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.

@DeathReaper - the doors on a drop pod seem to be part of the floor which is why whoever originally wrote the drop pod background used the term hatches and not doors I assume.

Is it possible for someone to post the page number that says you must not open hatches, doors or windows on models during a game?

kranki wrote:
@DeathReaper - the doors on a drop pod seem to be part of the floor which is why whoever originally wrote the drop pod background used the term hatches and not doors I assume.

Ahh, well they are a part of the side of the pod, not the floor/bottom.

Is it possible for someone to post the page number that says you must not open hatches, doors or windows on models during a game?

Nope, not possible, it does not exist.

On the other hand there are not any rules that say you must/can open hatches, doors or windows on models during a game either. So that does not exist as well.

kranki wrote:Is it possible for someone to post the page number that says you must not open hatches, doors or windows on models during a game?

No. Nor is it possible to post the page that says that you can't replace your rhino with a predator in turn 3, or the one that says that you can't declare yourself the winner by dropping your pants and running counter-clockwise around the table 3 times.

The rules tell us what we can do. If the rules don't say that something can be done, then that is something that can not be done.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Closed is not open rigel it's as simple as that

But you do realize that does not matter at all right?

"Note: As soon as a Drop Pod is deployed, its doors are automatically opened to their full extent." (IA: Apoc book)

If they are modeled in such a way as they can not move and they are closed, then that is literally their full extent of open.

Zero degrees open is "their full extent." on a model with static closed doors.

Although I agree with your sentiment here in terms of RAW, we do have a rule in the book in regards to glued turrets on vehicles and that you may treat them as if they were unglued for their full extent when firing at units.

Now, you may not want to use this and you may not think its relevant but I thought I would just throw it into the discussion since we do have another area of the game that deals with glued parts that are supposed to move.

So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...

Also I am not arguing against the fact closed drop pods are blocking TLOS, they 100% are. My argument is against people can't accept that fluff does have an impact on the interpretation of rules and I can see due to the fluff why the TO came to his decision.

kranki wrote:
So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...

Also I am not arguing against the fact closed drop pods are blocking TLOS, they 100% are. My argument is against people can't accept that fluff does have an impact on the interpretation of rules and I can see due to the fluff why the TO came to his decision.

Fluff has played into the rules, such as the Necron flyer debate and when it explodes, what happened to the passengers. Us sane folks knew they walked on without taking damage because they were never technically in there per the fluff.

It gets FAQd... HUZZAH!

Rationality applied into RAI saves the day 99.9% of the time. The doors are supposed to open. If folks want to whine about it, then let them, but the fluff shows them open, the games show them as open, etc. etc. etc. Again, if you feel so inspired to play like that in a game then you're doing it wrong.

I think it's funny how people are pointing to the new FW rules as proof that LOS is not blocked by a drop pod. Have you ever seen one of the original FW pods?






Look, open the doors, and LOS is still blocked. If you're going to quote FW rules, you should be using the FW model, and making it so it doesn't block LOS when opened would clearly be modelling for advantage.

 Redbeard wrote:
I think it's funny how people are pointing to the new FW rules as proof that LOS is not blocked by a drop pod. Have you ever seen one of the original FW pods?






Look, open the doors, and LOS is still blocked. If you're going to quote FW rules, you should be using the FW model, and making it so it doesn't block LOS when opened would clearly be modelling for advantage.

Thats a good find actually. Also this one seems to be able to block a good amount of LOS with the doors open.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/DEATHSTORM-DROP-POD-WITH-MISSILE-LAUNCHERS.html

I'm not going to weigh in on the RAW or RAI argument here at all, but HIWPI is with the doors open, this is mainly because its the predominant way that its played where I play my games. To say the truth, even if I want to play it with doors closed I don't think I would be allowed to as GW staf would overule me.

In what world are you playing that GW "staff" (glorified minimum wage shop clerks) can overrule how you and an opponent play a game?


RAW - once I deploy my pod, your models cannot come within an inch of it, right? If I open the doors, I create a line that's impassable, but allows me to shoot over it?

I don't see anywhere that indicates that these doors don't count as part of the model. Maybe I'm missing something - is that written anywhere? If not, do you really want all these open doors all over the place?

 Redbeard wrote:
In what world are you playing that GW "staff" (glorified minimum wage shop clerks) can overrule how you and an opponent play a game?

Since its their store and I play by their rules or not get to play at all. The store where I play its pretty much the staff gets the final say on rule disputes between players. We do get to present our cases on the rules, but the staff get the final say in what way the rule goes.

In terms of the drop pod I play it with doors open anyway, since this is the norm in my area.

RAW - once I deploy my pod, your models cannot come within an inch of it, right? If I open the doors, I create a line that's impassable, but allows me to shoot over it?

Like I said, I'm not throwing anything into a RAW or RAI debate on this one.

I don't see anywhere that indicates that these doors don't count as part of the model. Maybe I'm missing something - is that written anywhere? If not, do you really want all these open doors all over the place?

Its not been that much of a problem really. Thtas just the way we play in our location. You may see it as a house rule or a store rule and thats fine. I just play the games and don't cause a lot of fuss. For me to argue with everybody down at my store in regards to how drop pods work it would just leave me as the unpopular guy at the store. I just want to play some games in the end.

 Redbeard wrote:
I think it's funny how people are pointing to the new FW rules as proof that LOS is not blocked by a drop pod. Have you ever seen one of the original FW pods?






Look, open the doors, and LOS is still blocked. If you're going to quote FW rules, you should be using the FW model, and making it so it doesn't block LOS when opened would clearly be modelling for advantage.

Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.

We all know how drop pods work. Arguing otherwise just comes across as being contrarion in nature. Some things just make sense.

So many drop pod discussions, let's add in the "it still mishaps if you land on a unit regardless of IGS!" argument to really set the tone.

 TheKbob wrote:
Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.

Since people are arguing using the rules for that model I think it plays very well in the discussion.

We all know how drop pods work. Arguing otherwise just comes across as being contrarion in nature. Some things just make sense.

Yes. Following TLOS is one of those things that just makes sense. There are a lot of people arguing against that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I agree with Jinx on this one. It is quite clear that RAI, the doors should be open. But unfortunately the shoddy writting by GW means the doors can remain closed per the RAW.

Now I wouldn't play a person twice that attempted to keep them closed and refused LoS through it....but that's just my preference. :-)

So you would not play a person twice that was following the True Line of Sight rules?

Interesting.

If they modeled the doors on their Land raider open and tried to shoot through the opening would you tell them they could not?

I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.

 TheKbob wrote:

Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.

Your argument here seems to be, "Since it doesn't help my argument, I am going to ignore a key piece of evidence".

We all know how drop pods work. Arguing otherwise just comes across as being contrarion in nature. Some things just make sense.

We all know how lots of things work. We also know that how you'd expect them to work may not be the way they work in a game. Games have rules, and often those rules don't make sense. That doesn't mean they're not rules. It doesn't make sense that I can know within a thousandth of an inch, whether my gun with a 120" range needs to advance a touch to be in range, but that a unit of genestealers ten feet away from you might trip on their shoelaces and fail that charge. Arguing for sense in 40k is futile, the entire system is nonsensical.

It's an amusing thread, because of the number of imaginary restraints you guys keep throwing up. You have to open the doors? You can ignore the existence of models with filled-in interiors? You can ignore the open doors for purposes of movement? Gluing your doors shut is "modelling for advantage" (tell that to all my rhinos and land raiders). Hogwash all of it.

 Redbeard wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.

Your argument here seems to be, "Since it doesn't help my argument, I am going to ignore a key piece of evidence".

We all know how drop pods work. Arguing otherwise just comes across as being contrarion in nature. Some things just make sense.

We all know how lots of things work. We also know that how you'd expect them to work may not be the way they work in a game. Games have rules, and often those rules don't make sense. That doesn't mean they're not rules. It doesn't make sense that I can know within a thousandth of an inch, whether my gun with a 120" range needs to advance a touch to be in range, but that a unit of genestealers ten feet away from you might trip on their shoelaces and fail that charge. Arguing for sense in 40k is futile, the entire system is nonsensical.

It's an amusing thread, because of the number of imaginary restraints you guys keep throwing up. You have to open the doors? You can ignore the existence of models with filled-in interiors? You can ignore the open doors for purposes of movement? Gluing your doors shut is "modelling for advantage" (tell that to all my rhinos and land raiders). Hogwash all of it.

I find your reasoning to be equally "hogwash" as you put it. Your using poorly worded rules to game the system and make the game unfun and honestly a waste of everyone's time. Either way this discussion is pointless. Good day. O and happy Halloween.

I'm sad to know I haven't been having fun when playing with TLOS and closed pods.

"Unfun"? I don't follow. Why is it any more or less fun to be able to draw unlimited line of sight through an object?

There's an entire other thread that says 6th ed is more fun when there are more LOS blockers involved. Oh no, someone might have to move a model to see past a drop pod!

rigeld2 wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.

Since people are arguing using the rules for that model I think it plays very well in the discussion.

Actually it is the Lucius pod people are talking about, that is the old "normal" drop pod

The lucius you get fairly clear LOS through, as it is a) huge and b) there isnt much in the cavity to get in the way

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Interesting. However since you'd practically never see that model (I never have) it plays little in the discussion.

Since people are arguing using the rules for that model I think it plays very well in the discussion.

Actually it is the Lucius pod people are talking about, that is the old "normal" drop pod

The lucius you get fairly clear LOS through, as it is a) huge and b) there isnt much in the cavity to get in the way

Lucius Drop Pod for reference.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.

But that's just it, RAI is truly unknowable, unless you were the one that designed the rules.

So we follow RAW or we make house rules and speculate on what RAI is, though that is just an opinion.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.

But that's just it, RAI is truly unknowable, unless you were the one that designed the rules.

So we follow RAW or we make house rules and speculate on what RAI is, though that is just an opinion.

You are correct. RAI being truly unknowable is a fact. But sometimes it seems more obvious than others as to which side the devs were leaning, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that with the model presented like it is and the fluff written the way it is and all of the supporting data on how the Drop Pods looks when deployed(pictures, etc)...that it is clear the intention in this case? Maybe you don't see it like I do, but I think it is quite obvious.

But if I'm playing a person who can open the hatches on his Drop Pod, they aren't glued shut, and decides to leave them closed on a Pod in one game to block LoS and opens them in others....that is not a person I would play twice. Again...personal preference.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

You are correct. RAI being truly unknowable is a fact. But sometimes it seems more obvious than others as to which side the devs were leaning, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that with the model presented like it is and the fluff written the way it is and all of the supporting data on how the Drop Pods looks when deployed(pictures, etc)...that it is clear the intention in this case? Maybe you don't see it like I do, but I think it is quite obvious.

I'm not convinced. One, I don't trust any picture as far as rules are concerned. If you look at any codex, you'll see pictures of units with illegal weapon options, you'll see pictures of units with too few (or too many) members.

Furthermore, if I look at pictures, I don't think I recall a single picture that has a guy standing on a drop-pod door when opened. So, that does tend to support the idea that you can't just ignore open doors because that seems convenient.

In addition, I've seen plenty of pictures of rhinos, land raiders, and other vehicles with open doors. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone requiring their opponent to open these doors in play, or accusing them of MFA for gluing them shut. Like the Drop Pod, both the Land Raider and the Rhino have detailed interiors. I've also never heard of anyone demanding to be allowed to draw line-of-sight through their opponent's rhino as if the doors were open.

Again, the original drop pod model blocked LOS whether the doors were open or not. Most people glued them shut because the doors are so unwieldy in play.

kranki wrote:
So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...

No, that's what we've been saying all along. It's not a new argument.

 insaniak wrote:

kranki wrote:
So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...

No, that's what we've been saying all along. It's not a new argument.

Insaniak has it 100%.

This is because of the way True Line of Sight works.

An infantry model that is standing up will interact differently than one in a prone position, yet they have the exact same stats (The IG Snipers is what I am referencing) No one calls MFA on a unit of Prone IG snipers holding an objective in area terrain completely out of LoS because they are prone. or having the doors on any other vehicle glued shut. Yet it is some huge deal for drop pod doors to be closed and block Line of Sight, when the rules tell us they do exactly that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.

But that's just it, RAI is truly unknowable, unless you were the one that designed the rules.

So we follow RAW or we make house rules and speculate on what RAI is, though that is just an opinion.

I don't like this argument at all. The argument that says that in order to know intent we must talk to original creator/designer. Its a non-sequitur, there are many things we can determine the intention of or design of without having to talk to those originally involved.

Archaeologists dig things up all the time and can easily identify function/intention. They don't have to actually talk to those involved in order to find out. They know that Aztecs used to sacrifice humans on alters to appease the sun god. They didn't actually have to talk to the Aztecs in order to find that out. They used logic, evidence and common sense to come to that conclusion.

Please bear in mind that I am not disagreeing with your conclusion with the drop pod. It may work the way you state. I just think that telling people that "intent is unknownable" is not a good argument in itself or even fruitful towards the discussion of the topic. We all make conclusions based on the rules without having to talk to any designers about it.

A good example of this is the other thread where we are discussing using the multiple wounds rule to determine how grav weapons wound mixed armour saves. We don't know what the designers have to say on this but we reach a conclusion based on logic and common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

You are correct. RAI being truly unknowable is a fact. But sometimes it seems more obvious than others as to which side the devs were leaning, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that with the model presented like it is and the fluff written the way it is and all of the supporting data on how the Drop Pods looks when deployed(pictures, etc)...that it is clear the intention in this case? Maybe you don't see it like I do, but I think it is quite obvious.

I'm not convinced. One, I don't trust any picture as far as rules are concerned. If you look at any codex, you'll see pictures of units with illegal weapon options, you'll see pictures of units with too few (or too many) members.

Furthermore, if I look at pictures, I don't think I recall a single picture that has a guy standing on a drop-pod door when opened. So, that does tend to support the idea that you can't just ignore open doors because that seems convenient.

In addition, I've seen plenty of pictures of rhinos, land raiders, and other vehicles with open doors. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone requiring their opponent to open these doors in play, or accusing them of MFA for gluing them shut. Like the Drop Pod, both the Land Raider and the Rhino have detailed interiors. I've also never heard of anyone demanding to be allowed to draw line-of-sight through their opponent's rhino as if the doors were open.

Again, the original drop pod model blocked LOS whether the doors were open or not. Most people glued them shut because the doors are so unwieldy in play.

For some people it all comes down to the position of the guns. The guns are supposed to be glued inside the drop pod and how do they shot out if the doors are closed. Don't get me wrong here you have made some very good points. Perhaps the player can choose whether he wants it open or not. I don't know. All I know is its a model with a lot of confusion attached to it.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I don't mind playing with the full intentions of the true LoS rules, so don't generalize please. I just wouldn't play somebody that I believe is doing something not in the spirit of the game. Again I said...personal preference. I'm sure you would, and have nothing against you for doing so. No need for condescension, you aren't better than me for being strict to RAW when I feel the wording clearly shows RAI. DR, be nice.

But that's just it, RAI is truly unknowable, unless you were the one that designed the rules.

So we follow RAW or we make house rules and speculate on what RAI is, though that is just an opinion.

I don't like this argument at all. The argument that says that in order to know intent we must talk to original creator/designer. Its a non-sequitur, there are many things we can [try to] determine [through educated guesses of] the intention of or design of without having to talk to those originally involved.

Archaeologists dig things up all the time and can easily identify function/intention. They don't have to actually talk to those involved in order to find out. They know that Aztecs used to sacrifice humans on alters to appease the sun god. They didn't actually have to talk to the Aztecs in order to find that out. They used logic, evidence and common sense to come to that conclusion. [And that may or may not be what happened, we can not know for sure what the Aztecs were doing, the evidence points that way but it is just an educated guess]

Please bear in mind that I am not disagreeing with your conclusion with the drop pod. It may work the way you state. I just think that telling people that "intent is unknownable" is not a good argument in itself or even fruitful towards the discussion of the topic. We all make conclusions based on the rules without having to talk to any designers about it. [And some are correct while others are not]

A good example of this is the other thread where we are discussing using the multiple wounds rule to determine how grav weapons wound mixed armour saves. We don't know what the designers have to say on this but we reach a conclusion based on logic and common sense. [And none of the conclusions in that thread are RAW, they may not even be RAI, we just do not know for sure]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

You are correct. RAI being truly unknowable is a fact. But sometimes it seems more obvious than others as to which side the devs were leaning, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that with the model presented like it is and the fluff written the way it is and all of the supporting data on how the Drop Pods looks when deployed(pictures, etc)...that it is clear the intention in this case? Maybe you don't see it like I do, but I think it is quite obvious.

I'm not convinced. One, I don't trust any picture as far as rules are concerned. If you look at any codex, you'll see pictures of units with illegal weapon options, you'll see pictures of units with too few (or too many) members.

Furthermore, if I look at pictures, I don't think I recall a single picture that has a guy standing on a drop-pod door when opened. So, that does tend to support the idea that you can't just ignore open doors because that seems convenient.

In addition, I've seen plenty of pictures of rhinos, land raiders, and other vehicles with open doors. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone requiring their opponent to open these doors in play, or accusing them of MFA for gluing them shut. Like the Drop Pod, both the Land Raider and the Rhino have detailed interiors. I've also never heard of anyone demanding to be allowed to draw line-of-sight through their opponent's rhino as if the doors were open.

Again, the original drop pod model blocked LOS whether the doors were open or not. Most people glued them shut because the doors are so unwieldy in play.

For some people it all comes down to the position of the guns. The guns are supposed to be glued inside the drop pod and how do they shot out if the doors are closed. Don't get me wrong here you have made some very good points. Perhaps the player can choose whether he wants it open or not. I don't know. All I know is its a model with a lot of confusion attached to it.

(Added the Red)

He does not shoot if he does not have Line of SIght to the target, it is as simple as that.

A lot of people are starting to throw mud in this thread. Lets try and remember not every one here who is arguing what is technically correct is arguing how they would play it or what they think the intended rules are.

RAW: The doors need to either start open or start closed. They don't go back and forth and "the hatches are blown" is not permission to open then after the pod as been deployed. If the doors are closed you should not assuming what line of sight should be, This includes models firing from one side of the pod to the other, or the storm bolter hanging in the middle of the pod.

RAI: "the hatches are blow" and the idea that its an open topped vehicle conveys the intent the models doors should open and not do much to block line of sight. Trouble with this is this phrase predates the drop pod model (and its movable doors) and doesn't mean squat if the doors can't open (because they have been glued shut for any reason) or the model does not have doors (only two drop pods in my play group are actually GW models. The rest are made of plasticard and predate the GW models). Intent is always a guessing game and should probably never be taken as fact.

HIWPI: The closed doors block line of sight for everything but the pod itself. The is based on the fact that the majority of the pods in my group don't have doors or storm bolters on them. We like the idea that to storm bolters pops up out of a hatch on a pintle and fires at what ever it wants.

A few words on Modeling for advantage. I've never come across a non standard model that has both advantages and disadvantages when compared it its official cousin. Some times the advantages are more numerous and sometimes they are only advantages for one particular strategy. A drop pod with open doors won't block line of sight as much but a drop pod with closed doors will have a much smaller disembark footprint. On more then one occasional been put in a real jam because my 10 man squad getting out of a drop pod can't go where I want because the drop pod scattered into some weird terrain feature. If my doors had opened I would have had over twice as much space to put my squad.

 insaniak wrote:

kranki wrote:
So we are now saying whether the hatches are glued or not is irrelevant its all based on the way the player places the model at the time of deployment since once in play opening or closing things is frowned upon...

No, that's what we've been saying all along. It's not a new argument.

Except me, I actually think the doors open/closed decision need to be made fore deployment when you pick your models.

 DeathReaper wrote:


(Added the Red)

Thanks for adding the red lines in but I think those statements are a bit redundant. Afterall it could be claimed that we are all brains in a VAT and that everything around us doesn't actually exist. Of course we have very little evidence to actually suggest this but who knows, it could still be true. Right? Once again I will refer to logic and common sense being used to find intent/design of things. You may want to radically claim that these things cannot be found with any degree of confidence but I believe otherwise.

He does not shoot if he does not have Line of SIght to the target, it is as simple as that.

Well I would have to say that part should be a given if indeed those rules are the rules being played.

 DarthOvious wrote:
I don't like this argument at all. The argument that says that in order to know intent we must talk to original creator/designer. Its a non-sequitur, there are many things we can determine the intention of or design of without having to talk to those originally involved.

Can we? How? We can look at a rule and determine what it says. But how do we know, without talking to the original writer, that what made it onto the page is what he actually intended?

As an example... A rapid fire weapon fires 2 shots at half range. We know that the rules say this... but we have absolutely no way of knowing that the writer intended for this to be the case. He might have meant for them to fire 3 shots, but made a typo that wasn't caught until it was too late. We can assume that he write what he meant, but we have no way of proving it.

As a result, when most people say 'RAI' what hey actually mean, whether they realiase it or not, is actually 'RAITTM'... or 'Rules As I Think They Meant'...



The RAI waters are muddied even further by the way GW resolves rules issues. While they will sometimes rule in favour of what they originally wanted, there have been plenty of cases where they have gone with RAW instead in order to cause less confusion, even though that results in something working differently to how they originally intended.

So the end result is that even if we do decide that we are absolutely, unequivocably certain about the RAI on an unclear rule, that still doesn't tell us how the game is actually, right now, 'supposed' to be played.

.

Archaeologists dig things up all the time and can easily identify function/intention. They don't have to actually talk to those involved in order to find out. They know that Aztecs used to sacrifice humans on alters to appease the sun god. They didn't actually have to talk to the Aztecs in order to find that out. They used logic, evidence and common sense to come to that conclusion.

They came to a conclusion that fits the evidence. That doesn't mean that they were correct. However well informed they think they are, they're still ultimately just guessing.

The guns are supposed to be glued inside the drop pod and how do they shot out if the doors are closed.

They don't.

Just as they don't shoot if the player chooses to deploy the pod behind tall terrain that completely blocks LOS to the rest of the battlefield.

 insaniak wrote:

They came to a conclusion that fits the evidence. That doesn't mean that they were correct. However well informed they think they are, they're still ultimately just guessing.

And sometimes they reverse themselves because the evidence support guessing the opposite.