drop pod closed/open both wrong?>

[dswanick]

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

One problem I see with all that you wrote was that nowhere does Games Workshop actually make the statement that 'specific > general'. They do say that in the case of a conflict, Codex overrules Rulebook - but that's not what we have here. What we have is one part of the Rulebook conflicting with another part of the rulbook. Now, yes, it seems logical that in this case a more specific rule should override a more general rule. But there is a good argument to be made that 'specific overrides general' requires that the rule specifically state that it is overriding another rule. Just as the Open-topped rule tells you that embarked models measure from the hull instead of from a fire point, specifically stating that it is in lieu of the general rule.

"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." - BRB, Pg.70

The rule for embarking, however, is vague about whether it is specifically overriding the "measue to the hull (sans decorative elements)" or implicitly adhering to those rules by just mentioning measuring to the vehicle (as defined elsewhere in the book?).

[greatcrusade08]

The model was designed with an opening ramp, and the instructions say not to glue it shut.

 

modelling instructions are not relevant to game mechanics though..

too many people try to push th idea its part of the hull for gain/abuse.. i think we should start a movement for them being decorative and B&C house rule it.

the rules can support this, just as much as they support them being part of the hull.. so if it comes down to interpretation we really ought to do our opponents justice and be fair about it

[Venemox]

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.

 

Not consequential either way, as decorative items still qualify as 'any point of the vehicle'. As for the relationship between the hull and landing, there is not direct link that I can see. The Inertial Guidance System rule doesn't limit the portion of the Drop Pod that has to interact with models or impassible terrain to just the hull for the rule to trigger. Neither does the Deep strike mishaps section of the BBB. The term 'hull' simply is not located in either section. BUT, the terms 'model' and 'Drop Pod' are. The doors are the largest parts of the 'Drop pod' 'model'.

[Venemox]

The model was designed with an opening ramp, and the instructions say not to glue it shut.

 

modelling instructions are not relevant to game mechanics though..

too many people try to push th idea its part of the hull for gain/abuse.. i think we should start a movement for them being decorative and B&C house rule it.

the rules can support this, just as much as they support them being part of the hull.. so if it comes down to interpretation we really ought to do our opponents justice and be fair about it

 

I think I see a gross conceptual error here. Access points does not equal hull. Access points are *usually* attached to hull, and may sometimes be a subsection of the hull, but the terms are not interchangeable. Embark/disembark are measured from access points (BBB 66). Access points are the '...doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use...'. Not doorways... Doors. Not ramp-ummm-openings (I'm at a loss for words here, just give it to me)... Ramps.

 

Modeling instructions are relevant to game mechanics, or there would be no arguments about 'modeled for advantage'. They help guide us in our creative endeavors to maintain things approximately equal.

 

I'll happily take my LR ramps not being part of the hull if it means most of their front exposure isn't targettable.

[greatcrusade08]

Not consequential either way, as decorative items still qualify as 'any point of the vehicle'. As for the relationship between the hull and landing, there is not direct link that I can see. The Inertial Guidance System rule doesn't limit the portion of the Drop Pod that has to interact with models or impassible terrain to just the hull for the rule to trigger. Neither does the Deep strike mishaps section of the BBB. The term 'hull' simply is not located in either section. BUT, the terms 'model' and 'Drop Pod' are. The doors are the largest parts of the 'Drop pod' 'model'.

 

thats dumb but technically correct by blind RAW.

no-one has yet to answer the basic question though.. are drop pod doors meant to be opened after the drop pod has landed.. becuase it smacks of modelling for gain.

the fins/doors/petals whatever you call them are up when you land the pod, and are opened for pure decorative purposes otherwise the drop pod itself has 'moved' even though its immobile.

 

to count the drop pods fins as part of the vehicle means to open them breaches the basic tenets of drop pods.. they cannot move

 

I think I see a gross conceptual error here. Access points does not equal hull. Access points are *usually* attached to hull, and may sometimes be a subsection of the hull, but the terms are not interchangeable.

show me this in the rulebook

 

Embark/disembark are measured from access points (BBB 66). Access points are the '...doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use...'. Not doorways... Doors. Not ramp-ummm-openings (I'm at a loss for words here, just give it to me)... Ramps.

hmm paraphrasing really isnt cool, the rest of the sentence says "that passengers use to get in and out of vehicles"..

my common sense comparison to doors and doorways is more appopriate methinks.. of course if you want to argue you can walk through an open door (or a closed one) i know a few english teachers that would like a word.

you dont moce through doors hatches or ramps, you move through doorways, hatchways and through whatever gap the ramp has opened to reveal

 

Modeling instructions are relevant to game mechanics, or there would be no arguments about 'modeled for advantage'. They help guide us in our creative endeavors to maintain things approximately equal.

thats true to a point but not relevant here.. whether a LR is modelled to open its doors or not has no bearing on "modelling for gain" a LR with a converted ramp thats 6" long is, becuase it changes the game dynamics.

a drop pod that can 'move' is also questionable under modelling for gain

[Venemox]

One problem I see with all that you wrote was that nowhere does Games Workshop actually make the statement that 'specific > general'. They do say that in the case of a conflict, Codex overrules Rulebook - but that's not what we have here. What we have is one part of the Rulebook conflicting with another part of the rulbook. Now, yes, it seems logical that in this case a more specific rule should override a more general rule. But there is a good argument to be made that 'specific overrides general' requires that the rule specifically state that it is overriding another rule. Just as the Open-topped rule tells you that embarked models measure from the hull instead of from a fire point, specifically stating that it is in lieu of the general rule.

"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." - BRB, Pg.70

The rule for embarking, however, is vague about whether it is specifically overriding the "measue to the hull (sans decoratice elements)" or implicitly adhering to those rules by just mentioning measuring to the vehicle.

 

Alright, you can only disembark and embark via access points (BBB page 66, again). The full quote regarding the open-topped vehicles is: Open-topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2 " of anypoint of the vehicle. I apolpgize for cutting the sentence short in my previous post, does this clear up for you? The BBB states, explicitly, and in no uncertain terms, that open-topped vehicles treat embarking and disemabarking differently than other transports. Where do they embark/disembark from? within 2' of any point of the vehicle. Not the hull, not the access point, not the guns, not the frilly extras, ... any point

 

And these aren't conflicts, these are steady progressions of rules from generalizations to specifications. Under your argumant, my models can disembark from within 2" of any point of the hull of the LR or any other transport because page 3 says to measure distances from the hull. That's even better than the ramp up/down issue.

[greatcrusade08]

to further support dswanick, specific doesnt automatically override all of the general rules, only that it conflicts with.

in terms of vehicles, we have a large section of rules covering basic vehicles, then we have a section covering each of the subtypes of vehicles.. you dont automatically throw out the generic rules you apply the generic rules and the specific rules with any conflicting statements being covered by specific.

 

in this case it says measure from any point of the vehicle, but doesnt state what counts.. therefore we have to use the pre-established rules in the generic vehcile section to fill in the gaps

 

the "any part of the vehicle" only overrides the more general "disembarking from access points" and the rules about measuring to and from the hull still apply as it hasnt been 'overwritten' by the more specific opne topped rules

[Venemox]

Not consequential either way, as decorative items still qualify as 'any point of the vehicle'. As for the relationship between the hull and landing, there is not direct link that I can see. The Inertial Guidance System rule doesn't limit the portion of the Drop Pod that has to interact with models or impassible terrain to just the hull for the rule to trigger. Neither does the Deep strike mishaps section of the BBB. The term 'hull' simply is not located in either section. BUT, the terms 'model' and 'Drop Pod' are. The doors are the largest parts of the 'Drop pod' 'model'.

 

thats dumb but technically correct by blind RAW.

no-one has yet to answer the basic question though.. are drop pod doors meant to be opened after the drop pod has landed.. becuase it smacks of modelling for gain.

the fins/doors/petals whatever you call them are up when you land the pod, and are opened for pure decorative purposes otherwise the drop pod itself has 'moved' even though its immobile.

 

to count the drop pods fins as part of the vehicle means to open them breaches the basic tenets of drop pods.. they cannot move

 

I think I see a gross conceptual error here. Access points does not equal hull. Access points are *usually* attached to hull, and may sometimes be a subsection of the hull, but the terms are not interchangeable.

show me this in the rulebook

 

Embark/disembark are measured from access points (BBB 66). Access points are the '...doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use...'. Not doorways... Doors. Not ramp-ummm-openings (I'm at a loss for words here, just give it to me)... Ramps.

hmm paraphrasing really isnt cool, the rest of the sentence says "that passengers use to get in and out of vehicles"..

my common sense comparison to doors and doorways is more appopriate methinks.. of course if you want to argue you can walk through an open door (or a closed one) i know a few english teachers that would like a word.

you dont moce through doors hatches or ramps, you move through doorways, hatchways and through whatever gap the ramp has opened to reveal

 

Modeling instructions are relevant to game mechanics, or there would be no arguments about 'modeled for advantage'. They help guide us in our creative endeavors to maintain things approximately equal.

thats true to a point but not relevant here.. whether a LR is modelled to open its doors or not has no bearing on "modelling for gain" a LR with a converted ramp thats 6" long is, becuase it changes the game dynamics.

a drop pod that can 'move' is also questionable under modelling for gain

 

 

By paraphrasing I suppose you mean 'exact quote of the parts that are relevent, and not transcribing the rest due to (let's be honest) laziness.' I understand. I was going for what they defined as access points, not their general usage, as I assumed that to be understood since it is the purpose of the entire post.

 

Yes, you exit via the doorway, and the hatchway, and the ramp-hole-thingy (still don't have a good one for that). I also agree that you don't move through them, however: try exiting via the ramp without opening it, walking over it, and closing it again (the last part is optional). BUT, that's neither here nor there in the +OR+, that's fluff and imagination.

 

The conceptual error I saw was that some people keep referring back to measuring from the hull to embark/disembark. Back to page 66, AGAIN. Models exit/enter via access points. As for the 'sho me', they are implied to be seperate ideas on page 67, under 'emergency disembarkation', where models are deployed within 2" of the hull (vice access points). I was trying to point out that while access points may be part of the hull (LR side doors, Rhino doors, etc), the hull is not usually an access point.

 

 

I agree that we have digressed past intial open/shut question. I think they should be modelled as openable, since the on board weapons systems are inside. And the instructions ssay so. ^_^ No BBB quote about LOS for the guns, or anything like that. HOWEVER, I've already said I like to model my tanks locked up tight. I won't refuse to play anyone who's modeled their's open or closed, as long as they're all played the same. If it blocks TLOS, it blocks LOS. If it doesn't, it provides cover when it should. I'll even give them the benefit of the on board weapon sytem, even though it's glued inside (or maybe even missing), because they paid the points for it. Anything less would be unsportsmanlike. I think it's been said on here several different times, they're your models, do what you want to them (within reason).

[Venemox]

to further support dswanick, specific doesnt automatically override all of the general rules, only that it conflicts with.

in terms of vehicles, we have a large section of rules covering basic vehicles, then we have a section covering each of the subtypes of vehicles.. you dont automatically throw out the generic rules you apply the generic rules and the specific rules with any conflicting statements being covered by specific.

 

in this case it says measure from any point of the vehicle, but doesnt state what counts.. therefore we have to use the pre-established rules in the generic vehcile section to fill in the gaps

 

the "any part of the vehicle" only overrides the more general "disembarking from access points" and the rules about measuring to and from the hull still apply as it hasnt been 'overwritten' by the more specific opne topped rules

 

But it was over-written by the access point rule, which was subsequently over-written by the open-topped rule.

 

These aren't the dead sea scrolls, interpreted through thousands of years and nine different languages. The guy (or gal) who wrote this just a few years ago speaks the language it was written in fluently. The word any remains defined as a 'one or more without specification' now as it did then. Hull would be a specification.

 

Reading the paragraph in it's entirety shows that hull was used in close proximity, with reagrds to embarked models shooting. A difference in wording usually indicates a difference in intent. Instead of hull, the BBB uses 'any point' for the embarkation/disembarkation.

 

However, at this point we're arguing what the author meant vice what the author said. I believe that's a road best left untravelled.

[greatcrusade08]

However, at this point we're arguing what the author meant vice what the author said. I believe that's a road best left untravelled.

 

not at all, we are discussing RAW..

which says all measurements are taken to and from the hull.

whether you exit the vehicle by an access point or by any part of the vehicle as in open topped rules, the measurements still have to be taken from the hull..

the only thing left to discuss in this case is whetehr the fins/ramps/hatches are infact part of the hull..

 

 

and as i said, becuase they are dropped (read moved) after the drop pod has landed, then they cant infact be part of the hull, as the drop pod is immobile

 

edit: yes i agree 2" from any point of the vehicle is awkward wording, ork vehicles could seriously abuse this one.. but again since all measurements are taken to and from the hull, the wording would have been better had it said "2" from any point of the vehciles hull"

its not that your arguments dont have merit, its that it isnt conclusive enough for me to allow these kind of shenanigans

[Venemox]

However, at this point we're arguing what the author meant vice what the author said. I believe that's a road best left untravelled.

 

not at all, we are discussing RAW..

which says all measurements are taken to and from the hull.

whether you exit the vehicle by an access point or by any part of the vehicle as in open topped rules, the measurements still have to be taken from the hull..

the only thing left to discuss in this case is whetehr the fins/ramps/hatches are infact part of the hull..

 

 

and as i said, becuase they are dropped (read moved) after the drop pod has landed, then they cant infact be part of the hull, as the drop pod is immobile

 

Two things are prevented by a Damaged-Immobolized result from page 61. Moving and pivoting. Opening the doors neither relocates the model (read moves) nor pivots it. Question: Are my marines stuck inside an immobolized LR or Rhino? The doors are certainly part of the hull for them.

 

The requirement to measure from the hull for getting on and off was over-written by the transport rules for access points. The access points rule was over-written by the open-topped rule. I see no requirement to revert to previously over-written rules here. Or, as you so eleoquently put it, show me this in the rulebook.

[greatcrusade08]

Or, as you so eleoquently put it, show me this in the rulebook.

 

i do believe i already have, a few times.

 

point 1: all measurements are taken to and from the hull

point 2: models disembarking from open topped vehciles can embark or disembark within 2 " of any point of the vehicle.

 

the rulebook doesnt make any statements on what take priority, all rules must be treated equally until contradictions occur (at which point we asume specific trumps general)..

in this case the only way to obey all rules is to allow embarking/disembarking from any point, with the 2" being measured to the hull

 

Two things are prevented by a Damaged-Immobolized result from page 61. Moving and pivoting. Opening the doors neither relocates the model (read moves) nor pivots it.

relocating and moving are not the same thing.. i havent relocated from my chair to extend my arms to type.. but i have clearly moved.

 

my point was that they cant be considered part of the hull, nor can doors on a LR or rhino.. when closed sure its part of the hull (or more appropriately to avoid confusion.. it coccupies the area of the hull).. but opened its decorative.

heres my point.. on a land raider you can disembark 2" from an access point.. now big Q: do you measure from the door closed, or from the door as its opened.. if the door was 2" long, the opened your clearly gaining 2" from disembark.. hence the overriding rule about measurments being taken to and from the hull (to avoid cheating).

i apply the same logic to drop pods, sure they are open topped so can disembark from any point (not just access points) but we must measure the 2" from any point on the hull.. otherwise we end up with rediculous discussions like this, where youi drop a 6" hatch and deploy 2" from the end a massive 8" from the actual hull where the men magically were a moment before hand

[dswanick]

Opening the doors neither relocates the model (read moves) nor pivots it.

This is demonstrably false.

 

A drop pod with "doors" closed is placed via deep strike x" away from an enemy unit, at which point it is Immobilized.

The doors are now opened.

"MEASURING DISTANCES

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.

When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below. So, for example. if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model." - BRB, Pg.3

As the doors (if they are counted as hull or body) have now reduced the distance to the enemy unit, the vehicle has - by RAW - moved.

[greatcrusade08]

As the doors (if they are counted as hull or body) have now reduced the distance to the enemy unit, the vehicle has - by RAW - moved.

 

very eloquent as always, which is why i maintain the only logical conclusion is that drop pod doors/hatches/ramps are decorative only

[Venemox]

i do believe i already have, a few times.

 

point 1: all measurements are taken to and from the hull

point 2: models disembarking from open topped vehciles can embark or disembark within 2 " of any point of the vehicle.

 

Point 1: NOT all measurements are taken from the hull. Fire points, access points, vehicle weapons all prove that statment too broad. Each has an exemption, spelled out in the BBB. It is a very good general rule, but almost everything we want to do with vehicles violates it.

Point 2: I agree

 

the rulebook doesnt make any statements on what take priority, all rules must be treated equally until contradictions occur (at which point we asume specific trumps general)..

in this case the only way to obey all rules is to allow embarking/disembarking from any point, with the 2" being measured to the hull

 

I agree with the first sentence and it's implications. It's what I've been arguing. We have a specific rule written for only transports that are open-topped and only applies to embarkation/disembarkation. This rule nullifies the requirement to measure from the hull. Yes, 2" from the hull meets the requriements of 2" from any point, but the reverse is not true. How more specific does it need to get?

 

[relocating and moving are not the same thing.. i havent relocated from my chair to extend my arms to type.. but i have clearly moved.

 

my point was that they cant be considered part of the hull, nor can doors on a LR or rhino.. when closed sure its part of the hull (or more appropriately to avoid confusion.. it coccupies the area of the hull).. but opened its decorative.

heres my point.. on a land raider you can disembark 2" from an access point.. now big Q: do you measure from the door closed, or from the door as its opened.. if the door was 2" long, the opened your clearly gaining 2" from disembark.. hence the overriding rule about measurments being taken to and from the hull (to avoid cheating).

i apply the same logic to drop pods, sure they are open topped so can disembark from any point (not just access points) but we must measure the 2" from any point on the hull.. otherwise we end up with rediculous discussions like this, where youi drop a 6" hatch and deploy 2" from the end a massive 8" from the actual hull where the men magically were a moment before hand

 

In your example, we don't care about you, you're the cargo. We care about the chair and it's final position on a fixed plane in relation to it's initial position (barring pivoting, which is expressly forbidden).

 

What cheating? Building the model as directed by GW instructions, then following a rule as written in the BBB? IF the door can open, it should open. It's both cinematic, artistic, and common sense worthy. As you said, you can't go through a shut door, can you? The ramp is the access point and both models cannot occupy the same space.

 

The Drop Pod doors opening are part of placing the model in play. They do not move after that point, satisfying the Immobolised requirement (if it even applies in this scenario).

 

I apologize for the 'show me' jab, that was uncalled for. I also think we're not going to do anything but dance the same circles from here on out.

[Venemox]

This is demonstrably false.

 

A drop pod with "doors" closed is placed via deep strike x" away from an enemy unit, at which point it is Immobilized.

The doors are now opened.

"MEASURING DISTANCES

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model's hull or body instead.

When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points, as shown in the diagram below. So, for example. if any model in a unit is within 2" of an enemy unit/model, the unit is said to be within 2" of that enemy unit/model." - BRB, Pg.3

As the doors (if they are counted as hull or body) have now reduced the distance to the enemy unit, the vehicle has - by RAW - moved.

 

Negative, RAW, the vehicle's movement is measured from initial position to final position using the same point on the models base, body or hull. BBB, page 11 and 12. There's even a nice diagram of a tank moving. Relative distance to other units is NOT a consideration listed in the BBB. If it doesn't reposition itself on the table, it did not move.

[Venemox]

As the doors (if they are counted as hull or body) have now reduced the distance to the enemy unit, the vehicle has - by RAW - moved.

 

very eloquent as always, which is why i maintain the only logical conclusion is that drop pod doors/hatches/ramps are decorative only

 

Eloquent, but incorrect.

Decorative or not, logical or not, they do fit the description of 'any point on the vehicle'. Not being part of the hull does not negate their importance.

 

edit: mispelling

[greatcrusade08]

I apologize for the 'show me' jab, that was uncalled for. I also think we're not going to do anything but dance the same circles from here on out.

the apology is a welcome thing, but not necessary.. we are being quite civil here :no: no offense taken.

i do agree we are going in circles and will at some point have to agree to disagree.. but i want to check some points.

 

Point 1: NOT all measurements are taken from the hull. Fire points, access points, vehicle weapons all prove that statement too broad. Each has an exemption, spelled out in the BBB. It is a very good general rule, but almost everything we want to do with vehicles violates it.

in those exemptions, the rules are clearly laid out and we know to treat them as secific over general.. however here we have "2" from any point on the vehicle".. to me its not worded appropriately enough to overwrite the measure from the hull rule.

in my mind the two are not mutually exclusive and i also beleive it refers to the fact that you dont need an access point and that point only.

as i said previously i would use the two rules in tandem, otherwise we will have ork boys tumbling off of a death rolla to get 3" extra move from a disembark.. and since the 'deff rolla' has no official model, it could be potentially much much more

 

obviously we both agree that some rules take precedence over others, but we differ in how the mechanics actually work.

"any point on the vehicle" is an incredibly broad term and i believe common sense should be used in its interpretation and use.

if i had my way id house rule it to say 2" from any point on the hull (but thats what i beleive the rules say anyway once untangled)

 

In your example, we don't care about you, you're the cargo. We care about the chair and it's final position on a fixed plane in relation to it's initial position (barring pivoting, which is expressly forbidden).

i beleieve dswanick summed it up nicely, in relation to everything else on the board it has moved

 

What cheating? Building the model as directed by GW instructions, then following a rule as written in the BBB? IF the door can open, it should open. It's both cinematic, artistic, and common sense worthy. As you said, you can't go through a shut door, can you? The ramp is the access point and both models cannot occupy the same space.

i agree, if it can open it should be, i agree for the same reasons you do.. however one should not use that as an excuse to steal inches (which would be cheating)

the example i used about going through shut doors was to highlight that the access points themselves arent open doors, open hatchways and the end of open ramps.. they are the doorway, hatchway and ramp opening.. the same space/point shared by the door, hatch and ramp when closed

if we argue real life mechanics, then i want to see you open that ramp and pull ten chaps from that rhino.. that isnt going to happen.

in tabletop terms it doesnt matter if the door doesnt open, it is assumed to be open at the point of disembarkation.. the models deploy 2" from the access point which in my mind (and the way i interpret RAW) to be the area occupied by the closed hatch/ramp/door.. which by my above reasoning is infact the doorway/hatchway/ramp opening.

 

if someone plays a land raider that has a broken ramp, are we going to penalise them by saying his disembark distance is shorter that someone who plays a Lr thats has an opening ramp?

again the measure rom the hull rule was meant as an equaliser.

 

The Drop Pod doors opening are part of placing the model in play. They do not move after that point, satisfying the Immobolised requirement (if it even applies in this scenario).

The rules do not support this.. p9 69 of C:SM only show how to deploy the drop pod, the rules at no time mention opening doors/ramps/hatches during its deployment.

it says once its entered the battle its immobile.

 

the transport section on the same page describes how the "hatches are blown" and passengers disembark immediately.

if those things happen in the same process (and assuming blown hatches means opening doors) then it gives us a timeline for drop pod events.

drop pod lands

drop pod is immediately immobile

"hatches are blown" and passengers disembark..

 

so again, if hatches are hull, the act of opening them violates the rules.

 

 

the reason im arguing vehemently against this one was becuase i knew of a incident where the interpretation of drop pod rules cost a good friend a game and as a result first place in a local league.

his Sw opponent played 9 pods and claimed the fins as part of the hull (even though he stood his own models on them).. sadly the league organiser ruled it as open to interpretation and walked away.

my slaanesh daemon friend lost the game due to not being able to come near the line of pods.

 

now my point os that theres clearly differing ways to interpret drop pod rules..

the fins cannot be hull as explained above, but as to whether you can deploy from the fins.. as you have proven can be open to interpretation (although i dont agree with you, im just pointing out a fact).

we have to find a common sense approach. and you must admit allowing someone to deploy 8" from the hull/main body of the pod is a little extreme.

 

Negative, RAW, the vehicle's movement is measured from initial position to final position using the same point on the models base, body or hull. BBB, page 11 and 12. There's even a nice diagram of a tank moving. Relative distance to other units is NOT a consideration listed in the BBB. If it doesn't reposition itself on the table, it did not move.

i think your reaching here tbh.

a drop pod before dropping ramps has a footprint of about 3-4 inches square (or pentagonal or whatever).. after dropping its fins (and assuming they are hull) has a footprint of about 8-9 inches square..

how is that not movement?

which is why the ramps cannot be hull

a different way to argue this using RAW is to pick the tip of a ramp as the part of the hull to measure from.. when deployed its 6 inches from its starting point.. therefore its moved..

[Venemox]

Yes, either their part of the model and you can't stand on them or they're not and you can. You can't have it both ways. They each ahve pros and cons, but need to be taken as a whole and not pieced together.

 

As for the movement thing, I don't think it's movement because the model does not relocate. Yes, you gain territory on launch, but that's part of the pro's of the drop pod, area control. It all happens immediately. Landing and opening, both subject to being pushed by Inertial Guidance Systems if needed, then deployment from the petals. Nowhere in movement or vehicels does it reference relative postion, only actual change. That's why I don't think the Immobalized issue makes a dfference to opening the petals.

 

Whether or not the petals are hull, or disembarkable, we can't get past hem being part of the model. At some point they open, and by the RAW they can't occupy the same space as another model. That part counts, even for decoartive items.

 

As for the broken LR ramp scenario, I would not penalize him. Same as I wouldn't argue with someone who wanted to deploy closer to their LR by keeping the ramp up.

 

As for measuring from the tip of the ramp, it doesn't matter if you measure from the tip or the back end, as long as your measure from the same place for the movement. Though, to be honest, I don't think I'm picking up on your deployment example.

[greatcrusade08]

As for the movement thing, I don't think it's movement because the model does not relocate. Yes, you gain territory on launch, but that's part of the pro's of the drop pod, area control. It all happens immediately. Landing and opening, both subject to being pushed by Inertial Guidance Systems if needed, then deployment from the petals. Nowhere in movement or vehicels does it reference relative postion, only actual change. That's why I don't think the Immobalized issue makes a dfference to opening the petals.

 

Whether or not the petals are hull, or disembarkable, we can't get past hem being part of the model. At some point they open, and by the RAW they can't occupy the same space as another model. That part counts, even for decoartive items.

 

the whole movement argument is me trying to show that the fins canot be hull.. so its crucial to the issue.

if the droppod is plaed and moves so to be an inch from impassable terrain and the fins (counted as hull be the owner) drop into that impassable terrain.. what happens?

the same goes for table edge.

again you judge movement by the starting and ending positions of a spot on the hull, if the ramps were hull then they would have moved under those conditions.. no?

 

a vehicle is said to only occupy the area of its hull, so if the fins/ramps were decorative as i suggest, then they can infact occupy the same space as other models.

me id pick up the models and place them atop the lowered fins in the same approximate area, as opposed to balacning the fins on thier heads but YMMV

 

As for the broken LR ramp scenario, I would not penalize him. Same as I wouldn't argue with someone who wanted to deploy closer to their LR by keeping the ramp up.

again you wouldnt need to, becuase as i mentioned the measurng from the hull rule is a great equaliser.. and open ramps cannot be hull otherwise they have moved in thier opening.

[Ming]

The pod is given the open topped rule because....get this....the access hatches remain open for the entire game....funny huh? And in all the fluff....design of the model, everything, there is no mechanism once the doors are opened in order to close them...no hydraulics, winches, or anything....it seems that pods are just one use and worthless once their ammo hoppers are empty...just crazy....bet it would be a wild ride down to the surface in one...

[Gentlemanloser]

whether a LR is modelled to open its doors or not has no bearing on "modelling for gain"

 

It is if you've glued them shut and try to claim the DP now blocks LoS becuase the doors don't open...

[Grey Mage]

whether a LR is modelled to open its doors or not has no bearing on "modelling for gain"

 

It is if you've glued them shut and try to claim the DP now blocks LoS becuase the doors don't open...

Wich is nicely balanced by the fact that you dont have to open DPs for all armies. I dont recall on C:BA, but SWs dont need to even though C:SM does.

[Black Templar 307th Comp.]

A solution my friend employs with his drop pods, and one I intend to use, is to not have the doors attached at all. He sets the model on the table and places the doors around it as if they'd blown off like ejector hatches. He explains that this is for two reasons: 1. He thinks that the 2" should be measured from the hull of the model. 2. It's a real pain in the rectal region to get models to stand on those doors when they're attached. I personally think this is a good approach, and the one I will take with my own DPs. It makes sense that the doors would have some sort of pressurized blast to blow them clean, no muss no fuss. But that's just my opinion, and that of my friend. But I find that it clears up things about whether it obscures LOS or not, where to disembark troops, and it seems like the logical design of such a machine.

[greatcrusade08]

whether a LR is modelled to open its doors or not has no bearing on "modelling for gain"

 

It is if you've glued them shut and try to claim the DP now blocks LoS becuase the doors don't open...

Wich is nicely balanced by the fact that you dont have to open DPs for all armies. I dont recall on C:BA, but SWs dont need to even though C:SM does.

 

 

the drop pod rules in C:SM dont actually specify opening doors on the actual model. we do have a fluff note about blowing hatches, but thats not conclusive either way