Drop Pod Footprint Question

[Grey Mage]

That would be true if it wasnt for the internal guidance system that lets you avoid almost any chance of mishap- save going off the field.

 

DPs are easy to kill anyways, making a huge area of difficult terrain/blocking movement for a turn or so is quite the advantage.

 

The problem is calling them decorative elements means that all other doors would be considered so aswell, allowing you to shoot through peoples vehicles, and no one seems willing to let me do that. If the rules arent consistent, theyre likely wrong.

[Gentlemanloser]

IG does help, but the massive size makes it harder to place and easier to go of board.

 

I covered that by access points above. Access points equal hull, and there's no issue.

[Varulv]

Actually I play with it closed until we have made the DS-part and all the scatters are rolled. After that I open the doors (for cinematic effect mostly, and the fact that if it is glued shut, how the hell can I shoot the stormbolter? However, when it is open, I measure from the base of the drop pod since that is were the guys are standing.

 

It means that we will be deployed on the doors or around them, but it looks as a cool deployment and everybody wins.

[Marshall Bretton]

i play it so that i measure the ds with doors shut and then open them, if any can't open (terrain etc) then i leave them shut and say you can't see through them, meaning the weapons inside can't shoot through them either (usually this doesn't matter as they are blocked by terrain which i couldn't shoot through anyway) i also say closed petals can't be deployed from (they are closed)

 

for the purpose of movement i ignore the petals tough, it's just stupid otherwise, you would walk over them perfectly happily in reality after all, even if it's not your pod. moving within 1" of an enemy soldier or tank, yeah you wouldn't get that close unless you were going to punch it, but an inanimate metal ramp? no reason at all why you would avoid it

[Rapture747]

The reason that this is such a (pointlessly) contested issue is that how they should work in real life is so obvious. Actual troops deploying out of a drop pod would need the doors to open. Those doors could then be shot at.

However, the rules for drop pods do not reflect how drop pods would work in real life. Nothing requires that the doors be opened. Nothing. And that includes 'fluff,' as an opened door can just as easily be closed. Where the rules are less clear is when considering the implications of having the doors opened. Considering the massive implications regarding deploying and moving around the board, the answer leans toward the idea that the doors are strictly decorative. This is supported by the fact that doors serve no purpose other than decoration. They have no actual functionality. The true purpose of the doors is the visual representation of access point rules which are not affected by the absence of an actual door on the model.

The idea of shooting through vehicles with open doors on each side does nothing other than change the issue from the characteristics and rules of drop pod to the effectiveness of GW's rule writing. You are welcome to shoot through your tanks if you model holes in them - nothing is stopping you. You can also take a 1/4 inch bit and drill a hole in the chest of each of your terminator models and then fire your tactical squad's bolters through them - this is not against the rules. A certain level of thoughtful abstraction is required to play a game using models that are build by the players. Everyone knows what the area of the vehicle is and uses that, combined with their tolerance of gamesmanship, to decide whether tricks such as these are allowed in the games that they participate in.

Also, anyone who suggests that the doors being opened and closed throughout the game is simply not thinking. Modifying models during the game is not explicitly against the rules for the same reason that using a six sided die with sixes on every face is not against the rules. Image an eldar player shooting with their wraithlord and then separating it at the carefully magnetized ankles to lay it down out of line of sight before your upcoming shooting phase - simply unacceptable to most people, but not explicitly against the rules.

[Gentlemanloser]

You can also take a 1/4 inch bit and drill a hole in the chest of each

of your terminator models and then fire your tactical squad's bolters

through them - this is not against the rules.

 

This would be covered by modeling for an advantage, and be totally against the rules.

[Azash]

The reason that this is such a (pointlessly) contested issue is that how they should work in real life is so obvious. Actual troops deploying out of a drop pod would need the doors to open. Those doors could then be shot at.

 

However, the rules for drop pods do not reflect how drop pods would work in real life. Nothing requires that the doors be opened. Nothing. And that includes 'fluff,' as an opened door can just as easily be closed. Where the rules are less clear is when considering the implications of having the doors opened. Considering the massive implications regarding deploying and moving around the board, the answer leans toward the idea that the doors are strictly decorative. This is supported by the fact that doors serve no purpose other than decoration. They have no actual functionality. The true purpose of the doors is the visual representation of access point rules which are not affected by the absence of an actual door on the model.

 

The idea of shooting through vehicles with open doors on each side does nothing other than change the issue from the characteristics and rules of drop pod to the effectiveness of GW's rule writing. You are welcome to shoot through your tanks if you model holes in them - nothing is stopping you. You can also take a 1/4 inch bit and drill a hole in the chest of each of your terminator models and then fire your tactical squad's bolters through them - this is not against the rules. A certain level of thoughtful abstraction is required to play a game using models that are build by the players. Everyone knows what the area of the vehicle is and uses that, combined with their tolerance of gamesmanship, to decide whether tricks such as these are allowed in the games that they participate in.

 

Also, anyone who suggests that the doors being opened and closed throughout the game is simply not thinking. Modifying models during the game is not explicitly against the rules for the same reason that using a six sided die with sixes on every face is not against the rules. Image an eldar player shooting with their wraithlord and then separating it at the carefully magnetized ankles to lay it down out of line of sight before your upcoming shooting phase - simply unacceptable to most people, but not explicitly against the rules.

 

Well said.

 

As to your Wraithlord example...I had a friend who modeled his Defiler with working magnetized ball leg joints just for fun. Literally he could make the model squat and become half of its original height. Now there is no rule stating that he could not do this in a game but its unsportsmanlike like and would not be tolerated by most opponents.

[Rapture747]

 

 

This would be covered by modeling for an advantage, and be totally against the rules.

 

Feel free to quote the rule you are referring to. It would add quite a bit to the discussion.

 

 

 

Now there is no rule stating that he could not do this in a game but its unsportsmanlike like and would not be tolerated by most opponents.

 

Exactly. Everyone applies this to every game that they play, but for some reason this whole drop pod situation brings out the irrashional arguments from even the most reasonable of players.

[Gentlemanloser]

HAHAHAHA lol.

 

You made me go back and check, and it seems yo're right.  GW have failed to address Conversions and 'modelling for an advantage' in the 6th edition rules (unlike 5th).

 

Unless it's on an obscure sidebar somewhere.

 

Base sizes, crooked dice are accounted for.  But not this basic and core rule concept.

 

Do no convert your own minis for an advantage.

 

If it's really not there, then it's time to convert my Grey Knights to be crouching down behind ruined walls on thier bases...  And kneeling Dreadnoughts to get cover from Aegis lines...

 

Oh my, the sheer idiocy of this ommission is astounding.  You'll have to forgive me for taking it on hand that something this important wouldn't have been ommitted in the version upgrade.

[Fibonacci]

Now there is no rule stating that he could not do this

And there is no rule saying I can not claim 1000 victory points because I wore shades. Which is why it is called a permissive rule set. Permission must be granted with a rule. Absence of a rule does not imply permission.

[Gentlemanloser]

There's an old picture of a Kneeling Wraithlord.  Awesome mini.

[Grey Mage]

HAHAHAHA lol.

 

You made me go back and check, and it seems yo're right.  GW have failed to address Conversions and 'modelling for an advantage' in the 6th edition rules (unlike 5th).

 

Unless it's on an obscure sidebar somewhere.

 

Base sizes, crooked dice are accounted for.  But not this basic and core rule concept.

 

Do no convert your own minis for an advantage.

 

If it's really not there, then it's time to convert my Grey Knights to be crouching down behind ruined walls on thier bases...  And kneeling Dreadnoughts to get cover from Aegis lines...

 

Oh my, the sheer idiocy of this ommission is astounding.  You'll have to forgive me for taking it on hand that something this important wouldn't have been ommitted in the version upgrade.

They expect people to behave with a modicum of sportsmanship...

 

Just following the rules is not the same thing as showing good sportsmanship.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

They expect people to behave with a modicum of sportsmanship...

 

Such as letting your opponent shoot through your DP, even though you glued the doors shut. ;)

 

:P

[Grey Mage]

They expect people to behave with a modicum of sportsmanship...

Such as letting your opponent shoot through your DP, even though you glued the doors shut.

Because its completely fair to change the LOS rules for one problematic model? uhuh :p

[Gentlemanloser]

That would be the 'sporting' thing to do when your modelling gives you an advantage.

 

;)

[dswanick]

That would be the 'sporting' thing to do when your modelling gives you an advantage.

 

;)

Except line of sight works both ways, blocking LOS to his models means his models don't have LOS to yours either.

[Grey Mage]

That would be the 'sporting' thing to do when your modelling gives you an advantage.

Aye, you have a point... but what about the other 4 drop pods I own that cant open their doors?

Consistency, it means fewer headaches for me and my opponent.

Of course, this is why this conversation always happens before the dice get rolled- so we both know what were getting into, as gentlemen.

[Dam13n]

If it's really not there, then it's time to convert my Grey Knights to be crouching down behind ruined walls on thier bases... And kneeling Dreadnoughts to get cover from Aegis lines...

BRB Page 8 - LoS is drawn from the models eyes - if your model can't be seen, then they can't see either, not much of an advantage :-P

 

BRB Page 18 - "scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the bases of their models are always ignored from the purpose of determining cover. You cannot take your cover with you."

 

A Dreadnought behind an Aegis will probably get a cover save anyway, because 25% of the model is likely to be obscured.

 

But yes, I'm struggling to find the "modelling for advantage" rule as well.

 

:rolls eyes: GW games development, sigh.

[Gentlemanloser]

I was waiting for that mate.

You can't take your own cover with you. But you can block LoS.

Erect a 'wall' around the sides and back of you minis. Leaving a gap at the front open so you can fire.

You now position your minis in the facing you desire, and have blocked LoS to them from everywhere else.

There's nothing about bringing your own LoS blocking with you.

Edit;

Caveat before I get flamed.

Converting your own models for an advantge is a *very bad thing*. Don't do it.

Although it's now technically not against the rules...

Edit2;

But 40k is permissive, and you're not permitted to bring LoS blocking walls along with you on your Strikes bases GL.

So, we're not permitted to convert our own minis?

Then I guess glueing a Drop Pods doors shut, as a conversion (I'm still 100% that the assembly instructions that come with a DP have that little 'don't glue!' sign on them), isn't permitted either.

;)

[Dam13n]

You'd have to be a WAAC-y git to try and pull that off. It'd just leave you without a game, as your opponent would probably walk off in disgust.

 

Still, by RAW you'd technically be correct, all because GW missed a rule out of the rulebook.

 

I suspect any GW staff member / Tournament organiser / Club president / Sensible human being would rule that the wall would be ignored for LoS as well as cover.

 

Once again Gent - sigh. ( ;-) )

[Gentlemanloser]

Hey, I added the 'it's bad' caveat for a reason! :P

 

 

Still, by RAW you'd technically be correct, all because GW missed a rule out of the rulebook.

 

Yup.

 

Add in full cover boxes with moveable flaps so my mini's eyes can see when I want to shoot to seal the deal. >;)

 

This is such a fundamentally core rule to the game, it's a shocker it's been 'missed'.

 

 

Unless you play by RAI, in which case the *only* RAI that makes sense is that GW *intended* to drop the 'no modelling for an advantage' restriction from 6th.

 

Has to be thier *intention*.  Rather than they are so inept they missed a core ruling out, and haven't done anything to rectify it yet.

 

/whistles innocently