PDA

View Full Version : How do you model your Droppods?



Darnok
13-12-2014, 10:31
Please note that there is a poll, but read this post first before voting.

I wondered what the different opinions are on how to model SM Droppods. There are two options: either glue doors shut, or leave them movable. I'm of the "I don't want movable parts on my miniatures" fraction, but of course I'm aware that in the case of Droppods you have to keep ingame considerations in mind. Such as line of sight being different, as well as "how is it supposed to shoot if the doors are still closed?". I guess there are different views around:


I keep the doors open, end expect the same from others - basically the "gameplay is more important" point of view
"I keep the doors open, but don't really care how others handle it"
"I keep the doors shut, and never had problems with it"
"I keep the doors shut, but had arguments over this in the past"


If you vote, please do so as if you were in the position of an SM player (i.e. used Droppods yourself). I'm also interested in anecdotes, house rules, tournament rulings as well as all kind of thoughts about this. As always: please keep the discussion constructive and civil.

Menthak
13-12-2014, 10:40
The way we've always done it is as a choice, you can either have the doors down, so you can shoot through it and so the drop pod can shoot. Or you can have it closed as a LOS blocking terrain piece.

Either way, we always had first turn open rule, so when it lands, it has to be open.

Harwammer
13-12-2014, 10:40
Why not glue it with the doors down?

That way you don't have movable parts, but it also is more than just a boring box that you could make a close proxy of out of card.

Darnok
13-12-2014, 10:47
Why not glue it with the doors down?

That way you don't have movable parts, but it also is more than just a boring box that you could make a close proxy of out of card.

You'd need an aweful lot of plain surface on the table then. With movable doors you can overcome this easily.

MiyamatoMusashi
13-12-2014, 11:10
Being able to open the doors directly affects where it can land, what models benefit from cover, how it's able to shoot, how close to it models can get (and how far away they need to be), whether it's possible to draw line of sight through it to shoot something beyond... in all of those respects it's fundamentally different to something like a tank turret.

Normally I'm more in favour of painting, conversions and the hobby in general (not to mention personal freedom) than gaming; but the difference a Drop Pod's doors make to a game is so large that I can't in all good conscience agree that gluing the doors shut is OK. I mean, if you want to paint it for display only, do whatever you want. If you want to use it in games, it needs to be a gameable piece. That's my view anyway.

Lord Damocles
13-12-2014, 14:01
When I used my home made Drop Pods, they had the same effect as if the doors were closed (and had in invisible Storm Bolter). I never had any problems.

Most (sane) people ignore the doors in-game, so the only difference is line of sight through the Pod. If somebody complains that they'd be able to shoot at a target if only the Pod doors opened, you can just shrug and say 'yep, sure. Cover save'.

mightymconeshot
13-12-2014, 16:03
I always say the doors are open even if it is impossible to open them otherwise. I understand that people may have glued them up or they can't be lowered due to a building or something else on the table. For me, they do not qualify as part of the hull and I believe the old Space Marine FAQ supported that. However it is a fairly annoying model that I wish was cleared up officially.

insectum7
13-12-2014, 16:19
My pods are open. The doors are nice and solid pieces, and they look great opened up on the table. I don't have a strong preference for other peoples models, but I'd urge them to consider keeping them open. No one I've played with has contradicted the "ignore the door" mantra.

MasterDecoy
13-12-2014, 19:43
I don't own any drop pods as I'm not a space marine player, and I'm in the no moving parts on my minis except turrets on vehicles camp.

If i did own them i probably would see if i could find a way to just NOT attach the doors at all, and justify it fluff wise that the doors explosively eject on landing away from the pod.

But I'm not sure if that would look weird or not. ...

Beppo1234
13-12-2014, 19:51
unless it's in the air, doors are open imo

Clang
13-12-2014, 19:57
There is a fifth option: model with two adjacent doors open, and the others closed. That avoids most deployment issues (coz you're pretty nuts if you're deploying anywhere so crowded that a pod couldn't open two doors) and still allows true LOS for shooting.

tneva82
13-12-2014, 20:01
Well haven't got around buying those but unless I can get them movable(I have bad experience with those. Don't tend to stay shut when I want them) I'll probably glue them shut just for ease of transportation/storage. Glued open they are quite big. Harder to store lots of those(and marines want lots of them. Both fluff and gameplay wise)

corps
13-12-2014, 20:17
Simply because i paid every interior detail of each of my vihicules. I don't see any reason to do otherwise.

Voss
13-12-2014, 20:20
Being able to open the doors directly affects where it can land, what models benefit from cover, how it's able to shoot, how close to it models can get (and how far away they need to be), whether it's possible to draw line of sight through it to shoot something beyond... in all of those respects it's fundamentally different to something like a tank turret.

I've never encountered any of this before, either playing with drop pods or playing against people using them. Not being able to move within 1" of the doors (as opposed to the hull) is excessively abusive (to the point of effectively chaining huge areas of impassable terrain across the table), and conversely having them affect where it can land can easily be abused with terrain/model set ups so they can't at all.

'Ignore the doors' is sound principle I've never encountered any deviation from.

Haravikk
13-12-2014, 20:22
Aside from the fact that keeping it closed is a huge waste of the model, I believe it that's it meant to be played open. After all, the whole point is to slam into the ground, burst open and let everyone out as quickly as possible, it's supposed to be a transport, not a piece of deployable scenery. As for the issue of where it can land, I typically only treat the central section as the hull, the doors are just decoration IMO, though I think if you can't open a door due to an obstruction then it should be treated as impassible, if enemies are in the way of a door then assume they move out of the way then pile back in to get to the meaty contents.

The idea of a mobile-shield drop-pod is kind of cool, but I definitely think the rules we have are purely for a transport, and as a transport it's designed to open; teams of support staff most likely get the job of recovering and repairing spent pods so they can be used again later.

I do agree it'd be nice to have clarification, but I think that the fact that moving doors is really option, then you should ignore them for the most part, and if the pod lands such that a door would be badly obstructed, then you probably couldn't put models out that side anyway.

Harwammer
13-12-2014, 20:51
House rule:

Door shock. When a drop pod opens it's doors any enemy squad with models in the way is treated as tank shocked.

:D

Nkari
13-12-2014, 21:11
Ignore the open doors, and if you cant open the door cause of terrain you cant disembark from that door, you got 1-4 other doors to deploy from after all, and we have all read in the fludd that drop pod doors get stuck sometimes.
The hull is what counds for movement blocking and LOS blocking etc.

tneva82
14-12-2014, 05:03
Aside from the fact that keeping it closed is a huge waste of the model, I believe it that's it meant to be played open. After all, the whole point is to slam into the ground, burst open and let everyone out as quickly as possible, it's supposed to be a transport, not a piece of deployable scenery. As for the issue of where it can land, I typically only treat the central section as the hull, the doors are just decoration IMO, though I think if you can't open a door due to an obstruction then it should be treated as impassible, if enemies are in the way of a door then assume they move out of the way then pile back in to get to the meaty contents.

The idea of a mobile-shield drop-pod is kind of cool, but I definitely think the rules we have are purely for a transport, and as a transport it's designed to open; teams of support staff most likely get the job of recovering and repairing spent pods so they can be used again later.

I do agree it'd be nice to have clarification, but I think that the fact that moving doors is really option, then you should ignore them for the most part, and if the pod lands such that a door would be badly obstructed, then you probably couldn't put models out that side anyway.

Umm. If you only count hull for moving etc then it's irrelevant is it open or closed.

obleeke
14-12-2014, 12:41
I am missing an option on the poll. What about magnets? It seems like a good option, but I don't own any drop-pods (you know, CSMs...). Is it possible to magnetise those doors?

Anyway, as mentioned above, firstly we need clarified rules...

Gingerwerewolf
14-12-2014, 14:04
The Doors should open and have an effect on the game because you can look through the Drop Pod. They are also cover for the models standing behind the doors - so again I think its important that they do move.

Ill never not play a game against someone who glues theirs shut, but I dont like it, and all mine open fully.

Personally I leave out the Harness's from the inside and just model the floor as flat. This increases what can be seen through the centre of the Drop Pod, but looks better IMO, and is easier to paint and model. It also give you loads of spare parts for other conversions :D

Ive never had any problem with that, and have had people say that they prefer it. With True Line of Sight, it means that the Drop Pod offers less cover, but that has never been a sticking point - you are still shooting through an intervening unit, so they get a 5+, which is what they would get if they were partially obscured.

Emperor Karl Franz
14-12-2014, 18:36
The model seems to be designed so that you can close them and they'll stay shut, but later open them, so I don't glue mine in place. So I plop the model down on the table and then pop the doors open as best I can.

tneva82
14-12-2014, 18:59
The Doors should open and have an effect on the game because you can look through the Drop Pod. They are also cover for the models standing behind the doors - so again I think its important that they do move..

How often it really is going to be tough one to figure anyway? We rarely need to do any close eyeballing. Generally easy enough to figure do you get cover or not.

AngryAngel
14-12-2014, 19:33
Honestly this is an issue that should be a non factor. Glue up or keep open. I tend to prefer them glued up. As that way no doors fall over and whack peoples models, mine or another players. They don't always/near never have enough room to all open unless you land in the grassy meadow of doom. I was a fan of abstraction of line of sight issues just for such things as pods, woods, etc. True line of sight makes it a pain in the butt and makes the doors up or down debacle an issue. So I'm saying I wish we could go back to line of sight abstraction for sake of gameplay ease.

I don't give a crap what players do with the drop pods. Glue up, leave open, if open we'll figure out shooting like normal, if glued shut people just tend to use the if your shooting through the pod, unit on the other side gets their cover save and weapon from the inside can still fire as you know pretty much where the gun is inside the pod. Best solution, magnet the doors so you can run either way and have no door falling issues.

lordbeefy
15-12-2014, 13:04
Just a thought.....if there is insufficient room between two buildings for a tank to fit, it cannot pass through. If a vehicle with an access point is blocked it cannot let its contents exit, so why not the drop pod?

My understanding is that drop pods are supposed to drop to planet-side, open doors and disgorge its cargo, then await retrieval for future use....if they cannot fit in an area and open doors to allow its cargo to egress, surely it should not be allowed to drop troops there?

I'm not trying to be a rules lawyer, its just a thought that occurred to me?

Thoughts?

Lord Damocles
15-12-2014, 14:51
My understanding is that drop pods are supposed to drop to planet-side, open doors and disgorge its cargo, then await retrieval for future use....if they cannot fit in an area and open doors to allow its cargo to egress, surely it should not be allowed to drop troops there?
You wouldn't actually open the doors on a Rhino to get transported models out. The same applies to the Drop Pod.

mightymconeshot
15-12-2014, 14:53
Because they are described both as punchig through fortified buildings in the fluff and the doors are explosively blown out. It makes sense if one or two doors gets jammed. But to have all five sealed shut even after being open and then having the space marines still unable to pry or force themselves loose is probably surprisingly rare. Of course if the whole pod is liquified by the drop it doesn't matter if the doors are open or closed but the rules don't show that.

Charistoph
15-12-2014, 14:56
I don't own any drop pods as I'm not a space marine player, and I'm in the no moving parts on my minis except turrets on vehicles camp.

If i did own them i probably would see if i could find a way to just NOT attach the doors at all, and justify it fluff wise that the doors explosively eject on landing away from the pod.

But I'm not sure if that would look weird or not. ...

While I do have Marines, I have not acquired any Drop Pods as yet. It's hard to stick more than 10 Marines in there, and if I get one, I'll have to get at least 3.

But otherwise, mainly due to the posts on this and other boards, this would be the path I have planned on once I do get Drop Pods.

Alamais
15-12-2014, 20:54
I don't even attach the doors, they're blown off after all.
Filled the gap at the bottom with a piece of wooden dowel, have used the doors as makeshift barricades.

But that's what I've done, others can do as they like - they're opened topped vehicles so the storm bolter can still draw line of sight and as for block that works both ways

Neckutter
23-12-2014, 05:11
Don't have doors on your pod. Problem solved. Pretend they 'blow off' after the landing

Ragnar69
26-12-2014, 11:44
Im honestly surprised that People having problems with modelling the doors moveable.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9300 mit Tapatalk

Charistoph
26-12-2014, 16:20
Im honestly surprised that People having problems with modelling the doors moveable.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9300 mit Tapatalk

For me, it's simply because they lay down very sloppily on the board and can knock someone's models over if one is not careful, which can lead to breakage. That, and they can break in transport. Not my idea of fun.

The doors serve no practical purpose once on the board, and can even cause arguments whether up (is it blocking LOS?) or down (where does the hull begin) (and yes, those are arguments I've seen on forums).

Ragnar69
26-12-2014, 18:58
My doors never open unintentionaly without any magnets. I can open and colose them without a problem

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9300 mit Tapatalk

Voss
26-12-2014, 19:17
Just a thought.....if there is insufficient room between two buildings for a tank to fit, it cannot pass through. If a vehicle with an access point is blocked it cannot let its contents exit, so why not the drop pod?

My understanding is that drop pods are supposed to drop to planet-side, open doors and disgorge its cargo, then await retrieval for future use....if they cannot fit in an area and open doors to allow its cargo to egress, surely it should not be allowed to drop troops there?

I'm not trying to be a rules lawyer, its just a thought that occurred to me?

Thoughts?
Fluff isn't rules. If the pod is 1.0001" away from another model (or impassable terrain) and there isn't room to place a passenger, then that access point isn't usable. Otherwise it is, regardless of any 'supposed to' scenarios.

Charistoph
26-12-2014, 20:33
Just a thought.....if there is insufficient room between two buildings for a tank to fit, it cannot pass through. If a vehicle with an access point is blocked it cannot let its contents exit, so why not the drop pod?

My understanding is that drop pods are supposed to drop to planet-side, open doors and disgorge its cargo, then await retrieval for future use....if they cannot fit in an area and open doors to allow its cargo to egress, surely it should not be allowed to drop troops there?

I'm not trying to be a rules lawyer, its just a thought that occurred to me?

Thoughts?

Fluff isn't rules. If the pod is 1.0001" away from another model (or impassable terrain) and there isn't room to place a passenger, then that access point isn't usable. Otherwise it is, regardless of any 'supposed to' scenarios.

Drop Pods are Open-Topped, every point on the hull is an access point. Anything that prevents a unit from disembarking would likely prevent the Drop Pod from Deploying in that spot in the first place.

Voss
26-12-2014, 20:55
Drop Pods are Open-Topped, every point on the hull is an access point. Anything that prevents a unit from disembarking would likely prevent the Drop Pod from Deploying in that spot in the first place.
Unless 7th changed the disembark rules significantly (disembarking models are placed in base contact with the access point and then move up to 6"), it is possible (especially with the inertial guidance system rules- that "reduce scatter distance by the minimum necessary" will almost certainly prevent placing passengers in base contact with at least part of the drop pod's hull), if unlikely, to find a legitimate spot to land but not disembark (you only need a 1" bubble around the pod to place the pod, but a 1"+base size bubble to place passengers (though this may just be a bulge in the circle rather than a full circle), plus even more space to move passengers).

The main point is that 'blocked doors' and 'future retrieval' don't matter to a drop pod any more than they do to any other transport. Nothing it the rules demands laying the doors flat, or even opening them, any more than it requiring opening hatches on a rhino or wave serpent. Indeed, you'd find at least some people arguing that they only need to be in base contact with the hatch, and gain another inch or so of movement if they did.

Charistoph
26-12-2014, 21:07
Unless 7th changed the disembark rules significantly (disembarking models are placed in base contact with the access point and then move up to 6"), it is possible (especially with the inertial guidance system rules), if unlikely, to find a legitimate spot to land but not disembark (you only need a 1" bubble around the pod to place the pod, but a 1"+base size bubble to place passengers (though this may just be a bulge in the circle rather than a full circle), plus even more space to move passengers).

Yeah, as I said, it's not likely. In most cases it would have to be deliberate AND roll a Hit to manage it, and the odds of an opponent setting it up is crazy. The odds of getting a Scatter roll to hit precisely in a circle of enemies that would avoid a Mishap and not trigger the Inertial Guidance System is insane.

Darnok
26-12-2014, 21:14
I would appreciate if this didn't turn into a rules debate. If you think there are questions in that direction that deserve discussion: please start a seperate thread in the 40K Rules subforum (and put a link in here for those interested).

Charistoph
26-12-2014, 21:22
And still not the point.


More likely and more common, however, are one or two facings that simply aren't viable for disembarkation due to scatter or even landing on target, and the idea that you can't land there because the doors extend ~3" is pretty absurd, and not reflected in the rules.

I didn't say anything about that. Some have argued that (while forgetting that Vehicle Rules rely on the Hull and Base, not necessarily the doors), but it's not the doors that would cause that problem in the first place.

Voss
26-12-2014, 21:35
I didn't say anything about that.

I did notice, hence my attempts to bring the conversation back to what lordbeefy was talking about.

But per Darnok's request, I deleted that post and shan't be pursuing it