drop pod closed/open both wrong?>

[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.

 

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...

 

Fair do's! Unfortunately I had non of that information beforehand.

[Hellios]

Fair do's! Unfortunately I had non of that information beforehand.

 

I hope that didn't seem like an attack, I could totally understand where you were coming from. I just wanted to clear up some things so my friend doesn't seem like a huge Cheese McBeardson.

[Tinnock]

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.

 

 

I think what what dswanick is trying to say is that "Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point of the vehicle." states you measure 2" from the vehicle. While "for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)." states that when measuring from a vehicle you measure from the hull. Because it isnt specific about shooting, you measure from the hull for all measurements from a vehicle. deploying from a OTV involves measuring from the vehicle, therefor to deploy from a OTV you must deploy within 2" of the hull because you must measure from the hull. Thats the only way I can see to obey both the rules as written, measure 2" to deploy, all measurements must come from the hull.

[Ethrion]

The petals of the drop pod were FAQ'd to be *not* part of the vehicle as soon as it lands I'm sure wasn't it?

 

There was a time soon after the drop pod model was released when people were making huge areas of the board un-penetrable with overlapping petal formations so it got clearly sorted out...or did I dream this?

[striker8]

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.

 

I think you need to read all the rules, and I mean everything that applies not just pieces parts. Parsing them like you and others have trying to prove a point without using all is cheating at worse and rules lawyering at best.

 

Read the rules on open topped, on open toped says the firing points and acess points are the whole perimiter of the vehicles hull. You then have to read the vehicle rules where it refers to how to measure to and from a vehicle and what the "hull" is by the rules. THis also applies to how you measure for diembarking but you need to read those rules as well since it references access points which you then have to know what that means in relation to open topped. Trying to use a "2" from any part of the vehicle" quote fails when you apply the rest of the rules that also apply and define the vehicle. See I've read the rules multiple times myself and they're rather clear if you don't try to read into them and realize some parts greatly change other depending upon situation and timing.

 

Have you read all the rules now? Like where it says you ignore things like dozers, decorative bits, wings, etc when measuring? That's in the basic vehicle rules on measuring.

 

The hull is the base body of the vehicle is it not? Again that is in the base vehicle rule.

 

So a door, being as it's not the base body of the vehicle and is for all intents and purposes decorative since if it's closed you can still use it as an access point or firing point then is must not count for measuring or any other things that entails measuments if modeled in some other position.

 

Do you measure from the ramp or the opening at the front of a LR? Do you measure from the ramp or the hole in the rear of a Rhino? Do you mneasure from a modeled open door on the side of a Rhino or LR or do you use the opening in the hull? The answer to all of those is you use the hole by the rules isn't it? So why would a drop pod be different? It's not unless you're trying for some perceived advantage that the rules don't allow. So a pod with doors open mearure from the perimeter of the pentagonal base since be definition that is the best place by the rules you would use to measure same thing applies to having doors closed you use the pentagonal perimeter just the same to measure from

 

I'm not hating on you, to be honest when 5th ed hit and I actually got some pods I initially thought the way you and other have proposed, but being that SM vehicles haven't counted as open topped for a while I sat and read all the rules that apply and quickly found that what I initialy wanted to believed and what was correct were different. How people want things to be and how they actually are come down to knowing ALL the pertinent rules and how they interact not taking using only the parts that give you what you want.

[the jeske]

So a door, being as it's not the base body of the vehicle and is for all intents and purposes decorative since if it's closed you can still use it as an access point or firing point then is must not count for measuring or any other things that entails measuments if modeled in some other position.

am rather sure that doors are no where in the rules described as decorative.

[Grey Mage]

The petals of the drop pod were FAQ'd to be *not* part of the vehicle as soon as it lands I'm sure wasn't it?

 

There was a time soon after the drop pod model was released when people were making huge areas of the board un-penetrable with overlapping petal formations so it got clearly sorted out...or did I dream this?

Ive never seen this in a FAQ, if you can find it youre the man of the hour.

[greatcrusade08]

i would like to add that you dont leave a house by the door, the door opens and you leave by the doorway..

using common sense (i know but bear with me) it doesnt matter where the doors kland or open to, its the doorway you measure from when disembarking

[Grey Mage]

On the other hand if we want to use real world analogues if you exit some planes there are steps built right into the door, wich is also part of the hull, and you most certainly leave using it.

[greatcrusade08]

On the other hand if we want to use real world analogues if you exit some planes there are steps built right into the door, wich is also part of the hull, and you most certainly leave using it.

 

ok using that anaolgy, upon standing on those steps are you inside the plane or outside

[Grey Mage]

On the other hand if we want to use real world analogues if you exit some planes there are steps built right into the door, wich is also part of the hull, and you most certainly leave using it.

 

ok using that anaolgy, upon standing on those steps are you inside the plane or outside

Good question- and the answer is I dont rightly know. Id certainly still be 'on' the plane, but Im not sure Id be 'in' the plane.

 

Wich just goes to show us how little real world analogies have to do with the most dubious rules debates.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

On the other hand if we want to use real world analogues if you exit some planes there are steps built right into the door, wich is also part of the hull, and you most certainly leave using it.

 

ok using that anaolgy, upon standing on those steps are you inside the plane or outside

 

Logically you're outside, but those steps/door are still part of the hull.. You see?

 

I'm not arguing so people can gain an advantage but the way a drop pod is constructed , as is evidenced by the model, lends credence to this as well as showing how poorly constructed the rules are for this.

[Emperors Immortals]

what happens if half the doors are modeled up and half down?

 

I remember when they first launched the drop pods and im sure an FAQ was issued for the footprint, and the ruling was to treat teh main hull as the total footprint, making the opened doors not count.

 

I remember it being FAQ'd for SW im sure...any puppies as old as me with a slightly better memory?

[Bannus]

Read the rules on open topped, on open toped says the firing points and acess points are the whole perimiter of the vehicles hull. You then have to read the vehicle rules where it refers to how to measure to and from a vehicle and what the "hull" is by the rules. THis also applies to how you measure for diembarking but you need to read those rules as well since it references access points which you then have to know what that means in relation to open topped. Trying to use a "2" from any part of the vehicle" quote fails when you apply the rest of the rules that also apply and define the vehicle. See I've read the rules multiple times myself and they're rather clear if you don't try to read into them and realize some parts greatly change other depending upon situation and timing.

This is the most logical answer. When we are given seemingly conflicting rules, we have to view them in all possible interpretations. If there is one interpretation that has a conflict and another that does not - even by RAW standards, you MUST apply the interpretation that resolves the 'conflict'.

 

By applying all of the rules about drop pods, open-topped vehicles and vehciles in general together, we getthe above interpretation as the correct one.

 

Why isn't this in official rules anyway.......energize........

[dswanick]

Read the rules on open topped, on open toped says the firing points and acess points are the whole perimiter of the vehicles hull. You then have to read the vehicle rules where it refers to how to measure to and from a vehicle and what the "hull" is by the rules. THis also applies to how you measure for diembarking but you need to read those rules as well since it references access points which you then have to know what that means in relation to open topped. Trying to use a "2" from any part of the vehicle" quote fails when you apply the rest of the rules that also apply and define the vehicle. See I've read the rules multiple times myself and they're rather clear if you don't try to read into them and realize some parts greatly change other depending upon situation and timing.

This is the most logical answer. When we are given seemingly conflicting rules, we have to view them in all possible interpretations. If there is one interpretation that has a conflict and another that does not - even by RAW standards, you MUST apply the interpretation that resolves the 'conflict'.

 

By applying all of the rules about drop pods, open-topped vehicles and vehciles in general together, we getthe above interpretation as the correct one.

 

Why isn't this in official rules anyway.......energize........

Well, this has been hashed out several times in the +OR+. Always with this general result.

[Tamwulf]

This is purely my opinion.

 

If the hatches/petals are not open, you can't draw line of sight from the weapon inside the Drop Pod. Keeping the petal's closed means you just created a large chunk of line of sight blocking impassible terrain.

 

I'm of two minds on the petals counting as disembarking points. I don't think they should count, simply from a game balance point of view. No transport in the game has a footprint on the table as large as an open drop pod. You could deploy something out to 5" from the hull of a Drop Pod! On the other hand, anyone that has ever played against a Dark Eldar player and Raider transports knows how annoying it is that a little spiky bit sticking out an extra 2"-3" from the prow/hull of the Raider counts as hull for embarking/disembarking.

 

Open the petals on the Drop Pod, and you just created a huge chunk of cover for a lot of models on the table. Then there is the issue of what happens when the Drop Pod deepstrikes, scatters, and ends up next to a piece of terrain such that only half the petals can open? How do you measure the Inertial Guidance System? From the Hull? From the open petal doors? I've seen it played both ways- argument being that the petals are a part of the model.

 

Drop Pods are great transports, but the rules for them are very clunky.

[Spacefrisian]

Stormbolter on top and hatches closed, thats solves the storbolter and LOS issues. Been doin that since i got mine, cause i dont have another option with mine, eg FW didnt add the stormbolter.

[Ming]

Read the rules for the pods and vehicles in detail...or read on here for a non-official interpetation of how they are used:

 

1. Pod drops and scatters w/ doors closed.

2. Pod placed, doors opened. Owners choice on having to drop with hull one-inch away from an enemy unit or impassable terrain, OR door edges one inch away. First case, enemy units might have to be placed over/on top of pod doors. Seconds case is easier to do from a model standpoint.

3. Contents (troops or dreads) disembark to 2 inches from hull (eg standing on the open doors).

4. Doors stay open for remainder of game.

5. Any unit can fire through the pod if it can see the target on the other side. Any firing through a pod causes a cover save vs non-vehicle models. Any firing at vehicles can have a cover save following the vehicle cover (obscurred) rules.

6. Pod can fire the turn AFTER it lands, acting as an immobile open topped AV12 vehicle with a storm bolter or really short ranged rocket launcher.

 

Alternatively, in friendly games/campaigns, consider using the Forgeworld advanced drop pod deployment rules, and even the variants they have.

[Spacefrisian]

Point 5: As said before FW pods are solid on the inside their is no shooting through them.

 

Point 6: Black Templars say "we will shoot weapons on the turn we land :)"

 

 

Dont state things as facts as their are always exceptions.

[Grey Mage]

7: SW Drop Pods dont have to open there doors.

[Spacefrisian]

point 8: Coteazz cant use its "i've been expecting you" on Black templar droppods as they are to fast to be intercepted.

 

(hey you say that doors blown away are part of the rules, than this counts as well yes?)

[Venemox]

I think we're dancing around a very important principle here. Specific rules trump general rules. Sometimes referred to as 'specific > general'.

 

Let's run down each rule, and to what it applies:

 

Page 3: For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead. This applies to all vehicles without bases for all measuring. A very broad category.

 

Page 56: ...for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull... A similarly broad statement, which goes on the define things not included in 'hull' definition. The same paragraph goes further to exempt a vehicle's weaponry. Broad, but getting narrower. Now shooting by the vehicle is excluded. This trumps the rule from page 3, because Vehicles without bases is a subset of Models without bases, and therefore the more specific rule applies. It also narrows the actions from All to All, except shooting by the vehicle.

 

Page 66: Models can embark or disembark within 2" of an access point. This narrows our focus to from Vehicles to Transports and from All, except shooting by the vehicle to Embarking/disembarking . As such it, trumps the rules from page 3 and 56.

 

Page 70: Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point on the vehicle. This comes from the section titled 'Open-Topped Transport Vehicles'. This further focuses now into a very narrow category from Transports to Open-Topped Transports. the action remains Embarking/disembarking. This trumps the rules from pages 66, 56, and 3 by virtue of applying to a more specific set of circumstances. Additionally, this paragraph makes a distinction between shooting by embarked models (from the hull) and disembarking (any point) within a sentence of each other. To think they were intended to be interpreted the exact same way would be a stretch.

 

So, that leaves a couple of questions. Does the pods doors qualify as 'any point of the vehicle. Remember, this is an officially produced GW kit, designed to open, not a scratch built. As such, I cannot see a reasonable argument for 'No'.

 

So, that leaves us in an interesting position.

 

A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (BRB, page 11). The Drop Pod doors now represent essentially impassable obstacles for friend and foe.

 

The Drop Pod cannot scatter on top of impassible terrain or another model (C:SM, page 69). Inertial Guidance system prevents that. Reduce the scatter distance by the minimum requried to avoid the obstacle. Mathematically, the scatter dice represent a Vector (having both Magnitude and Direction). As such, quantities of less than zero are feasible and usable results when reducing the magnitude of the scatter. Move/Spin the Drop pod as necessary (remember, minimum distance movement is a requirement, not an option) to avoid the obstacle. Thanks to this rule, the only real threat here is the table edge, since it is neither 'impassible terrain' nor 'model'.

 

Well, that's my $0.02. It's part good, part bad, for both sides of the drop pod issue.

[greatcrusade08]

So, that leaves a couple of questions. Does the pods doors qualify as 'any point of the vehicle. Remember, this is an officially produced GW kit, designed to open, not a scratch built. As such, I cannot see a reasonable argument for 'No'.

 

how about the proposition that drop pod doors are purely decorative.. they arent used as part of the hull when they 'land' and there are no directions to whether they must be opened or not.

just like doors on a land raider.. open or closed doesnt matter, they are purely decorative in that sense.

[Grey Mage]

So, that leaves a couple of questions. Does the pods doors qualify as 'any point of the vehicle. Remember, this is an officially produced GW kit, designed to open, not a scratch built. As such, I cannot see a reasonable argument for 'No'.

 

how about the proposition that drop pod doors are purely decorative.. they arent used as part of the hull when they 'land' and there are no directions to whether they must be opened or not.

just like doors on a land raider.. open or closed doesnt matter, they are purely decorative in that sense.

Problem being this forum and others are littered with battle reports showing people dont think of it that way- they drop the ramps on their 'raiders to get extra movement towards the enemy all the time.

[Venemox]

Problem being this forum and others are littered with battle reports showing people dont think of it that way- they drop the ramps on their 'raiders to get extra movement towards the enemy all the time.

 

The C:SM is very vague on where the access points are for the LR, saying only 'one access point of each side of the hull, and one at the front'. I would like to point out that it says the access points are on each side of the hull and the front, and not the hull itself.

 

However, from a *common* sense perspective, this is a sound idea. The ramp lowers, the marines rush out, and the ramp closes. He couldn't start under the ramp, because he's inside the vehicle (not to mention being crushed!) nor would he want to be on the ramp when it closed (and flung/rolled back into the tank). Nor will the entire squad moonwalk back a few feet after disembarking.

 

The model was designed with an opening ramp, and the instructions say not to glue it shut. I glue mine shut (for added structural stability, and the fact I don't want to paint the insides), but I prefer to think of it as me losing a benefit that was designed into the tank vice someone else modeling it for advantage

.