Deployment from Drop Pods.

[imperialsavant]

^_^ G'day All! Just a query how you all deploy your Marines from Drop Pods.

Do you place them within 2" of the open hatches or just 2" from the Pod Body?

I usually do the 2" from the open hatches but a fellow gamer claimed they should be from the Pod Body.

Whats the concensus folks?

Thanks in advance.

[Moonsword]

Thump him with the core rulebook, then flip open to page 67 and remind him that you disembark within 2" of the access points. The hatch openings - not the blown panels on the ground, but the openings - are the access points for the Drop Pod. You get on through them, you get off through them. There's none specified in the Codex because in a normal game, no one should be boarding a Drop Pod and they wanted to make that point blindingly obvious, although they should have made a note of the hatches to preempt silliness like this.

[Pyriel]

Pod body!

But this is not so bad after all as your bases must touch the 2´zone so technically speaking you can deploy 1.99´from the body and reach 2.99´ with your marine bases.

[Moonsword]

I think you mean inches there, not feet, Pyriel.

 

And why the pod body? The access points are pretty obvious looking at the model...

[Pyriel]

Lol, yes inches:)

 

Access points, not doors.

Some people glue them on and some dont, its good having a standard. Its like basing your termies on dining plates just becasue it doesnt say your bases must be of a max size.

And most of all since you´ll get crappy sportmanships and people wont like to play against you and consider you a cheese player if you pull stunts like that.

[Moonsword]

Access points, not doors.

Some people glue them on and some dont, its good having a standard. Its like basing your termies on dining plates just becasue it doesnt say your bases must be of a max size.

And most of all since you´ll get crappy sportmanships and people wont like to play against you and consider you a cheese player if you pull stunts like that.

 

Cheesy? How is insisting that he be within two inches of the hatch openings cheesy? I specifically said it's not the doors on the ground, but the holes in the side. My version is actually more restrictive than yours.

[Baal Dropout]

Pod body... Why?

P69 C:SM, Drop Pod entry, states it is open-topped...

P70 BRB, "Open-Topped Transport Vehicles" entry: they dont have any specific access points and dis/embark within 2" of any point of the vehicle... and the general concensus is not to include the blown hatches on the ground...

 

Let's not be rude by thumping anybody with the BRB, nor with the BRB+C:SM ...

 

Cheers!

[Pyriel]

Cheesy? How is insisting that he be within two inches of the hatch openings cheesy? I specifically said it's not the doors on the ground, but the holes in the side. My version is actually more restrictive than yours.

Thats exactly what I meant. I must have misunderstood you...or you me.

[River Black]

Yeah it would have to be the openings in the pod body the ramp that flops down. If you start allowing deployment from the very tip of the ramp then that opens a whole can of potential abuse. What would you guys say if i modified my land raider to have walk ways come off of their access points. Possibly something that resembled the tube thing you use to board airplanes. That way I can deploy six or seven inches further from my raider. That should be legal no?

[Moonsword]

Sure. Go ahead. I'll be happy to start fielding my oft-longed-for nuclear hand grenades and take out the whole table in a single pull of the pin while we're at it.

[igotsmeakabob!!]

You deploy from the openings of the pod, not the doors. The doors are aesthetic in their purpose. You don't even need to open the pod to deploy your troops.

[Isiah]

I think we can do without the sarcasm from some posters thanks.

 

Cheers

I

[Moonsword]

Let's not be rude by thumping anybody with the BRB, nor with the BRB+C:SM ...

 

It was a joke in passing. I don't actually recommend physically attacking people as a method of resolving rules disputes. Or, for that matter, tabletop rules for nuclear hand grenades, which was an admittedly rather sarcastic remark. I was trying for a comically destructive reductio ad absurdem, but I guess it fell flat.

[SeattleDV8]

You measure from the hull not from the doors

BRB pg 56.

Also check the diagrams on page 66-67 . althought the doors on a rhino could be opened it shows the proper way to measure (ie the hull)

[nighthawks]

here again is where the previous debates over what outline defines "the hull" comes in.

 

some say it is the outline, as seen from above with the doors closed. others say it's the outline drawn from wingtip to wingtip, as seen from above. still others believe it is the floor and the wings, doors excluded.

 

I'm not taking a stance, just presenting the arguments from the past.

[Coyote]

Drop Pod doors = Valkyrie wings. Thus they should have no impact on the game. (See the Drop Pod doors as difficult terrain/LOS thread.) 'Nuff said.

[Grey Mage]

My only reason to consider the argument is the part in the BRB under access points where it mentions "doors ramps and hatches" as access points... and the "petals" of a drop pod are certainly ramps of a kind.... but the argument seems shady to me, so I tend to disagree with it.

[rat of vengence]

Drop Pod doors = Valkyrie wings. Thus they should have no impact on the game. (See the Drop Pod doors as difficult terrain/LOS thread.) 'Nuff said.

No. Drop pod doors have no effect in game. Valkyrie wings are hardly for aesthetic purposes, and are quite targetable. Only cheesy IG players claim otherwise. :D

 

RoV

[DevianID]

Drop pod doors have no effect in game. Valkyrie wings are hardly for aesthetic purposes, and are quite targetable. Only cheesy IG players claim otherwise.

 

RoV

I think you forget how the 'valkyrie wings' argument cuts both ways, just like the drop pod door argument cuts both ways. As in, you cant disembark from that valkyrie because all its access points are blocked off by wings, and if wings count then the wing and another model can not share the same space.

 

Thus, the valkyrie, if the wings count, blocks over a foot of table from the enemy from moving over (like the drop pod with petals open, if petals count), as the wings and tail jut out to pretty ridiculus proportions. Just like you cant drive a rhino over a land raider, you would not be able to drive a rhino over a targetable valkyrie wing or a drop pod petal. So 3 Valkyries + 24 inch scout move or 3+ drop pods + drop pod assault = your units dont get to move.

 

Basicly, the valkyrie wings and the drop pod petals both fall in the 'well, it doesnt say I can ignore this for movement' category, even though we all pretty much agree that they dont. So, saying the wings count, while not technically wrong, but then saying the drop pod doors do NOT count, is basicly cherry picking. Both have pros and cons, very very similiar pros and cons, for all rules other than targeting.

 

It seems to me that the main issue is the irrational fear that if the wings are not targetable, the valkyrie will somehow become invincible. The fuselage/hull is just as raised and exposed, if not moreso, than the wings, and still a fairly large target.

 

So anyway, I am not trying to take a particular stance here, just point out some of the issues here. Nothing is cut and dry--the most important thing is to discuss how the drop pod/valkyrie will work before the game begins, to bite these issues in the bud.

[Grey Mage]

Umm.... who said the petals arent targettable? Valkyrie wings are targetable too....

 

But petals dont block movement... and I dont see why valkyrie wings would either. Especially friendly movement.

[rat of vengence]

Drop pod doors have no effect in game. Valkyrie wings are hardly for aesthetic purposes, and are quite targetable. Only cheesy IG players claim otherwise.

 

RoV

I think you forget how the 'valkyrie wings' argument cuts both ways, just like the drop pod door argument cuts both ways. As in, you cant disembark from that valkyrie because all its access points are blocked off by wings, and if wings count then the wing and another model can not share the same space.

 

Thus, the valkyrie, if the wings count, blocks over a foot of table from the enemy from moving over (like the drop pod with petals open, if petals count), as the wings and tail jut out to pretty ridiculus proportions. Just like you cant drive a rhino over a land raider, you would not be able to drive a rhino over a targetable valkyrie wing or a drop pod petal. So 3 Valkyries + 24 inch scout move or 3+ drop pods + drop pod assault = your units dont get to move.

 

Basicly, the valkyrie wings and the drop pod petals both fall in the 'well, it doesnt say I can ignore this for movement' category, even though we all pretty much agree that they dont. So, saying the wings count, while not technically wrong, but then saying the drop pod doors do NOT count, is basicly cherry picking. Both have pros and cons, very very similiar pros and cons, for all rules other than targeting.

 

It seems to me that the main issue is the irrational fear that if the wings are not targetable, the valkyrie will somehow become invincible. The fuselage/hull is just as raised and exposed, if not moreso, than the wings, and still a fairly large target.

 

So anyway, I am not trying to take a particular stance here, just point out some of the issues here. Nothing is cut and dry--the most important thing is to discuss how the drop pod/valkyrie will work before the game begins, to bite these issues in the bud.

The thing is, the wings are clearly an integral part of the vehicle. But they would be ridiculous if they blocked all movement too. I have no 'irrational fear' of them, hell, enough hits and they go down just like anything else. But to have 3/4 of the footprint of the vehicle non-targetable is ridiculous too. Obviously, in such a case, compromise may be nessecary.

As for cherry picking, well hatches and doors are not seperately targetable. The wings of the valkyrie form part of the hull (note it does not say fuselage). Apples and oranges mate, no cherry picking here. :huh:

 

RoV

[DevianID]

The wings of the valkyrie form part of the hull (note it does not say fuselage).

 

My point is that aircraft do not have 'hulls,' they have wings and fuselage. The fuselage, of course, being the main body of the aircraft makes the most sense to me to use in place of the hull. However the case may be, changing the defination of hull--even if required to deal with something like an aircraft--is a grey area with no correct answer other than to discuss the options with your opponent, and my opinion is as vaild as any other. Heck, you cant target the wings on a bloodthirster, and they are as integral to a flying bloodthirster as are the wings of a flying valkyrie--its not like targeting issues are a new thing.

 

My point is that the valykrie breaks many of the vehicle conventions, and can not be shoehorned into the regular vehicle rules such that everyone is happy. Similiarly to how the drop pod breaks many of the regular vehicle rules, and constantly end up on the official rules forum due to this nature.

 

Also, you can say that the drop pod petals are simply doors, and thus ignored (unlike wings?), but you opponent can just as easily disagree and say they are important hull sections, to large to be a door, that form an integral part of the vehicle.

 

Finally, you want to count wings as a regular vehicles hull for shooting, but to have the wings count as a regular vehicles hull for movement you find 'ridiculous.' Hey its like you said, compromise is gonna be necessary. The drop pod petals also make up 3/4s of the top down profile of a drop pod--should they count since they form such a large part of the vehicles profile? Whatever a person answers, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is making such definations before the game, and being completely consistant in their appliation.

 

Thus, if your opponent tells you they normally play all doors down and doors count as hull, then mid game when a pod drops down and cant open all its doors without mishapping--well too bad its gonna be a mishap. No changing your mind and picking 2 of the doors to stay closed since its now suddenly beneficial.

[rat of vengence]

The rules describe the doors as 'hatches' not body parts.

 

Other than that, I already said compromise will be nessecary so you seem to be belabouring the point a tad.

 

RoV

[F3d3x]

Under measuring distances pg 56. it states Ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners, and other decorative elements.

 

Doors are decorative, as you can play any model with them opened or closed.

 

Edit: Because its early