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.

Teschio wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Incorrect. The answer never mentions hull in the FAQ. Associating the doors as part of the hull is a unjustified leap.

As I said before, the BRB never defines "hull". But it clearly and explicitly states what is NOT part of the hull. Therefore, the only universal definition is that any part of the vehicle that is not explicitly considered not part of the hull MUST be part of the hull. This is the only possible objective interpretation, everything else is completely subjective and therefore should be disregarded. And if we accept this premise, then the FAQs clearly indicate that doors are not decorative (they block LoS, and decorative elements never do that), and are therefore part of the hull.

Try that again. Decorative items DO block LoS beyond the unit itself (just not to the unit itself).

There is no requirement to open a door on a Vehicle in the game. This allows us to easily be define a door as decorative when opened. When closed, they all hug the wall of the Vehicle so are immaterial for measuring to the Hull or being ignored or not for LoS TO the unit.

Doors that open and lay flat on the ground should not block LOS.

But, this is another example of how GW cannot write rules for gak.

Have yo proved they are not hull yet CHaristoph? Do they fit into the category of items not considered hull? You relise you have to prove they arent hull, as tha tis how the rules are written, right?

Your misreading isnt a matter of interpretation. You just didnt read something thoroughly and made an error, and cannot admit it.

zedsdead wrote:
yes in older editions it did mention doors opening. And as you point out in the newest edition things have changed. Yes..there is no mention of doors opening in the SM:Codex. So the door issue shouldn't be even considered.
Its an opened topped vehicle. Open topped vehicles have no access points.
- Furthermore the doors/ramps/hatches and bases are "access points" in BRB pg 80 that's RAW on the description of those items.. it goes on to apply rules to those items on vehicles. Nothing about them being "Hull".

so RAW...and not my interpritation of the rules.. Or for that matter applying GWs test FAQ. Drop Pods are pretty simple in how they work.


Drop Pods have removed any description of doors opening in the SM codex
Drop Pod doors are at best "Access points" and not forced to open them as per the BRB pg 80 (rhino doors, Land Raiders ect have them... never played where they had to be open)
Drop Pods are "Open Topped".SM:Codex pg 158
Opened topped vehicles have no access points as per BRB pg 88

So there is no need to ever open a DP door to disembark from them.

As I said earlier, the BRB does not have a definition of "hull". So, you can have 2 choices:

1) define what a hull is in your local group. I do this too, but when I play OUTSIDE of my local group, such as in tournaments, I NEED something else, something objective.
2) stick to an interpretation that, while provisional and sometimes blatantly absurd, has the advantage of being OBJECTIVE, which is needed in tournaments.

I choose the second one. You, on the other hand, recognize that the BRB does not define "hull", and so make up a definition of your own. Which is fine, it's just not UNIVERSAL. There's a section for home rules, and it ain't this one.

BTW, you contradict yourself: first you say that DPs do not have access points, and then that doors are access points. And if doors ARE access points like you say, then you CAN disembark within 6" of the tip of a door...

Oh, I AGREE that you can disembark even with closed doors: a drop pod is open topped, you can disembark from any point you want. Which include doors, since the only objective interpretation we have, with all its flaws, clearly shows that doors are part of the hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Try that again. Decorative items DO block LoS beyond the unit itself (just not to the unit itself).

It's very, very clear that you don't play in a competitive environment. It what you said was true, I would convert a model to have a HUGE banner, like 1 square foot or more, which can't be considered part of the model itself (so he can't be shot at) but that DOES block LoS, so that I can hide multiple units behind it. Do you realize how absurd this is? Better still, I can even have 2 of them that cover each other's units, so that I can safely advance with my entire army completely invulnerable out of sight. With your twisted interpretation, this is absolutely LEGAL. Decorative items do not block sight, period.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
My group plays it:

Roll for scatter on arrival, Pod drops in
Doors open (that's what they're there for)
If a door can't be opened (for example, it might hit a model) then that door remains closed.
Models disembark up to 6 inches from Pod's central mass (you know, where the harnesses are)
Game continues

I truly believe this is the way it was designed to work.

That way you basically gets best of both worlds though...No increased mishap chance(doors are closed, your footprint is small), then if doors can be opened you suddenly have VERY long charge range(as door is part of model=you measure from tip of the door). GW FAQ specifically states doors are part of the model so as per open topped you go from there...Measuring from central mass goes flat out against what GW stated in FAQ.

Yours is what many people played. But GW FAQ stated differently.

Teshio - actually it isnt a twisted interpretation, at all. What you described is MFA and would get the model removed in any competitive environment, so is not relevant

A model can have elements that block LOS to other models, but do not count when draweing LOS to the model. A blood thirsters wings DO block LOS, yet you canntod raw LOS to them.

It isnt twisted. Your interpretation is just flat out wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What you described is MFA

What is the line between cool conversions and MFA? If it's subjective, then it has no place in a game. If it's objective, show me how you can determine it unequivocally.

I don't know how you guys play, but around where I live rules are important. And rules need to have NO subjective component whatsoever. That's why I can't stand the "imho, the most reasonable way to play this is..." approach. What is reasonable for you may not be for other people. Any game needs STRUCTURE, an objective set of rules all players can agree upon. Either we decide those in advance (something quite hard to do outside of gaming groups), or we need objectivity. In the example of the banner, is a 2"x2" banner ok? And a 2.5"x2.5"? What about 3"x3"? I can go on forever: unless you establish an OBJECTIVE criterion (i.e. "maximum surface area of a banner = x", and good luck doing that for EVERY type of conversion), I can legally have a 1'x2' banner. "Modeling for Advantage" is a meaningless label, because it does not provide objectivity: what may be acceptable to you could be unacceptable to me or vice versa. Guidelines are not enough: you need RULES, objective rules. Does you label of MFA have such strict rules to determine what is allowed and what is not? If it doesn't, then the entire concept of MFA makes no sense.

And yes, I actually used modeling in the past to get advantages when I was much younger, even though now I wouldn't do that anymore. In the old days of WHFB, there was a rule that said breath weapons come from the mouth of the model, but you could only assault the model or shoot at it measuring from his base. I brought to a tournament an hydra with a rubber neck 20" long... nobody asked me to remove the model. The TOs just added the home rule that breath weapons are measured from the base to their next infopack (home ruling is fine, IF all participant know that in advance). Because if a 1" neck is fine, and a 2" is fine too, then a 20" it's also fine. When playing competitively, leave subjectivity outside the door.

The game rules dont allow for conversions. They tell you to use GW modls. So there is your line. You dont get to covnert. Done.

Also, your suggestion was patently absurd. its up there with kneeling wraithlord and ground up genestealers. You know it, I know it. Dont try to pretend your point had anty merit in any "competitive environment"

Sounds like the TOs didnt write a sensible rule pack in the first place. Or they were weak TOs. If you had tried that in the ones I run there would have been a spot ruling that the weapon came from the base, and if you didnt like it, your model would be removed and you score 0 for every game. I have no time for idiots.

Your rant is noted, however you are completely wrong on the actual ruels, which has been pointed out. I suggest you start another thread for your novel opinion on how MFA isnt MFA because its subjective.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Have yo proved they are not hull yet CHaristoph? Do they fit into the category of items not considered hull? You relise you have to prove they arent hull, as tha tis how the rules are written, right?

Your misreading isnt a matter of interpretation. You just didnt read something thoroughly and made an error, and cannot admit it.

You have yet to prove an opened door is not anything more than a decorative item, which is what would make them Hull.

Opened Doors have zero-defined functionality in the game. That makes them a decorative item, i.e. not Hull.

Closed Doors are molded to mach the hull lines, so are pointless in trying to differentiate them from the Hull at all.

And Decorative Items still block LoS beyond them, so it becomes an leap to state that because they are not ignored automatically means they are Hull.

Teschio wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Try that again. Decorative items DO block LoS beyond the unit itself (just not to the unit itself).

It's very, very clear that you don't play in a competitive environment. It what you said was true, I would convert a model to have a HUGE banner, like 1 square foot or more, which can't be considered part of the model itself (so he can't be shot at) but that DOES block LoS, so that I can hide multiple units behind it. Do you realize how absurd this is? Better still, I can even have 2 of them that cover each other's units, so that I can safely advance with my entire army completely invulnerable out of sight. With your twisted interpretation, this is absolutely LEGAL. Decorative items do not block sight, period.

First: This question was not placed as from a competitive play stand point.

Second: Competitive play usually is attended by a set of tournament rules, ala ITC or ETC, which do not always follow the Rulebook, nor is this site the place to define such localized parameters.

Third: Most tournaments would classify such a modification as modelling for advantage, and so illegal and , which is part of the second point, not in the rulebook itself.

Fourth: You need to review Line of Sight rules. The only times Decorative Items are referenced with Line of Sight is that they cannot be used to define Line of Sight TO the model with the Decorative Items. Nothing is stated that they are ignored for determining Line of Sight beyond the model with the Decorative Item, which means regular rules are in play.

Again; prove they ARE decorative items. Items are hull UNLESS they are decorative.

Prove they are decorative. Third time of asking.

You are also differentiating between "open" and "closed" doors with zero rules basis to do so, and hand waving away that you treat the same item differently as it would be "pointless". This is a poor attempt at argumentation. I expect better

They're hull until proven otherwise. They're hull, until proven otherwise, whether "up" or "down"

And I cannot agree that the structure that protects the internals from atmospheric re-entry, and clearly has an aerodynamic role to play (no chance the pod would be stable as an open structure) is "decorative". It is as key as a valkyries wings, which are hull

They're hull. They cannot be ignored, as per the FAQ, so open may be disembarked from as any other part of hull. Yes, it's rubbish as an answer, but it's what we've got.

You're not going to be able to prove that they're decorative items; lkikewise, you're not going to prove that they're not decorative items. Gun barrels get classified as decorative items despiite the size of the barrels on Basilisks and the like, so the open doors could easily fall in the "etc." category.. Good luck proving that either they do or they don't without a direct answer from GW.

So, it really comes down to a house rule as to how to handle the open doors. To me, it seems that there are a lot fewer complications dealing with the doors as not counting as hull than if they do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again; prove they ARE decorative items. Items are hull UNLESS they are decorative.

Prove they are decorative. Third time of asking.

You are also differentiating between "open" and "closed" doors with zero rules basis to do so, and hand waving away that you treat the same item differently as it would be "pointless". This is a poor attempt at argumentation. I expect better.

They're hull until proven otherwise. They're hull, until proven otherwise, whether "up" or "down"

Actually, I am not really differentiating at all. And repeating yourself does not change the facts.

What are the in-game ramifications of a door, open or closed? The answer is none. Since there are no ramifications or rules for the door itself, it is purely decorative, open or closed. When open, the door means nothing in the rules. When closed, the door means nothing in the rules. Doors are purely decorative, open or closed, but are still part of the model.

Doors, when closed, do not do anything to extend or block the profile of the Hull, so addressing it either way is meaningless.

So, until you can provide some in-game evidence of a use for a door, it is purely decorative. If it is decorative, it is not part of the Hull. Your assertions alone do not provide proper evidence. Address my assertions and do not dismiss them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And I cannot agree that the structure that protects the internals from atmospheric re-entry, and clearly has an aerodynamic role to play (no chance the pod would be stable as an open structure) is "decorative". It is as key as a valkyries wings, which are hull

That's fluff, not rules. If you take off the radio antenna can you not give the unit orders? The doors are not defined as having a role in the rules. The doors are not defined as being hull in the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They're hull. They cannot be ignored, as per the FAQ, so open may be disembarked from as any other part of hull. Yes, it's rubbish as an answer, but it's what we've got.

The question is if they are ignored for game purposes, but the answer does not define how they are not ignored. A Bloodthirster who Deep Strikes and his Wing is hanging off the table is just a liable for a Mishap as if his base was. Those still get ignored for drawing Line of Sight to the Bloodthirster, and still block Line of Sight in the proper circumstances.

Please provide the in game use of a vlakyries wing. Page and graph.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please provide the in game use of a vlakyries wing. Page and graph.

Well, it's not page and graph, but the wings often serve as mounts for engines and weapon mounts, which are valid targets on non-flyers. Makes sense for the wing that's keeping them attached to be considered part of the hull too..

I don't have the book with me but isn't there a section in the rulebook specifically discounting "superficial stuff" and specifically naming wings as such?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I don't have the book with me but isn't there a section in the rulebook specifically discounting "superficial stuff" and specifically naming wings as such?

On non-vehicles, wings are decorative. They specifically state that wings count as the hull in the vehicle section.

There's no mention of open doors one way or the other, so the debate is whether it falls into the "etc." category of what's decorative.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please provide the in game use of a vlakyries wing. Page and graph.

I won't bother with the page, because I sold the hard copy long ago. But I can supply the paragraph:

Now, please reciprocate and provide a similar designation for a Vehicle's Door. Can you demonstrate where in the rulebook a door is anything but decorative?

Again, I dont need to - all I need to assert is it is hull

You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)

So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, I dont need to - all I need to assert is it is hull

You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)

So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented

And all Charistoph has to say is that it is covered by the etc. part of the decorative items statement, and you're back at a stalemate. Can you prove that it isn't covered by the etc. clause? If not, you two are never going to be able to resolve it.

As I mentioned before, there come a whole crop of issues with treating it as hull compared to treating it as decorative, so if it can't be proven to work either way, I'd suggest treating them as decorative.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, I dont need to - all I need to assert is it is hull

You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)

So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented

So, you cannot prove that it is hull, just claim that it is.

I claim that the rulebook provides the actual door with zero in game usage, and unlike the wings, are never defined as part of a hull. So, by definition, an item on a model which does not provide any in-game use would be simply decorative.

Can you provide anything in the rulebook which defines a door to remove it from the decorative status? I've only asked this (directly and indirectly) several times, now.

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, I dont need to - all I need to assert is it is hull

You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)

So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented

So, you cannot prove that it is hull, just claim that it is.

I claim that the rulebook provides the actual door with zero in game usage, and unlike the wings, are never defined as part of a hull. So, by definition, an item on a model which does not provide any in-game use would be simply decorative.

Can you provide anything in the rulebook which defines a door to remove it from the decorative status? I've only asked this (directly and indirectly) several times, now.

So the rules define parts of the vehicle model into two categories: Hull and Decorative.
Decorative has the unique property of not blocking Line of Sight
As per the FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Ergo: due to the elimination of all other possibilities they must be a part of the hull.

JakeSiren wrote:
So the rules define parts of the vehicle model into two categories: Hull and Decorative.
Decorative has the unique property of not blocking Line of Sight
As per the FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Ergo: due to the elimination of all other possibilities they must be a part of the hull.

Where does it state that Decorative does not block Line of Sight?

I only know of where it states that Decorative items cannot be used to define Line of Sight to the model and cannot be used to provide cover on the model, but nothing about not blocking it.

 Charistoph wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
So the rules define parts of the vehicle model into two categories: Hull and Decorative.
Decorative has the unique property of not blocking Line of Sight
As per the FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Ergo: due to the elimination of all other possibilities they must be a part of the hull.

Where does it state that Decorative does not block Line of Sight?

I only know of where it states that Decorative items cannot be used to define Line of Sight to the model and cannot be used to provide cover on the model, but nothing about not blocking it.

You are right, it doesn't explicitly say that we ignore them for all LoS purposes. Now let me build some "impressive banners" 4ft wide in a way that unit A blocks LoS to B and B blocks LoS to A. Impervious to shooting, psychic and assault, how excellent is that?

JakeSiren wrote:
You are right, it doesn't explicitly say that we ignore them for all LoS purposes. Now let me build some "impressive banners" 4ft wide in a way that unit A blocks LoS to B and B blocks LoS to A. Impervious to shooting, psychic and assault, how excellent is that?

That's modeling for advantage. While no longer against the rules in the BRB, you will find that most players outside of a tournament will give a look of being "That Guy" if you try it and leave you without a game (or at least a future one), and most Tournament Organizers will either reject you or offer you to replace the model as a result..

Have fun with that.

 Charistoph wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
So the rules define parts of the vehicle model into two categories: Hull and Decorative.
Decorative has the unique property of not blocking Line of Sight
As per the FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Ergo: due to the elimination of all other possibilities they must be a part of the hull.

Where does it state that Decorative does not block Line of Sight?

I only know of where it states that Decorative items cannot be used to define Line of Sight to the model and cannot be used to provide cover on the model, but nothing about not blocking it.

In the line of sight rules . . .



Notice that it reads "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body" and not "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body".

Extraneous decorative items are ignored in the cases of the viewing, target, and intervening model.

I cannot draw line of sight from the top of a banner of a viewing model or draw line of sight to the top of a banner of a target model or have line of sight blocked by the banner of an intervening model.

col_impact wrote:
In the line of sight rules . . .

Spoiler:

Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).

For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.

Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.

Notice that it reads "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body" and not "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body".
Extraneous decorative items are ignored in the cases of the viewing, target, and intervening model.

I cannot draw line of sight from the top of a banner of a viewing model or draw line of sight to the top of a banner of a target model or have line of sight blocked by the banner of an intervening model.

And you ignored several key points leading up to and following that highlighted statement which defines when to ignore them. In other words, you are ignoring the context in which the statement is made.

Namely: "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.", and "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible.". Furthermore, how is "having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on" going to penalize the model that carries it when blocking Line of Sight as an intervening model? It won't. It provides bonuses or penalizes models behind it, but not the model in question.

Two of these paragraphs that you quoted in your spoiler are specifically talking about obtaining Line of Sight TO the model. Nothing in there is defining Line of Sight THROUGH the model any more than normal. In fact, nothing in the basic rules is ever stated about things being ignored when it is blocking Line of Sight to something else.

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, I dont need to - all I need to assert is it is hull

You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)

So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented

So, you cannot prove that it is hull, just claim that it is.

I claim that the rulebook provides the actual door with zero in game usage, and unlike the wings, are never defined as part of a hull. So, by definition, an item on a model which does not provide any in-game use would be simply decorative.

Can you provide anything in the rulebook which defines a door to remove it from the decorative status? I've only asked this (directly and indirectly) several times, now.

Please show any part of the drop pod is hull. Any of it. Show the spines have an "in game use" without using a tautology.

Exclusive definition. It's hull until you define it isn't. Prove the spines are hull first to show your first principles definition. Then derive your exceptions.

 Charistoph wrote:


Two of these paragraphs that you quoted in your spoiler are specifically talking about obtaining Line of Sight TO the model. Nothing in there is defining Line of Sight THROUGH the model any more than normal. In fact, nothing in the basic rules is ever stated about things being ignored when it is blocking Line of Sight to something else.

I quoted the full rule and its context. The very first sentence describes the scenario of a viewing model, a target model, and the possibilities of intervening models.



You are failing to adhere to the switch from target model to 'a model' in the rule provided.

The rule refers to "a model" so it refers to the viewing model, the target model, and any intervening model.



We do not draw line of sight from the top of a banner.

We do not count banners when tracing line of sight through intervening models.

We do not count banners when determining if we can see a target model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please show any part of the drop pod is hull. Any of it. Show the spines have an "in game use" without using a tautology.

You are the one attempting to define the hull as being an inclusive statement. Rule support has been requested and you continue to balk and use tautology.

The only definition I find for hull happens to be in English, and not the rulebook. Not something we can normally use in YMDC, due to the tenets, but it is defined as the main body of a vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck, but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings. Doors are not considered part of a body aside from the definition you keep trying to apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Exclusive definition. It's hull until you define it isn't. Prove the spines are hull first to show your first principles definition. Then derive your exceptions.

Where does it state it is hull until you define it isn't?

Those spines (I assume these are the parts from the base to the engine between the doors and keep the engine and storm bolter up?) are part of the supporting structure of the model. That is a defining point of "body". The doors, however, are not needed for this level of integrity but serve to separate the crew from the environment and to denote entry points along the hull. Sure, an inventive builder could reverse the roles, but then you wouldn't be dropping the doors and avoiding the issue entirely.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


Two of these paragraphs that you quoted in your spoiler are specifically talking about obtaining Line of Sight TO the model. Nothing in there is defining Line of Sight THROUGH the model any more than normal. In fact, nothing in the basic rules is ever stated about things being ignored when it is blocking Line of Sight to something else.

I quoted the full rule and its context. The very first sentence describes the scenario of a viewing model, a target model, and the possibilities of intervening models.

Yes, you quoted the rule, but ignored the context in your analysis.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)

You are failing to adhere to the switch from target model to 'a model' in the rule provided.

No such switch is stated or intimated in the statement you quoted again. This whole statement is part of the introduction to Line of Sight. It describes making a direction connection from a perceiving model to a target model, and must do so through intervening models

col_impact wrote:The rule refers to "a model" so it refers to the viewing model, the target model, and any intervening model.

Spoiler:

we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.

We do not draw line of sight from the top of a banner.

We do not count banners when tracing line of sight through intervening models.

We do not count banners when determining if we can see a target model.

And you missed contextual data in the part you are talking about.

The second paragraph states:

Nothing in there about intervening models. So, we are not worrying about only the body of a model when making connections through models.

The third paragraph is:

In this paragraph, it is still talking about the bodies of models, but intervening models are not mentioned any more than the second paragraph. Visibility of an intervening model is not of a concern or mentioned, only the target's. So this paragraph does not apply to anything but the targeter and the target.

Do not continue to pick and choose statements and take them out of context to prove your statements.

No,balking. Retract.

the doors while "up" are required to maintain the crafts drop ability. Without these in place, the craft would tumble. It is as required for the functionality of the pod as the engines or stabilisers.

It's hull, up or down, and remains hull. The hull has no more in game purpose that you can point to than the doors do, hence despite asking again, you will not show your in games rules definition of hull.


The doors are functionally hull while up. So show either they stop being hull when down, or aren't hull, when up. You have yet to prove this.