Does destroying the Dynomast leave rubble since it is considered blocking terrain? Thanks.

Destroying blocking terrain. A square of blocking terrain
can be destroyed by an attack that deals at least 3 damage in a single
attack. When a character attacks blocking terrain, the attack automatically
succeeds. An attacker can’t target both a character and blocking terrain
with the same attack. A close combat attack can be used to destroy a
square of blocking terrain adjacent to the attacker. A ranged combat attack
can be used to destroy a square of blocking terrain by drawing a line of
fire to the center of the square of blocking terrain; the line of fire is not
blocked by blocking terrain in the target square


Destroying objects. Objects can be destroyed using the rules
for destroying a square of blocking terrain (see p. 11). An object and a
character in the same square can be targeted by close combat or ranged
combat attacks, but each must be targeted separately. A character in
the same square as an object does not take damage when the object is
destroyed. An attacker can’t target both a character and an object with the
same attack.

Debris markers. When a square
of blocking terrain is destroyed, put a
debris marker in the square; this marker
represents the rubble left behind by the
destruction of the blocking terrain. A
square of destroyed blocking terrain
marked with a debris marker is
hindering terrain, not blocking terrain.
If a square of blocking terrain that
contains a boundary line is destroyed
and it is adjacent to a square or squares of blocking terrain, the boundary
line is assumed to move to the nearest adjacent square or squares of
blocking terrain so that all squares of blocking terrain are contained within
a continuous boundary. In some cases, this might result in two separate
areas of blocking terrain.

From the player's guide:

DYNAMOSTAT
 Dynamostat’s effect is "This object acts as blocking terrain for movement and line of fire purposes."

In other words, yeah, it does act like blocking terrain... but only for movement and LOF purposes. It is still an object, though, and is destroyed as such.

I loved the Dynamostat the other day running the League of Assassins...smack dab in the middle of the battlefield, it was granting my guys their uber-stealth. Fun.

Ok thanks. Here is a followup. Where is a list of immobile objects?

Download the player's guide. Ctrl+F immobile

Okay, I had a huge dispute running the LoA once again with the Dynamostat.

Since when adjacent to blocking, the LoA with the ATA are all but untargetable...being next to a Dynamostat grants me the same bonuses as being next to actual blocking terrain, no?

LEAGUE OF ASSASSINS
Keyword(s): League of Assassins
Cost: 7
Lines of fire to a character using this team ability are blocked if this character is adjacent to a wall or blocking terrain.

Follow up question: a figure can still pick this object up, despite being "blocking"?

Are you trying to move through or draw LOF through the object? If not, it just a heavy object.

It is a heavy object, not immobile, so it can be picked up.

One of my favorite combos in the old Restricted format that I never pulled off was to use the Dynamostat to boost the Mass-Absorber... until I realized it didn't work. (Emphasizing that so no one gets the wrong idea.)

So, in short it doesn't trigger the LoA ATA? All righty.

I always liked the Dynamo Stat. I just hate how it's terribly easy to just destroy. It's kind of annoying if you're trying to use it for cover or for camo or similar things.

If by "camo" you mean the Camouflage feat, then like normalview suggested with the League of Assassins ATA, the Dynamostat won't activate the Camouflage feat because the Dynamostat is not blocking terrain.

(emphasis mine)
But the dynamostat doesn't specify that the line of fire has to be drawn through it.

If you're trying to draw a line of fire to a figure next to the Dynamostat, you're still trying to draw a line of fire. I think that the Dynamostat would work with the League of Assassins team ability or Camouflage.

Here's the example I used when discussing this with Harpua:

So, let's say Thor and Loki are chilling in camouflage behind the Dynamostat. And opponent on the other side of it want to shoot at them. So, with Thor and Loki being T, the opposing character being O, and the dynamostat being D, it looks like
TDO
They go to draw their line of fire, but they can't because the dynamostat counts as blocking terrain, so they can't take the shot.

Now, let's say that an opposing character on the opposite side of them want to take a shot. In this case, it's
DT O
Now, when O tries to draw a line of fire, what's different? Other than the positioning, absolutely nothing. O is trying to draw a line of fire. Therefore the dynamostat will act as blocking terrain for determining if that line of fire is valid. So because the dynamostat acts as blocking terrain, and a line of fire for a ranged attack is being drawn,the camouflage feat will activate, preventing the line of fire from being drawn and negating O's ability to attack Thor and Loki.

So positioning isn't important? I'll remember that next time I try to make a close combat attack


Seriously, though, LOF makes the dynamostat blocking terrain, fine. But if I am not drawing LOF to or through the Dynamostat, who cares?

Harpua mentioned something along these same lines before and I'll tell you exactly what I told him: there is nothing in that description that supports your interpretation over mine and I would have never, ever come to your conclusion given the wording at hand. Does that mean I am right? Possibly. Possibly not. However, if the intent was to make the Dynamostat always be blocking terrain whenever LOF is drawn anywhere on the map, then it should say so.

I never said positioning wasn't important. What I said was that positioning was the only thing that changed from my first example to my second.
I care if I have someone using camouflage next to it. If it starts acting as blocking terrain, that's kinda important.

Nothing in that description that supports my interpretation? Sure, I could see it going your way, but I don't think mine is completely without merit, and I already spelled out why I think it works.
See what I did there? Your argument cuts both ways, sir.

I am in the same boat as normalview. I would not have come to the opposite conclusion either. My thought is, "It is blocking when I draw a line of fire to/through it or when I move through it.