Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The game uses True Line of sight, as per page 8 of the BRB, you have to trace a direct line between the firing model, and his target. if anything is intervening, it blocks LOS.

The drop pod has the following rules:

Transport, Open topped, drop pod assault, inertial guidance system, and immobile,

The Transport rules given are:

The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single dreadnaught or Thunderfire cannon.

Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark, as normal. Once passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Dop for the remainder of the game.

C:SM pg 69

The Transport Rule given in C:SM does not state that the hatches are blown open simply that they are blown. the intent is clear imo that the doors are intended to be opened, but this is not stated in the rules, so RAW there is no reason that they cannot be kept closed, especially because the rules for open topped vehicles state, that the whole vehicle is an access point, and thus whether the doors be open or closed, you can still disembark. The open topped rules ALSO mean that if the doors are in the open position, you can measure from any point you like on the model, potentially gaining a few extra inches of movement.
If the doors are closed TLOS means that the doors block LOS, and also that the Drop Dop itself cannot fire its storm bolter or deathwind launcher since it cannot trace LOS through the LOS blocking doors.

The rules also do not state that the doors have to remain in the open or closed position (although the intent i feel is pretty clear) so RAW its also legal to open or close them whenever you feel the inclination

RAW, they block TLOS and you don't have to open the doors

HIWPI is that the doors open when the drop pod lands, and stay open

IamCaboose wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Glue them shut? do you mean glue them on, as they are not attached by anything else. SO yeah if you don't put doors on so you can see through yeah you are MFA.


So say I am playing an assaulty Dread in my pod, I don't care about LOS to you at all, so I glue 2 of the doors shut and get out behind them, and still shoot you with my awesome storm bolter.

I laugh that you think it is some kind of disadvantage to me that I cannot shoot a storm bolter. Say I am playing an asasult army well I have now the advantage of dropping a LOS blocking wall between you and me, which I can then run around and assault you next turn.

As for consistency it is not just the same player it is all players. The same model should be treated the same by al players within reason.

Your TLOS argument works for my 2" tall DP too he can't see you over terrain either, but it is still MFA. Essentially MFA is making a choice at the modeling stage to gain an advantage. If I have glued the doors shut to gain an advantage, then I am MFA.

Also, in your case do I need to glue the doors or can I just decide, hey your a shooty army I'll just leave some doors up. Or if I can put them down do I have to?

Look at rulings at more or less any major Tournament, you'll see most play the doors always open.

The loss of a gun is still technically a disadvantage.

There is no MFA argument here. If I had 6 FW pods would I be cheating? Even open you can't see through them, and they were the original pod. You can't claim MFA because I glued doors shut. If I used a RT era Avatar on the correct base size am I cheating? I've followed every rule in the book.

Caboose


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty sure there's some NOVA FAQs that have gone against what GW FAQ'd...So that's kind of a moot point.

Caboose

So I post the FAQs for the 4 largest 40k tournaments(at least in the States, actually I think Feast of Blades uses the BAO/Adepticon/Wargamescon FAQ as well) as how you will most often see it played. Sure it may not be RAW, but it still shows how most large events play it. As such it is reasonable to think that might be how many people will play it.

So essentially you don't believe in MFA, fine, good luck in with that in competitive play. As to answer your questions about those models. If you aquired them specifically in order to use the advantages...yes you are "cheating". Furthermore I would expect you to play them as if they were the appropriate size/ LOS blocking as the GW model (were I the TO at your event.). Essentially this is an unanswerable question RAW, if you want any kind of consistency. Therefore each event will make a call on it (until GW does, which they won't, because if you asked them they would probably expect that your doors would open and would not understand the other side.), and as I have shown it is reasonable to expect them to rule, pods don't BLOS. So if you don't intend on tournament play any way your group plays is fine, if you plan on going to tournaments practicing with them not blocking LOS is the way to go.

madtankbloke wrote:
The game uses True Line of sight, as per page 8 of the BRB, you have to trace a direct line between the firing model, and his target. if anything is intervening, it blocks LOS.

The drop pod has the following rules:

Transport, Open topped, drop pod assault, inertial guidance system, and immobile,

The Transport rules given are:

The Drop Pod has a transport capacity of 12 models. It can transport a single dreadnaught or Thunderfire cannon.

Once the drop pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark, as normal. Once passengers have disembarked, no models can embark on the Drop Dop for the remainder of the game.

C:SM pg 69

The Transport Rule given in C:SM does not state that the hatches are blown open simply that they are blown. the intent is clear imo that the doors are intended to be opened, but this is not stated in the rules, so RAW there is no reason that they cannot be kept closed, especially because the rules for open topped vehicles state, that the whole vehicle is an access point, and thus whether the doors be open or closed, you can still disembark. The open topped rules ALSO mean that if the doors are in the open position, you can measure from any point you like on the model, potentially gaining a few extra inches of movement.
If the doors are closed TLOS means that the doors block LOS, and also that the Drop Dop itself cannot fire its storm bolter or deathwind launcher since it cannot trace LOS through the LOS blocking doors.

The rules also do not state that the doors have to remain in the open or closed position (although the intent i feel is pretty clear) so RAW its also legal to open or close them whenever you feel the inclination

RAW, they block TLOS and you don't have to open the doors

HIWPI is that the doors open when the drop pod lands, and stay open

This.

RAW it's perfectly legal, and that's how I play it. Me and a frequent opponent( who disagrees with the RAW interpretation) generally play it this way, and then in our next game we play it as most agree is RAI. In a tournament our TO plays it RAW until there's something official saying otherwise.

MFA has become a staple argument of those with no rules to back them up. It's almost as bad as the the ole "Specific>General" mess people try.

Caboose

You do know that the rule book contains little to no rules about models at all right? So by your argument, I can model things anyway I please and it is ok. MFA is a tournament standard (much like WYSIWYG, time limits, preset terrain etc.), rather than part of the core rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
if your area plays it as it blocks that is up to them. But I would not expect it on a larger scale.

BTW there is no RAW to govern this at all, there are no rules governing the doors at all, so your assumption that they may be glued closed is no more valid than the assumption that they should not be (which is actually how the instructions for the model have you assemble the model.)

TLOS disagrees with you.

Caboose

Yes TLOS is RAW, now show me the rule about Vehicle doors? DO you have to open them or not? You make an assumption that because it is not stated we don't have to do so. This is no where in the rules. So it is just as valid as the assumption that you must.

Can you see through said doors?

You never answered the question, where is the rule that allows you not to open them (or that says they need to be opened ) it does not exist. You are making an assumption that they can be closed in the first place. I don't need to see through them if they are supposed to be open they will be on the table. No where is there RAW that allows them to remain shut (nor is their RAW stating that they open.)

As such either call is a RAI judgement call.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Essentially if your judgement is that they should be open, then keeping them closed is MFA.

If you don't feel that way then Seeing through them breaks TLOS.

There is no rules support for either angle.

Given the assembly instructions, and the description of the pod landing, the stronger RAI is that they are intended to open.

SO when there is no clear RAW why not go stronger RAI?

Breng, you're quite correct, there is no rule stating that the doors have to be open or shut. However - your tone suggests that you believe them being open should be the default way of playing, and that you need permission to keep them shut.

There is no rules basis for this. Games Workshop has plenty of pictures of drop pods with hatches shut as well - you also have to consider that the instructions don't tell you to glue it so that the hatches are open. The argument is pure RAI / HIWPI, which is fine, but doesn't have a place on this forum.

As per the forum tenets, we should be discussing RAW - and the RAW is clear, as myself and madtankbloke have already covered.

SO you are saying in the absense of rules RAW is do what ever you please, then apply RAW after that? Rather than try to come up with the best interpretation?

I guess that is one way to go, but it in itself is not RAW as at some level an assumption of the intention of the rules has been made.

Modeling a drop pod with the doors closed and then claiming you can't see through it is a direct case of modeling for advantage. TLOS or not, those doors are modeled on hinges. The exact rules say the hatches are blown open.

Play the PC games, watch what happens when a drop pod strikes. They don't magically fart out of the top.

Yes you can see through them, and I will take shots through a closed one. If you don't allow it, then you're cheating.

I'm willing to concede that there's no clear ruling one way or the other.

I wouldn't be heart broken if I went to another tourny and they ruled them open.

But I will continue to argue this with my frequent opponent out of spite.

Caboose


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
Modeling a drop pod with the doors closed and then claiming you can't see through it is a direct case of modeling for advantage. TLOS or not, those doors are modeled on hinges. The exact rules say the hatches are blown open.

Play the PC games, watch what happens when a drop pod strikes. They don't magically fart out of the top.

Yes you can see through them, and I will take shots through a closed one. If you don't allow it, then you're cheating.

You have a terrible argument.

The fluff says the hatches are blown, not the rules.

PC game has no relevance to the table top.

I won't address the third line, as me and Breng have been over this long enough now lol.

Caboose

Breng77 wrote:
NOVA open FAQ
 To avoid confusion, gaming the system, pressuring players to play it “your” way, etc., treat drop pod doors as open NO MATTER WHAT; do not treat them as closed if glued shut.

Adepticon/BAO/Wargmes CONFAQ

• The doors of a drop pod model are ignored for all game purposes (e.g. they never block LoS, they may not be disembarked from, and enemy models do not need to remain 1” away from them).

I find it interesting that these (non-GW) FAQs agree on the doors not blocking TLOS, but have different ways to go about it.

The second method seems to be more advantageous to the DP player than the first. It allows the DP to land in smaller areas.

Sadly, while non-GW faqs may provide ideas and interesting reading, they are not cannon here.

Not claiming them as cannon, just as reference for those that travel to events, that it may be safer to assume the doors must open, and not use the BLOS to your advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also the ammount to the same, I have never seen it ruled that you can disembark from the doors or that they prevent landing. Essentially most events ignore them entirely.

No, no. Not bothered by it. I was actually sad that you didn't link them. I like having a downloaded copy of the most recent big events FAQ, but I am often lazy

Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out?

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS.

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. I still get shots through the model.

It's so modeling for advantage it's on the same level as kneeling wraithlords.

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like. So please, try to model your drop pods glued shut and then say I can't shoot through them as you hide stuff behind them. That's when I know never to play you again because you have to cheat)

((Edit 2: and the fluff does play into the rules. See the ruling on Necrons inside a nightscythe. Everyone said S10 hits if it explodes! No the fluff says they aren't even IN the damned thing and that they teleport on. Get's FAQ'd, oh look, guess who's right? The people with reading comprehension and realizing RAI and the fluff do have meaning... Oh, and see Imotek's lightning))

 TheKbob wrote:
Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out?

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS.

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. I still get shots through the model.

It's so modeling for advantage it's on the same level as kneeling wraithlords.

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like. So please, try to model your drop pods glued shut and then say I can't shoot through them as you hide stuff behind them. That's when I know never to play you again because you have to cheat)

Some people just don't let up...

The hatches have no relevance to it being open topped. It has the open topped rule. And since it has this rule you measure disembarking form anywhere on the hull. So give up that argument, it's flawed in every way.

You can gain the same "huge advantage" by moving a rhino/land raider infront of a unit, or using terrain.

Again there's no clear ruling on building a model so TLOS can be argued either way.

I dont see the point of your kneeling wraithlord argument. It could just as easily fall under the "rule of cool".

They also disappear in the PC games(except Space Marine, but then they only pod in a weapon or something...it's been awhile since I played that), so should I deep strike in and then pick up the pod? Again PC games have nothing to do with this discussion.

Luckily we'll never play each other so we both win.

Caboose

*Edit for you second failed attempt at a fluff argument*

There was also fluff written where a nightscythe exploded and the warriors on the other side of the portal were killed. So again, drop the fluff argument.

 TheKbob wrote:
Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out?

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS.

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. I still get shots through the model.

It's so modeling for advantage it's on the same level as kneeling wraithlords.

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like. So please, try to model your drop pods glued shut and then say I can't shoot through them as you hide stuff behind them. That's when I know never to play you again because you have to cheat)

Fluff, and RAI have no place in a pure rules discussion. Fluff and RAI can be interpreted by different people in different ways, which is why YMDC concentrates on the rules as they are written, together with quotes and page references to make the discussion easier.

My own interpretation is that the drop pods are intended to open on landing, and stay open. This is not, however supported by the rules, and if someone wanted to play his drop pods with doors shut, thats allowed, if he wanted to open and close then throughout the battle, that too is allowed, technically. would i tell him he was wrong, certainly not. would i have a low opinion of his shenanigans, certainly.

Kbob - have you actually read the forum tenets...? Again - I'd suggest that most people posting here wouldn't actually try to pull MFA shenanigans in a game. But that's not RAW. RAW is, the vehicle is open-topped so the doors don't have to be open for deployment to happen.
Ergo, it's not cheating. It's beardy, and cheesy, and probably all kinds of morally reprehensible, yes fine. But not *CHEATING*. That's why this discussion exists - to nail out what is and isn't legal per the rules.

If you're going to state something is cheating, you need to back it up with the rules. Fluff doesn't count.

 TheKbob wrote:
Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out? No, there are plenty of reasons why the doors should be open. Realism is not one of them.

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS. Yep

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. Why is that fine? Why can DP doors be within 1" of an enemy model?

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like.

LOL, this thread has gone way beyond "cinematic / narrative play.

madtankbloke wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Fine, don't address that it's an open topped vehicle that has hatches that are blown off so the dudes can trot out. So what, they magically retract or the space marines teleport out?

You can gain a huge advantage if you model all your pods closed and use them as blocking LOS.

Sorry, this argument is dumb. They are meant to open and splayed. If you cannot splay them because of models, terrain, etc. that's fine. I still get shots through the model.

It's so modeling for advantage it's on the same level as kneeling wraithlords.

(Edit: And the PC games do have relevance when you realized they are all based off the same fluff and fiction. The doors blow off. Play the game "cinematic," "forge a narrative," and the like. So please, try to model your drop pods glued shut and then say I can't shoot through them as you hide stuff behind them. That's when I know never to play you again because you have to cheat)

Fluff, and RAI have no place in a pure rules discussion. Fluff and RAI can be interpreted by different people in different ways, which is why YMDC concentrates on the rules as they are written, together with quotes and page references to make the discussion easier.

My own interpretation is that the drop pods are intended to open on landing, and stay open. This is not, however supported by the rules, and if someone wanted to play his drop pods with doors shut, thats allowed, if he wanted to open and close then throughout the battle, that too is allowed, technically. would i tell him he was wrong, certainly not. would i have a low opinion of his shenanigans, certainly.

I would almost certainly tell someone he is wrong if he were raising and lowering doors whenever during the game. Something like that is enough for me to call a judge (who will deem that as cheating in almost every case.) or in a casual setting pick up and leave.

SO I pod down, get out behind my open pods, shoot you, then put the doors up to block LOS for your shooting, then put them down shoot again, put them back up.... While it may not RAW be cheating, it is against the spirit of the game...perhaps the wrong argument for YMDC, but honestly full RAW breaks the game and should never be used as the only way to make ruling.

madtankbloke wrote:
My own interpretation is that the drop pods are intended to open on landing, and stay open. This is not, however supported by the rules, and if someone wanted to play his drop pods with doors shut, thats allowed, if he wanted to open and close then throughout the battle, that too is allowed, technically. would i tell him he was wrong, certainly not. would i have a low opinion of his shenanigans, certainly.

I now have a strong urge to create a 1 to 10 40k shenanigans chart for future reference

I also have the odd urge to create some sort of non-liner Shenanigans addition / cumulative value rules similar to the 3.5 DnD Encounter Challenge Ratings...

3 + 3 = 5...
4 + 8 = 9...

When you get to 10, I take you off my christmas card list

 Super Ready wrote:
Kbob - have you actually read the forum tenets...? Again - I'd suggest that most people posting here wouldn't actually try to pull MFA shenanigans in a game. But that's not RAW. RAW is, the vehicle is open-topped so the doors don't have to be open for deployment to happen.
Ergo, it's not cheating. It's beardy, and cheesy, and probably all kinds of morally reprehensible, yes fine. But not *CHEATING*. That's why this discussion exists - to nail out what is and isn't legal per the rules.

If you're going to state something is cheating, you need to back it up with the rules. Fluff doesn't count.

There are plenty of good arguments and discussions, but this is one that is absolutely dumb (the argument, not the individuals).

I call it cheating because of every reason you state. Cheating isn't just breaking the rules, it involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, etc. Doesn't have to be just "breaking this rule" *points to it* to be cheating. It involves intent. If you look me right in the eye that I cannot shoot through your drop pod because you glued it shut, the following would happen: A) a TO would be called over and I'd get a ruling that I could (see precedent earlier that two of the biggest ones already rule it in my favor) or B) if it's a pick-up game, I shrug it off and never play the person again.

Most of us aren't this prone to discussion because we would rather the game go on versus making a stink and hating the next hour of our lives. Well, I'm allowed to make my stink here and say it's modeling for advantage and if you're doing it intentionally, it's cheating.

Doors are meant to be open. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Why is that fine? Why can DP doors be within 1" of an enemy model?

There may be a CC you drop your drop pod next to... there may be some unit that moving it is too much of a hassle. I am thinking in protecting my investment in building/painting a drop pod just as much as you are in your models. Playing with it open is a part of a game, but if it came down to physically harming the models or slowing the game down to pick up units and plop em back down, not a big sweat.

We would know it's "open," but for the sake of making the game carry on smoothly, that's not something to get upset about.

madtankbloke wrote:

My own interpretation is that the drop pods are intended to open on landing, and stay open. This is not, however supported by the rules, and if someone wanted to play his drop pods with doors shut, thats allowed, if he wanted to open and close then throughout the battle, that too is allowed, technically. would i tell him he was wrong, certainly not. would i have a low opinion of his shenanigans, certainly.

I'd tell him he can't. If he continued, I'd quit. If it's a tournament, I'd get a TO over and make him stop.

And maybe the Necron stuff is elsewhere, but I read the codex and the book says they aren't in there, therefore no S10. GW ruled it as I saw it; as most of the folks saw it. RAI + fluff makes up a good portion of how the FAQs are ruled. So yea, dismiss that thought if you must, but I'll continue using best gaming judgement and the context of the model/unit within the game world to determine the best method of play in hairy rules situations until a FAQ hits. And more often than not, using said methodology proves right.

If intent never mattered, our legal system (US based, here), would be much more cut and dry. Same nonsense falls into our little game of plastic army men and tin soldiers.

 TheKbob wrote:
There are plenty of good arguments and discussions, but this is one that is absolutely dumb (the argument, not the individuals).

It's actually a pretty decent. This has probably come up at every FLGS ever. almost 1/2 the Codex can use Drop Pods. The rules are suggestive, but not explicit. The fluff is inadmissible. I'm glad it's being discussed.

 TheKbob wrote:
Most of us aren't this prone to discussion because we would rather the game go on versus making a stink and hating the next hour of our lives. Well, I'm allowed to make my stink here and say it's modeling for advantage and if you're doing it intentionally, it's cheating.

Fair point, but a bit out of synch with your earlier statements about this not being worth discussing.

 TheKbob wrote:
Doors are meant to be open. Period.

I love that my brain translater that as "Doors are meant to be open..."

foolishmortal wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Doors are meant to be open. Period.

I love that my brain translater that as "Doors are meant to be open..."

Everytime a drop pod closes, another one opens?

And I'd argue that open topped rules plays into the model; I may be crazy but most DE stuff is open topped and I see no covering. My Necrons stuff is open topped, no covers. Ork trukks are open topped and they have no cab and are basically a pick-up truck of boys. WYSIWYG is encouraged and a vehicle that is open topped should, I dunno, I might be crazy here... open?

I have to agree (in general with) TheKbob, that cheating is more than just breaking the rules.

You can break the rules without cheating, and you can cheat without breaking the rules.

It is all about intent. Honestly on this question I could care less about LOS from pods (I don't play a shooty army, and if you want to not see me rushing you I'm ok with it. )

Techically I'm not breaking any game rule if I use fixed dice, MFA,speed rolling, etc. Actually there is no rule that says my opponent even needs to see my rolls. What I am breaking is the social contract/implied rules of the game resulting in fair play. We all have some "rules" that we play the game by that are not RAW.

Breng77 wrote:

I would almost certainly tell someone he is wrong if he were raising and lowering doors whenever during the game. Something like that is enough for me to call a judge (who will deem that as cheating in almost every case.) or in a casual setting pick up and leave.

SO I pod down, get out behind my open pods, shoot you, then put the doors up to block LOS for your shooting, then put them down shoot again, put them back up.... While it may not RAW be cheating, it is against the spirit of the game...perhaps the wrong argument for YMDC, but honestly full RAW breaks the game and should never be used as the only way to make ruling.

Tournaments usually have their own FAQ regarding rules that are ambiguous, and while i can say that having a drop pod having its doors closed to block LOS or opening and closing is RAW, i have never encountered this behaviour. technically its allowed by the rules (which is what YMDC is all about) but it is bad sportsmanship at the very least.

This forum is all about RAW, not fluff, not MFA, not RAI, but RAW, and as has already been stated by someone above me, the majority of the people making RAW outrageous (and fully supported) arguments would never try to pull them in a casual or tournament game, and if they did its probably a clear indicator that they are TFG.

If you play by RAW you cannot 'technically' cheat. but it helps the discussion along tremendously when you seperate RAW, from RAI, from fluff from HIWPI

Sure I can I just described how, I can MFA. I can lie by ommision etc.

The issue I have with people saying well this is RAW(even if it is not how they would play), is that then guys bring it to tournaments/stores, and get into arguments, it sets a bad precident for other players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also I'm pretty sure you cannot say RAW that a pod can open and close its doors, there are not rules about this at all. I actually think that rule for them being imoblie once landed would be stronger as the pod is imobile. (I know it is not tecnically movement, but again no rules govern this at all).

madtankbloke wrote:


If you play by RAW you cannot 'technically' cheat. but it helps the discussion along tremendously when you seperate RAW, from RAI, from fluff from HIWPI

A good point.

However, there are numerous instances where RAI + fluff won over people belly aching about "RAW". See the current nonsense of the Tau Bomber, Necron Flyers, Bouncing FMC, Imotek's lightning, etc., etc.

RAW is fine and dandy, but when you step back and use reasoning, logic, and a dash of the grimdark, you're probably going to come up with the correct answer. Sticking to just straight RAW for interpretations is going to make you look silly and wrong quite a lot in these discussions.

This drop pod matter is purely intent, mind you. While we don't have rules on how to put together our models (I glued his head on a stick... now he can have a better LOS!), we all very well know the intent of the game. Making is so that you can't see through an open vehicle very much goes against the intent.

In other words, a bad lawyer sticks to the black and white, the successful ones go for the grey and context.

For me, I hate having those doors all splayed out over the board...especially if someones doing an all pod army (6-9+ pods). It makes the board a real mess.
So I glue the doors shut for convinience of play, but treat the model as only providing cover if your LoS traces through the hull of the Pod.
Claiming it blocks LoS because you glued the doors shut sounds too much like modelling for advantage for my tastes...especially if you insist on shooting the pods SB with doors closed.