drop pod closed/open both wrong?>

[Heru2012]

Proof: The rules state that when the model hits the hatches are blown, which would mean that the doors are no longer closed. <- Therefore, your model does not match the rules, and it's aesthetic look has nothing to do with the game play.

 

Again, how is you giving you interpretation of a rule that does not exist proof that something happens. Please, I'm playing devils advocate here but you need to look up the word proof and find that it is not a synonym for opinion. here's a few reasons why.

 

A hatch is no necessarily a door.

Blown is not necessarily open.

 

Again, find the rule and present it with a quote to an official publication or please say that it is in your opinion. Stop trying to pass it off as rules when they don't exist. I agree that the doors whether modelled open or closed "should" not count as hull for purposes of LoS or disembarking (even though on a drop pod they aare the hull of the vehicle) but there is no rule stating it, therefore that is just how I assume the rules apply.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Heru2012

[Arkangilos]

Proof: The rules state that when the model hits the hatches are blown, which would mean that the doors are no longer closed. <- Therefore, your model does not match the rules, and it's aesthetic look has nothing to do with the game play.

 

Again, how is you giving you interpretation of a rule that does not exist proof that something happens. Please, I'm playing devils advocate here but you need to look up the word proof and find that it is not a synonym for opinion. here's a few reasons why.

 

A hatch is no necessarily a door.

Blown is not necessarily open.

 

Again, find the rule and present it with a quote to an official publication or please say that it is in your opinion. Stop trying to pass it off as rules when they don't exist. I agree that the doors whether modelled open or closed "should" not count as hull for purposes of LoS or disembarking (even though on a drop pod they aare the hull of the vehicle) but there is no rule stating it, therefore that is just how I assume the rules apply.

 

What does blown mean?

 

My dex is with my dad, so I don't have the rules on hand, but going off what the op says, it says the hatches are blown.

 

As to the weapon destroyed comment: if the weapon is destroyed whether the model shows or not.

[Order_of_the_Dragon]

In the case of the model I would assume "blown" would be when the pod lands and the doors are deployed open..

 

I always thought it'd be cool for the doors explode outwards maybe with some type of frag blast effect ...

[dswanick]

What does blown mean?

 

My dex is with my dad, so I don't have the rules on hand, but going off what the op says, it says the hatches are blown.

That's the point - neither the codex nor the rulebook have a game-specific definition of "blown" or what that means in game terms or how it affects other rules in the book. Ergo - it has no in-game meaning.

 

In general english usage -

blown - adj \ˈblōn\

Definition of BLOWN

1 a: swollen b: affected with bloat

2 : being out of breath

Not very helpful is it? Now there is a quasi-military usage of the word which usually equates to "blown up", "blown out" or "blown away" - and it's pretty obvious from the usage what the author meant. However, we still have no specific rule to work with.

[the jeske]

yeah if the rule said they are blown away and no longer count as part of the model for purpose of drawing line of sight and moving , it would be clear[we still wouldnt know what blown away means rules wise , but we would know how drop pods work].

[greatcrusade08]

i have a definition of what 'blown' means, but its not suitable for a family community such as this.

 

one thing i noted was the codex refers to them as "hatches", ill take a look later see what the rulebook calssifies as hull, but im pretty sure it speaks of the main body of a vehicle.. hatches dont count

[Arkangilos]

What does blown mean?

 

My dex is with my dad, so I don't have the rules on hand, but going off what the op says, it says the hatches are blown.

That's the point - neither the codex nor the rulebook have a game-specific definition of "blown" or what that means in game terms or how it affects other rules in the book. Ergo - it has no in-game meaning.

 

In general english usage -

blown - adj \ˈblōn\

Definition of BLOWN

1 a: swollen b: affected with bloat

2 : being out of breath

Not very helpful is it? Now there is a quasi-military usage of the word which usually equates to "blown up", "blown out" or "blown away" - and it's pretty obvious from the usage what the author meant. However, we still have no specific rule to work with.

 

If it says it is open, which is what blown out means by context, it is open.

[Heru2012]

If it says it is open, which is what blown out means by context, it is open.

 

Actually screw it....just read the rules.

 

Access Points on pg 66 of the small rulebook from AOBR.

 

Each Vehicle capable of carrying passengers will have a number of access points defined in its entry. These are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle. Models can embark or disembark withing 2" of an access point.

 

Drop pod rules:

 

Fire points and access points: Once deployed the drop pod is no longer a sealed environment and is therefore counted as being open-topped.

 

AoBR Rulebook page 70. Open topped vehicles.

 

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point of the vehicle.

 

 

 

Pretty much says that you can deploy from any part of the drop pod. No mention of HULL in any of those rules.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Heru2012

[ShinyRhino]

Um, if you plan to count the opened leaves of the pod hatches as part of the vehicle for the purposes of disembarkation, I'd politely ask you to place those pods on the table with the leaves down, and use them when measuring scatter, impassable terrain, AND the board edge. If your deployed-with-doors-down pod lands with even .01" of its opened leaves off a table edge...deepstrike mishap for you. Land too close to myunits, and you reduce scatter to avoid my models, but that leaves you disembarking about 8" from my unit, which works just fine for me since you'd be out of the sweet spot for most of the most oft-used, pod-dropped weapons (meltaguns, flamers, etc).

 

The best and fairest way to run pods is one of two choices:

 

1) Leave the doors shut, do not allow LOS through the pod, and the pod cannot fire its onboard weapons. LOS from the Marines is limited by the pod, as is LOS to them from the enemy's guns. Even all round.

 

2) Land the pod, scatter, then drop the doors. Deploy within 2" of the hull, completely ignoring the dropped doors for everything but TLOS. They essentially become little terrain features. Even all round.

 

Any solution that allows one player to do something the other cannot based on door positioning is a recipe for disaster.

[dswanick]

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point of the vehicle.

 

Pretty much says that you can deploy from any part of the drop pod. No mention of HULL in any of those rules.

VEHICLES & MEASURING DISTANCES

As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

Gotta read all the rules there.

[Heru2012]

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point of the vehicle.

 

Pretty much says that you can deploy from any part of the drop pod. No mention of HULL in any of those rules.

VEHICLES & MEASURING DISTANCES

As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

Gotta read all the rules there.

 

I know, I am trying to show how badly the rules concerning this are written. And actually as it states in the bold section of your quote, measuring from the hull is used for rules that would normally measure to a models base. No rules for embarkation etc state base, so therefore you don't use the hull.

[Hellios]

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point of the vehicle.

 

Pretty much says that you can deploy from any part of the drop pod. No mention of HULL in any of those rules.

VEHICLES & MEASURING DISTANCES

As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

Gotta read all the rules there.

 

I know, I am trying to show how badly the rules concerning this are written. And actually as it states in the bold section of your quote, measuring from the hull is used for rules that would normally measure to a models base. No rules for embarkation etc state base, so therefore you don't use the hull.

 

Well my Ork friend with a bridge layer battle wagon will be pleased that he can assault over 30 inches in one turn now!

[Captain Juan Juarez]

VEHICLES & MEASURING DISTANCES

As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

 

The doors are part of the hull, they have to be for a Pod to operate as described.

[dswanick]

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point of the vehicle.

 

Pretty much says that you can deploy from any part of the drop pod. No mention of HULL in any of those rules.

VEHICLES & MEASURING DISTANCES

As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

Gotta read all the rules there.

 

I know, I am trying to show how badly the rules concerning this are written. And actually as it states in the bold section of your quote, measuring from the hull is used for rules that would normally measure to a models base. No rules for embarkation etc state base, so therefore you don't use the hull.

Umm, it doesn't have to say "the base". All measurements are taken from the hull, full stop. Try re-reading that again. "for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull".

VEHICLES & MEASURING DISTANCES

As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

 

The doors are part of the hull, they have to be for a Pod to operate as described.

No, just no. Before you even go trying that tact, do a thread search in the +OR+ where this claim is hased, re-hashed, and hashed again. Then, if you still want to try and argue this point of view, try playing a pod with the doors counting as hull - fully, not just when it's convenient for you. Good luck with that.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

No, just no. Before you even go trying that tact, do a thread search in the +OR+ where this claim is hased, re-hashed, and hashed again. Then, if you still want to try and argue this point of view, try playing a pod with the doors counting as hull - fully, not just when it's convenient for you. Good luck with that.

 

I'm sorry, shall I ask your permission next time I want to give my opinion?

[Heru2012]

Umm, it doesn't have to say "the base". All measurements are taken from the hull, full stop. Try re-reading that again. "for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull

 

Dude, you just ignored the first part of that rule, it states that vehicles don't have bases so the normal rules cannot be used. INSTEAD measure to their hull. This means any rules that require you to measure to a base for things like range in the shooting phase, require you to measure to their HULL. That is the rule, clear as day, vehicles don't have a base so in any circumstances where you are required to measure to a base you measure to hull.

 

It literally states, X cannot happen, so use Y instead.

 

I'm not disagreeing, I would disembark from the main body and count it as being able to shoot through, with a cover save if you shoot through the middle. I am just saying that for official tournies etc, where you cannot just agree to use a rule with your local gamers, there needs to be a full clear explanation from GW.

[Heru2012]

Well my Ork friend with a bridge layer battle wagon will be pleased that he can assault over 30 inches in one turn now!

 

That's nice, but if you read what we're talking about, it is a purely UNCONVERTED standard GW Drop Pod, you are talking about modelling for advantage, which is against the rules.

[Techmarine Data007]

That depends entirely on whether something has an official model or not. I don't know the Ork codex, but if the kit doesn't have an option listed in the entry, you basically have to scratchbuild it, which leaves it open to interpretation. Sort of the same deal back when there was no model for a Vanquisher, only a suggestion.

[Heru2012]

That depends entirely on whether something has an official model or not. I don't know the Ork codex, but if the kit doesn't have an option listed in the entry, you basically have to scratchbuild it, which leaves it open to interpretation. Sort of the same deal back when there was no model for a Vanquisher, only a suggestion.

 

Still, turning up to a tourney with a 30" boarding plank on your battlewagon and trying to pass it off that that is the way you thing GW meant it to be then I think you have great bill hairy manballs. :D

[striker8]

Doors aren't hull and deployed doors are not terrain so no deployment shenanigans or difficult or dangerous terrain test for deployed doors.

So if I see just the door of a rhino I cant shot at it because am unable to draw line of sight to the hull [and doors are not hull]?

Some might even go so far as to say that you could shoot through those doors, like they try to shoot through the doors on a drop pod.

 

As ussual certain people trying to spin comments for their perverse reasons and I'm not talking about you Grey Mage!

 

A closed door is exactly that it's closed and part of the hull at that point. When it's open though it is not hull any longer and falls into the decorative/extra bits clause in the rules. Besides can you see through a Rhino with an open door? You can't unless the inner door is cut open and I've only seen some one do that once and you still couldn't see all the way through the model door to door and out the other side due to having a marine in the hatch.

 

That's the catch, this whole hoopla is people trying to game the system. Play it one way or the other but do it consistently for the game.

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...tiPageMode=true

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...tiPageMode=true

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...tiPageMode=true

 

I don't know if these help, but it shows games workshop tends to field drop pods closed.

None of those pics really prove anything as they aren't deployed models, but a posed shot showcasing a battle force.

 

Tell that to my 3 RAS marines and sargeant who took a venom shot because one piece of one jumppack could be seen through a gap in a DP. Oh I get a 4+ save ? I am 3+ anyway and got shot to hell except for the sargeant who lived, passed a pinning test and won the game. It is a big deal and worth questioning.

Then you got cheated :

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to anypart of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms). Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body), In these cases, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc.

 

Thank you for covering that for me.

[striker8]

If it says it is open, which is what blown out means by context, it is open.

 

Actually screw it....just read the rules.

 

Access Points on pg 66 of the small rulebook from AOBR.

 

Each Vehicle capable of carrying passengers will have a number of access points defined in its entry. These are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle. Models can embark or disembark withing 2" of an access point.

 

Drop pod rules:

 

Fire points and access points: Once deployed the drop pod is no longer a sealed environment and is therefore counted as being open-topped.

 

AoBR Rulebook page 70. Open topped vehicles.

 

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point of the vehicle.

 

 

 

Pretty much says that you can deploy from any part of the drop pod. No mention of HULL in any of those rules.

 

Read the rules, open top means any part of the vehicles hull is an access point, and defines what the hull is. Trying to imply that the ends of open doors count way out there.

[striker8]

Um, if you plan to count the opened leaves of the pod hatches as part of the vehicle for the purposes of disembarkation, I'd politely ask you to place those pods on the table with the leaves down, and use them when measuring scatter, impassable terrain, AND the board edge. If your deployed-with-doors-down pod lands with even .01" of its opened leaves off a table edge...deepstrike mishap for you. Land too close to myunits, and you reduce scatter to avoid my models, but that leaves you disembarking about 8" from my unit, which works just fine for me since you'd be out of the sweet spot for most of the most oft-used, pod-dropped weapons (meltaguns, flamers, etc).

 

The best and fairest way to run pods is one of two choices:

 

1) Leave the doors shut, do not allow LOS through the pod, and the pod cannot fire its onboard weapons. LOS from the Marines is limited by the pod, as is LOS to them from the enemy's guns. Even all round.

 

2) Land the pod, scatter, then drop the doors. Deploy within 2" of the hull, completely ignoring the dropped doors for everything but TLOS. They essentially become little terrain features. Even all round.

 

Any solution that allows one player to do something the other cannot based on door positioning is a recipe for disaster.

 

Right on the money.

 

The whole argument comes down to people wanting to get an advantage out of something that doesn;t exist so you either do it one way and take the advantages and disadvantages or doit the the other and take those advantages and disadvantages. You can't have the best of both. So if the doors count for deployment they count for scatter, if their closed you either consider them open so the storm bolter can shoot and they can be seen through or they are close and it can't shoot or be seen through. Pick one or the other!

[Heru2012]

Read the rules, open top means any part of the vehicles hull is an access point, and defines what the hull is. Trying to imply that the ends of open doors count way out there.

 

Read the rules. I will write them for you here.

 

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle. Open topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any part of the vehicle.

 

At no point does the section of open topped rules state embarkation/disembarkation are from the HULL. Specific word. OR define what the hull is. So again. Someones typed something claiming that is what it says, doesn't quote the book, which I have, and from what I can see is writing down the rules how he believes it works.

 

The part refering to the HULL is to do with passengers shooting from the vehicle.

 

By the rules stated, which I have underlined as well as emboldened, they can disembark from 2" of ANY PART OF THE VEHICLE.

 

Again, don't hate me, playing devils advocate, but just trying to show how RAW do not clear this problem up, if anything it points the other direction.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Heru2012

[Heru2012]

Dude, I honestly believe you have no idea what I am arguing here, because if you read and understood my posts, you will see that I'm not arguing that you cannot measure to a hull.

 

The argument posed is that disembarking from a drop pod the rules state that once it lands it counts as an open topped vehicle. OTV rules state that disembarking is from ANY POINT of the vehicle, not the hull, so they could use the doors to unload. Simple. It's a rubbish rule, meaning people can make ridiculous boarding ramps for any vehicle to use as an advantage.

 

To say that everone here is laughing at me is just offensive, we're having a debate and you basically tell me your laughing in my face because I've interpreted a rule a certain way. Grow up, read the posts, put what you think, if you want to get into a slagging match about who's an idiot do it somewhere else.

[Hellios]

Well my Ork friend with a bridge layer battle wagon will be pleased that he can assault over 30 inches in one turn now!

 

That's nice, but if you read what we're talking about, it is a purely UNCONVERTED standard GW Drop Pod, you are talking about modelling for advantage, which is against the rules.

 

Incorrect.

 

1) It was made before the orks had an official model for such a vehicle.

2) It was made for a different version of the game where this would not be an issue.

2) It was originally built specifically as a bridge layer for a narrative game.

 

So the model gives an advantage but it was not specifically modelled to give an advantage. So it clearly isn't a case of modelling for an advantage. Other examples I can give include... A guy with a chaos lord (marine sized) with huge wings... bigger than what most DPs have and again this was before true LOS but now his chaos lord = epic cover. Finally a guy who converted most of his guard into prone positions which again made no/little difference before true LOS but now causes havok as it can be very hard to see him... On that note he also can't see over anything himself...