew up the storm bolter???? Oh crap they blew a hole in the vane and it punched into the storm bolter. Verisimilitude while not necessary or important does provide an reasonable answer.

[Democratus]

Being on top of something is not the same as "moving through the space occupied by" it. To move through the space occupied by an object you must be inside of it. A model on top of a tank is not occupying the same space as the tank. It is above the tank.

 

Do you really play that your Terminators can walk over the top of your Land Raider to get to the other side? Do people place Devastators on top of their Rhinos to have better LOS? No. Only skimmers, jetbikes and jump-pack troopers have specific rules allowing them to move OVER other models.

 

How I play the game and what the rules say are very different. Everyone uses house rules to make 40K work for them. But, by RAW, there is nothing preventing you from placing Terminators on top of a Land Raider.

 

Due to the movement rules, though, you wouldn't be able to move a vehicle with models on top of it. So the infantry would have to move off first. This isn't an issue with an immobile vehicle like a Drop Pod.

[jubei124]

How I play the game and what the rules say are very different. Everyone uses house rules to make 40K work for them. But, by RAW, there is nothing preventing you from placing Terminators on top of a Land Raider.

 

Ugh By RAW you cant place your Termies on top of a land raider

 

A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size.

 

1. Land raider sits on table

+

2. Termies are placed on top of land raider

=

3. By RAW your termies now occupy the same space on table that the land raider also occupies.

 

Hope that clears it up for you.

[nighthawks]

Being on top of something is not the same as "moving through the space occupied by" it. To move through the space occupied by an object you must be inside of it. A model on top of a tank is not occupying the same space as the tank. It is above the tank.

 

Do you really play that your Terminators can walk over the top of your Land Raider to get to the other side? Do people place Devastators on top of their Rhinos to have better LOS? No. Only skimmers, jetbikes and jump-pack troopers have specific rules allowing them to move OVER other models.

 

How I play the game and what the rules say are very different. Everyone uses house rules to make 40K work for them. But, by RAW, there is nothing preventing you from placing Terminators on top of a Land Raider.

 

Due to the movement rules, though, you wouldn't be able to move a vehicle with models on top of it. So the infantry would have to move off first. This isn't an issue with an immobile vehicle like a Drop Pod.

This is the "OFFICIAL RULES" forum. it's fine to play by house rules - GW encourages it and helps by writing rules that damn near require it at times - but not to use them to argue your point here.

[angronn]

Being on top of something is not the same as "moving through the space occupied by" it. To move through the space occupied by an object you must be inside of it. A model on top of a tank is not occupying the same space as the tank. It is above the tank.

 

Do you really play that your Terminators can walk over the top of your Land Raider to get to the other side? Do people place Devastators on top of their Rhinos to have better LOS? No. Only skimmers, jetbikes and jump-pack troopers have specific rules allowing them to move OVER other models.

 

How I play the game and what the rules say are very different. Everyone uses house rules to make 40K work for them. But, by RAW, there is nothing preventing you from placing Terminators on top of a Land Raider.

 

Due to the movement rules, though, you wouldn't be able to move a vehicle with models on top of it. So the infantry would have to move off first. This isn't an issue with an immobile vehicle like a Drop Pod.

This is the "OFFICIAL RULES" forum. it's fine to play by house rules - GW encourages it and helps by writing rules that damn near require it at times - but not to use them to argue your point here.

 

I think Democratus agrees. He's pointing out that the OFFICIAL RULES allow placement of infantry atop tanks, and only house rules would stop that.

[Isiah]

The OPs question has been answered as best it can.

 

Any issues with placing models on other models – please start a new topic.

 

Democratus you need to state clearly first that you are talking house rules so everyone understands. But be aware though that although OK as examples or for getting round a particular rules problem, with regards official gaming rules discussions they won't cut much ice I'm afraid.

 

Cheers

I

[Democratus]

The OPs question has been answered as best it can.

 

Any issues with placing models on other models – please start a new topic.

 

Democratus you need to state clearly first that you are talking house rules so everyone understands. But be aware though that although OK as examples or for getting round a particular rules problem, with regards official gaming rules discussions they won't cut much ice I'm afraid.

 

I was not using house rules. angronn had the right of it. I was stating that most people bypass RAW and use house rules in their game to one extent or another.

 

By RAW, an infantry can be on top of a vehicle. They are not occupying the same space. The only way for them to occupy the same space would be to cram the infantry model inside of the vehicle. Nowhere in the rules does it say "models can not occupy the same two dimensional profile when viewed from above." Terminators can legally disembark from a Land Raider on to the top of the Raider so long as they are not put more than 2" away from the access points.

 

In the same vein, even if you consider the doors of a Drop Pod part of the hull of the vehicle it does not prevent you from moving your models over these doors during the movement phase. So the "doors as hull block movement" approach to invalidating the Drop Pod doors is a no-go.

[SeattleDV8]

GW's bad wording strikes again. Although strictly speaking being on top of a vehicle isn't occupying the same space your bases are in the same "foot print" as the vehicle .An infantry unit is by it nature a ground pounder.

Jetbikes and skimmers both have special rules that allow them to move over other units.

Both are disallowed from ending their move over models.

That is the normal movement rule and so you may not move over or end up on top of other models.

[rat of vengence]

Okay, if you reckon you can put models on top of a functioning tank, how do I assault them? Especially since I cannot put my models on your tank!

 

I don't think this one flies.

 

RoV

[DevianID]

Also, what mechanic are you using to make your models hover in mid air? Cause as I see it, your models ARE occupying the same space, at the least where the base and the hull meet, and the force from the hull on the top of the vehicle is opposing the gravity the model is exerting. Also, models fill their base vertically, only in ruins with multiple defined levels can a model occupy the same vertical space as another model.

 

[joke] BTW, you are basicly stating that no matter can occupy the same space as other matter (outside of quantum physics perhaps) and that GW felt the need to remind us of this law of nature in their rule book lest we accidently violate the fabric of space with our marines and their land raider. I think that perhaps you might be incorrect. [/joke]

 

Edit: forgot the OT stuff hehe. If you decide the petals do count for deployment purposes but they are not part of the hull, what part are they? Also, as for a proof that you can not change models, first the rules are permisive and dont say you can, therefore you cant. Second, your defiler is 6.5 inches away from the enemy, you extend the flexile claw 2 inches and now the target is only 4.5 inches away and you can charge them--and that doesnt work. Third, you could smash your model, sprinkle the board with it, and prevent your enemy models from movement in the movement phase within 1 inch of the spread out debris. Extreme examples often illustrate a point better than mundane examples, but both the defiler (mundane) and smashed vehicle (extreme) work on the same principle.