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.

It's probably worth mentioning (again) that 'MFA' =/= 'using a model that is in some way, shape, or form different from a GW model assembled exactly as instructed by GW'

There ought to be, and is, a certain amount of flexibility. I'm not the most artistic person, but I see that it has it's place in 40k. Granted, I'm rather cynical, and from my point of view, "it's place" is mostly to get more people involved and playing so that I have more people to play with

Still MFA is more than your model being "just different."

My litmus test...
1) Is the difference granting the person some sort of in game benefit?
2) Is the difference outside the realm of normal customization? (some kits have different heads, pose-able limbs, a choice of flying base height, etc)
3) Does the opponent refuse if I ask to play as though the special model was a typical model?

If all 3 are Yes, then I would think they were modeling for advantage.

If there is no GW model, I try to fuss 50% less.

If they are using an older GW model that gives some comparative advantage, more power to em. They made a good, legal choice IMO.

There is WAAC, and there is just...dickery. This is just that xD

The space marine's walk through the closed doors. Or the doors that blast off, stick themselves back on.

It -might- help you win a game. It -will- help you lose your friends.

I'm fine with the doors closed or open as long as its consistant. I've had a game where some pods kept their doors shut when they need LOS blocking, and others open when it suited them more.

 insaniak wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:The way I play it and have yet to have an opponent have a problem with is even on the pods where I glued the doors shut, LOS and cover etc is treated as if the doors were open.

How do you determine what can be seen through the pod?

Not trying to be argumentative here, I'm genuinely curious.

I haven't encountered a situation yet where a unit or model or something would be _completely_ out of LOS when seen through an open pod (I've built them both ways), and so I've always considered any LOS passing through the closed pod as granting the appropriate cover save. This might just be an artifact of having played a lot of Vassel games while I was living in Japan, and having gotten used to being permissive with LOS because of it.

Of course if you want to play "your" pods by "your" rules (closed door blocking LoS) then don'T complain when I use "your" rule against you.
You drop a pod and get your guys out. I drop my pod next to yours, but place my unit in front of your pod (as long as I'm within 6" of my pods hull). I then shoot you through my pod's open doors (giving you a cover save) but you may not shoot (nor assault) me through your pods closed doors from any models on the opposite side of your pod.
Especially handy to protect my Dreds RA10 while still torching your unit with a heavy flamer.

You want to be a douche, I'll be more than happy to figure out a way to use that douche-baggery against you.

drop pods are supposed to be modeled with the doors open we play that as open even if they are glued shut. Now if you have custom pods like a guy we play with that are scratch built we just use TLOS.

Wow, go away for a few hours and come back to four pages to sift through. Lets see if I can just sum up my argument and walk away from this mess. Honestly, I have yet to read through all of them so if I miss your point, I apologize.

MFA - I see it as clear modeling for advantage.

It doesn't matter if your opponent may also benefit from it, because your opponent did not make the model. I could easily field a 'made with the right parts, but glued completely differently' monstrosity that blocks line of sight to most of my army. Simply stating that it blocks line of sight to my own men doesn't suddenly make it a legal model.

It is very unlikely that opponent facing 'modified so doors remain closed' drop pods have made any tactics that take advantage of this rule exploit. So no amount of stating it is equal actually makes it so, your opponent is at a obvious disadvantage simply because you modified the model so it couldn't be shot through.

On the other hand, if you are doing this for a line of sight blocking advantage, it is easy to say that you are designing your tactics around this fact. By placing your melee based assault force in such a way behind your modified model so that they can not be shot at than you have tipped the scales into your favor through an exploit. One that does not benefit your opponent in the slightest.

No RAW - I beg to differ as all my pondering on this question is based around the RAW.

There is a paragraph in the drop pod which is clearly an 'exception rule' with the title of Transport. All exception based rules have higher priority over base rules, as they may create limitations and restrictions that need to be followed. This paragraph is nothing but restrictions that change how the drop pod relates to the basic transportation rules. This is why bringing up all other transport and stating 'but they don't require open doors' is irreverent. They are not bound by this exception rule that is unique to the drop pods.

So why is that important?

Well within this higher priority rule is the words 'blown open' in relation to the doors and the whole debate can hinge on those two words. If this sentence, which contains clear restriction based rules within it, is an order of events then the doors must be opened. You must place it on the table, you must open the doors and you must disembark your men, is the paraphrased version of that sentence. Nothing else matters at that point, the rules will clearly have stated that you must open the drop pod.

The issue is simple... the writing doesn't make that clear. If it used better terminology to get it's intent across, well we wouldn't be having this debate to begin with.

It can reasonably argued that it was simply being artistic in providing the clear exception rule of 'must disembark.' It can also be argued that it is a order of events, as stated above. It could also be argued that nothing within the rule prevents you closing the doors again, though I would state it does not give you permission to. The real biggest one is it doesn't state 'all' doors, so if I wanted to go all rule lawyer then I could easily open just one facing your guys and then disembark my troops through the standard 'opened top' exception on the other side of the closed doors!

Models and terrain being displaced: The question of 'what if models or terrain is under the door' can easily be answered by the exception rule above this one titled Inertial Guidance System. In short, you need to place the drop pod in such a way that it does not encounter these obstacles. If it would normally encounter them, you have permission to move it into a position where it does not.

Forge Word Drop Pods - Irreverent to this discussion. If you have permission to use a forge world unit, tournaments rules often exclude them and in friendly games your opponent can chose not to go against these units, then you can use the solid-internals drop pod regardless to your hearts content. Should you be in a situation where you suddenly pull one out, expect people to take exception to it as you do need permission to use them first, as many forge word units are ill balanced one way or the other. Besides, if you did have permission to use forge world drop pods then the line of sight thing is moot for another reason: Your going to be in melee the turn you drop that thing, so they won't be shooting anyway.


In closing -

We have a RAW situation that can not be over looked, the exception to the normal rules under the transport heading in the drop-pod entry. The real problem is that the wording is so bad that we can come away with many different interpretation as to what they could mean. I do not have a solid answer myself, I am one man and I can fathom several different interperations that might all be correct. All I can say at this point is - Welcome to rule written by Games Workshop....

JinxDragon wrote:
MFA - I see it as clear modeling for advantage.

It is very unlikely that opponent facing 'modified so doors remain closed' drop pods have made any tactics that take advantage of this rule exploit.

1) MFA is not a rule, but more of a player convention. Modelling something as per the instructions, and not opening the doors is not most peoples definition of MFA.

2) The drop pod does not have to be "modified so doors remain closed" the vehicle is normally assembled so the doors can open up, but they can be in the closed position with no modification needed as the doors themselves open from a closed position on the model.

Death -

I will give you that. An unmodified model and the modified model can be placed down side by side and still look identical. That argument holds a lot more merit then simply stating 'each side has equal footing' which they clearly do not. Should the unmodified and modified models operate in an identical fashion, then we really can not state it is MFA. So from now on, I will ignore the people saying it is MFA and drop that from future arguments while focusing on the meat of the problem:

How does this interact with the rules as written?

That part I probably am never going to be swayed over, as I have looked at them from many different interpretations and most of them have equal footing. It is going to be up to the people playing the game, or the organizers, to decide which one they feel is correct. Personally, I would lean more towards the always opened option but I have never considered personal choice to matter in rule based discussions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The four interpretations that are most pressing to me right now, all resolving around doors blown open in the rules.

Artistic expression - This one can be summed up that the doors blown open is nothing but fluff and can be ignored. It doesn't feel right to me, because that would mean we have a sentence that is half fluff and half rules. However, thanks to the wording of that sentence, it is not clear what the intent actually is. It can reasonably be argued that they took some liberties while presenting the part we all agree is pure rules: Must disembark.

Order of Events - This is the one that states the whole paragraph is rule. This holds merit because the paragraph is clearly an exception rule, outlining what additional restrictions exist on drop pods that do not exist on other transports. This would include the state of the doors, which is normally a non-issue for transports but is brought up in the exception for drop pods. That would mean the sentence in question is simply telling you what to do, in the order that you need to do them. You must place the model on the table, duhhh you don't say, then you must open all the doors and finally you must disembark the men inside.

Some doors Opened - This is the most rule lawyer interpretation of the sentence and can be used to allow massive amounts of exploitation. However, it is also technically correct and holds equal right with the two above interpretation. The sentence does not states which doors need to be opened, just that the doors are blown open. If I open just one or two doors I would have filled the requirement being laid out in the exception as doors have been blown open. Then I can disembark my men however I see fit, through closed doors if I want, thanks to the open topped exception rule. As I said, this is rule lawyer heavy, but it is a discussion on the rules so expect at least some lawyering to take place.

Closing the door after - This one I can state is completely incorrect, but it does come up a lot. In order to have permission to close the doors afterwards it would need to be stated in the rules that you can do so. No where in the basic transportation rules, the opened topped exception rules or the drop pod exception rules does it state you have permission to open and close the doors at will. Without it being stated, you do not have grounds via RAW to do so, hence you can not close any door that you do chose to open.

dkellyj wrote:
Of course if you want to play "your" pods by "your" rules (closed door blocking LoS) then don'T complain when I use "your" rule against you.
You drop a pod and get your guys out. I drop my pod next to yours, but place my unit in front of your pod (as long as I'm within 6" of my pods hull). I then shoot you through my pod's open doors (giving you a cover save) but you may not shoot (nor assault) me through your pods closed doors from any models on the opposite side of your pod.
Especially handy to protect my Dreds RA10 while still torching your unit with a heavy flamer.

You want to be a douche, I'll be more than happy to figure out a way to use that douche-baggery against you.

I don't see your point here... Of course you're allowed to pod in next to mine and place your units however you want. And if you play your doors open, then by all means feel free to shoot.

Only thing douchey here would be your attitude...

Edit for spelling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Death -

I will give you that. An unmodified model and the modified model can be placed down side by side and still look identical. That argument holds a lot more merit then simply stating 'each side has equal footing' which they clearly do not. Should the unmodified and modified models operate in an identical fashion, then we really can not state it is MFA. So from now on, I will ignore the people saying it is MFA and drop that from future arguments while focusing on the meat of the problem:

How does this interact with the rules as written?

That part I probably am never going to be swayed over, as I have looked at them from many different interpretations and most of them have equal footing. It is going to be up to the people playing the game, or the organizers, to decide which one they feel is correct. Personally, I would lean more towards the always opened option but I have never considered personal choice to matter in rule based discussions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The four interpretations that are most pressing to me right now, all resolving around doors blown open in the rules.

Artistic expression - This one can be summed up that the doors blown open is nothing but fluff and can be ignored. It doesn't feel right to me, because that would mean we have a sentence that is half fluff and half rules. However, thanks to the wording of that sentence, it is not clear what the intent actually is. It can reasonably be argued that they took some liberties while presenting the part we all agree is pure rules: Must disembark.

Order of Events - This is the one that states the whole paragraph is rule. This holds merit because the paragraph is clearly an exception rule, outlining what additional restrictions exist on drop pods that do not exist on other transports. This would include the state of the doors, which is normally a non-issue for transports but is brought up in the exception for drop pods. That would mean the sentence in question is simply telling you what to do, in the order that you need to do them. You must place the model on the table, duhhh you don't say, then you must open all the doors and finally you must disembark the men inside.

Some doors Opened - This is the most rule lawyer interpretation of the sentence and can be used to allow massive amounts of exploitation. However, it is also technically correct and holds equal right with the two above interpretation. The sentence does not states which doors need to be opened, just that the doors are blown open. If I open just one or two doors I would have filled the requirement being laid out in the exception. Then I can disembark my men however I see fit, through closed doors if I want, thanks to the open topped exception rule.

Closing the door after - This one I can state is completely incorrect, but it does come up a lot. In order to have permission to close the doors afterwards it would need to be stated in the rules that you can do so. No where in the basic transportation rules, the opened topped exception rules or the drop pod exception rules does it state you have permission to open and close the doors at will. Without it being stated, you do not have grounds via RAW to do so, hence you can not close any door that you do chose to open.

Artistic Expression: Agreed...for the most part. If hatches blown=rule then should I rip the doors off my pod everytime it lands?

Order of Events: I don't see that part about opening doors in my codex.

Some doors opened: Agree that this would be extreme rules lawyering. I see it as you either open them all or none of them.

Closing the door after: Again, kind of extreme...Once they're open they're open, even I wouldn't try this.

you don't have to rip them, just open them gently so they lay flat against the table top to show they have been blown open. As with all things in model gaming, you do not always have the means to make the model look or act exactly as described. It wouldn't be an isolated case to drop pod either, most vehicles are described being able to do something that the models can not, thanks to the way they are constructed or the fact it will break the model, physically do.

As for finding this rule, I would advise you you to take another look in the codex or at least inform me what one you are looking in so I can see if it is different. I assure you that it is both present in the standard space marine codex and the new Dark Angels codex. Page 69, I believe, for the standard and page 42 for the Dark Angels. The section you need to look at is Transport. In the Dark Angels codex it informs you of the capacity of the drop pod then goes on to outline what additional exceptions exist for a drop pod that do not exist for other transports. The very first sentence of that paragraph contains the words you are looking for.

I will make one correction: They use the word hatches and not doors...

Looking at my DA codex, I don't see any rule that states doors/hatches must be opened. I see a bit of fluff there for hatches being blown...

 beigeknight wrote:
I'd like to purpose a scenario. Say I was playing with two drop pods: one with doors that can open and one that have doors glued shut because I got tired of trying to assemble it otherwise. It would be possible to draw TLOS through the pod with the open doors but not the pod with the doors glued shut?

In a game, would they be treated differently in terms of TLOS.

As per the rules for LOS, yes, of course they would. Just as the Marine with the standing legs and the marine with the kneeling legs are treated differently for LOS, despite supposedly being the same model.

For the people who are claiming you can draw LOS through the doors, do you also allow your opponent's tanks to draw LOS with a sponson through the tank?

It is not written in the unit description section of the book, where fluff is found. It is also contained in a paragraph which is clearly an exception rule. Not only that, it is contained in the same sentence as something which is clearly an exception rule. The location of it is very important. If it was any where else on that page, outside of the other exception rules of course, then I would easily side with you as to it being fluff. However it is clearly smack bang in the middle of the rule section and can easily be interpreted as a rule, which clearly has by 2/3 of the people reading it, so we can't simply wave it away as fluff.

The real big concern for me is the wording is very poor as it allows multiple interpretations, including the 'it is artistic expression' one that allows you to ignore that part of the sentence.

This goes back to the questions I asked earlier:
If it changes the way the model interacts with rest of the game, can it ever be considered fluff?
Also:
Can we really consider half a sentence to be fluff when the other half is clearly rules?

Maybe it's just fluff for that rule? As in its the reason they must disembark.

Look at the "rules" for the Lion Helm. It has a bit of fluff in the same sentence that says how you represent it on the table.

And please don't tell me that "The Lion Helm is carried by a mysterious Helmet Bearer,..." is not fluff. It's a model, a model of a cloaked midget/dwarf/hobbit/stack of keebler elves carrying a helmet.

Breng77 wrote:
1.) If you state that Pods with doors glued shut, those that want them to BLOS will glue them shut, and those that want LOS will model them as being able to open.

Yes indeed. Just as those Guard players who want to draw LOS over the ADL will use standing legs instead of kneeling ones for their heavy weapons. You can affect LOS with how you choose to assemble GW's models. That's not the fault of the players, it's just a side effect of a rules system that uses the physical profile of the models for LOS without considering how posing and optional modelling affects that profile.

2.) For those that argue well if all the doors are shut you cannot fire the gun, ok why can I not glue say 2 or 3 shut and not the other doors, pod in with those door facing you open them and shoot while I get out with the doors blocking LOS. After all there are no rules stating I need to open all the doors.

There is nothing at all stopping you from doing this. Whether or not that is a problem ultimately comes down to whether or not you thought leaving the doors up was an issue to begin with.

Essentially you need consistency ...

We do? Why?

In a more hardcore ruleset, this might be the case. But a more hardcore ruleset wouldn't use TLOS in the first place, or at the very least would stipulate how each model must be assembled.

GW doesn't write such a ruleset. A standing guardsman, a kneeling guardsman, and a prone guardsman all count as the same model, all cost the same number of points... and all work quite differently for cover, and when they want to shoot something. A Battlewagon, Landraider or Baneblade has different range on its weapons depending on just where on the model you choose to put them. A dreadnought may or may not even be able to fire its weapons at all, depending on how you choose to position its arms.

The simple fact is that there is no consistency when it comes to models in 40K. Your choice of model, and in many cases just your choice of pose, affects how the model interacts with the game rules.

Why then should we single out the drop pod as needing to be played as if it is assembled a specific way?

JinxDragon wrote:
Can we really consider half a sentence to be fluff when the other half is clearly rules?

War Walkers are used for forward reconnaissance and hence have the Scouts special rule.

What does "used for forward reconnaissance" mean from a rules standpoint?

 insaniak wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
1.) If you state that Pods with doors glued shut, those that want them to BLOS will glue them shut, and those that want LOS will model them as being able to open.

Yes indeed. Just as those Guard players who want to draw LOS over the ADL will use standing legs instead of kneeling ones for their heavy weapons. You can affect LOS with how you choose to assemble GW's models. That's not the fault of the players, it's just a side effect of a rules system that uses the physical profile of the models for LOS without considering how posing and optional modelling affects that profile.

2.) For those that argue well if all the doors are shut you cannot fire the gun, ok why can I not glue say 2 or 3 shut and not the other doors, pod in with those door facing you open them and shoot while I get out with the doors blocking LOS. After all there are no rules stating I need to open all the doors.

There is nothing at all stopping you from doing this. Whether or not that is a problem ultimately comes down to whether or not you thought leaving the doors up was an issue to begin with.

Essentially you need consistency ...

We do? Why?

In a more hardcore ruleset, this might be the case. But a more hardcore ruleset wouldn't use TLSO in the first place, or at the very least would stipulate how each model must be assembled.

GW doesn't write such a ruleset. A standing guardsman, a kneeling guardsman, and a prone guardsman all count as the same model, all cost the same number of points... and all work quite differently for cover, and when they want to shoot something. A Battlewagon, Landraider or Baneblade has different range on its weapons depending on just where on the model you choose to put them. A dreadnought may or may not even be able to fire its weapons at all, depending on how you choose to position its arms.

The simple fact is that there is no consistency when it comes to models in 40K. Your choice of model, and in many cases just your choice of pose, affects how the model interacts with the game rules.

Why then should we single out the drop pod as needing to be played as if it is assembled a specific way?

+1 internets to this man.

I don't see what your getting at with that, if I read the full paragraph it clearly is all rules as well. It goes into detail to describe this Helmet Bearer and how it functions. It also gives you permission to move this model, an exception to the normal way models would move, in certain situations.

It is pointless rules as it all can be summed up as 'does not interact with the game what so ever so why bother including it' but they are still rules telling you how to handle this particular unique model.

JinxDragon wrote:
The location of it is very important.

It's really not.

GW's rules don't have specific 'This section is fluff' and 'This section is rules' type demarcation. Their rules are written in a fairly casual style, and fluff and rules quite often coexist in the same sentence, to the effect of 'This [thingo] works by [fluff] which means that [rules]'

Which is exactly what is happening in the drop pod entry,

How do we know that the first part of the statement is fluff? Simply by looking for any rules that deal with 'blown hatches'. There is no mechanic in the rules for 'blowing hatches' on a vehicle. We can not point to a single rule in the rulebook or codex that tells us that 'blown hatches' have any specific effect in game.

Therefore, the only sane interpretation is that this is a fluff description of what happens when the pod disembarks, and has no more specific impact on the rules than it would if the, say, Land Raider entry said that the assault ramp opens to allow embarked troops to charge straight into the enemies' teeth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't see what your getting at with that, if I read the full paragraph it clearly is all rules as well. It goes into detail to describe this Helmet Bearer and how it functions. It also gives you permission to move this model, an exception to the normal way models would move, in certain situations.

It says the helmet bearer is mysterious. If we're assuming that a statement that contains rules can't also have fluff in it, then if I don't find your helmet bearer to be particularly perplexing, you are breaking the rules...

HappyElf,

Which codex and section, so when I get back from a long arse drive I can hopefully read the whole entry and have a better understanding of what they are trying to say. Sometimes context is needed to better form an answer. On face value, it does give president that sometimes creative expression is used by the Game Workshop writers even though it is detrimental to interpretation of the rules. Unfortunately, this can often be a problem when it comes to these rule books and I honestly ask if they had an editor at times.

I would still point out that question remains:
Can we consider something fluff it it does change the way the model interacts with the game?

In the example you are putting forth it clearly doesn't seem to interact with the game in anyway, shape or form. However 'hatches blown open' does change the way the drop operates on the field when it comes to line of sight and a few other places as well. Given how dramatically it changes game play, I would state it can not be considered fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak,

I am going to consider that a fifth interpretation that holds merit as well. One can put forth the argument that the blowing of the hatches does not simply mean opening them, but require their own separate rules to deal with how this takes place. As there is no rules for such, then it clearly can none can be played and the whole thing must be ignored in favor of the basic rules that came before it. As no rule exists telling you to open a transport hatch, or even giving you permission to ever do so, you can then leave them closed without it being a violation of the rules.

It is logical.

Honestly I have to wonder why this hasn't been FAQed before now. It would be so simple to type two lines 'Can the Drop-pod doors be left closed?' 'Yes/No.' I've seen things that are far more clearly written in the book getting sections of the FAQ that would take up three to four times that space. Yet something that is clearly changing the outcome of a game, something that has at least a third of the player base playing differently to the rest... not a peep.

Oh, and the helm bearer thing: Can you tell me the name of my helm bearer? If not, then it is a mystery.... not a good one, mind you, but still one.

Fluff is just fluff.

The only exceptions are Necrons (GW's new love child)

And when they randomly FAQ something...usually for Necrons(GW's new love child)

I don't know Caboose. Game Workshop has clearly used fluff sections to screw people over in the past. Do I need to remind people of the plasma syphon FAQ that allows it to screw over anything that dares to use the word plasma anywhere in the entry?

Lol Touche Jinx.

Alot of people in favor of allowing them to stay shut to gain advantage keep asking where the rules are for it, there doesn't need to be. The GW model is open, if your model is different that's fine but when your claiming you get extra bonuses for your model being different then your opponent can make ANY argument they want and you can't say otherwise because it's in the rule book, labeled as the most important rule no less!
When you disagree you roll off whoever wins gets what they were arguing.

As for the comment about not using purity seals....really? You think that putting an a large line of sight blocking vechicle onto the board anywhere you want that clearly doesn't block line of sight if modeled via the standard model is at all the same as adding some purity seals......

jinx - Codex Eldar (2006 version) pg 44 (War Walkers). The part I quoted (illegally, sorry dakka) was posted in its entirety as written in the codex. Nothing was left out.

Kisada II wrote:
Alot of people in favor of allowing them to stay shut to gain advantage keep asking where the rules are for it, there doesn't need to be. The GW model is open, if your model is different that's fine but when your claiming you get extra bonuses for your model being different then your opponent can make ANY argument they want and you can't say otherwise because it's in the rule book, labeled as the most important rule no less!
When you disagree you roll off whoever wins gets what they were arguing.

As for the comment about not using purity seals....really? You think that putting an a large line of sight blocking vechicle onto the board anywhere you want that clearly doesn't block line of sight if modeled via the standard model is at all the same as adding some purity seals......

I'll point you to Insaniak's above post.

I also remember sth. about a doors + 1'' rule somewhere...recently read about it...will try to dig it up.

I'm on the side of them not blocking LOS, mainly because they are open-topped, supposed to open and (keep your crying to yourself) it's an official rule on EU tournaments:

5.7 The 'petals' of a Drop Pod are not taken into
account for disembarkement, LOS or cover
purposes.

/e:

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

Seems very clear to me.

Kisada II wrote:
The GW model is open,

Do I need to post the pic from the GW website again?

The GW model is open when it is open. There are quite a few pics of it closed. I just had a flick through my Space Wolf codex, and found 2 pictures of the drop pod model in there. In one, it's open. In the other, closed.

if your model is different that's fine but when your claiming you get extra bonuses for your model being different...

Nobody is claiming that they get 'extra bonuses'. Blocking LOS works both ways. If it blocks LOS for you trying to shoot me, it also blocks LOS when I'm trying to shoot you.