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.

Someone made a comment about how a Manticore can get a 3+ cover save and had me thinking, though now I am not too sure.

Manticore is hiding behind two Leman Russ tanks. LOS can be drawn to the missiles only the front facing cannot be seen. Rulebook says if you cannot see the facing of the tank you can fire at another one you can see but the tank will get a 3+ cover save, but what if you cannot see another face and can only see the missile launchers? The missile launchers aren't a face so you're not firing at another face to give the 3+ cover save if that makes sense. But, on the other hand you cannot see the face you are shooting at.

In game we played it as 4+ cover and this issue you didn't come up, but it is food for thought. Would the Manticore get a 3+ cover save because you cannot see the front face and firing at the missiles instead which aren't a turret but a hull mounted weapon I believe.

Opinions?

I would say that tho a weapon they still count as a face of the vehicle.

also dont all units have to stay 1" apart so wouldn't there be a gap between the lemans...

Well, can you fire at a weapon?

Also, I don't think that they ever actually stipulate if it's hull mounted or turret mounted. As I recall, the FW one is on a turret.

Nothing stops the weapon being a facing. you can shoot the mount just fine.

Caledor wrote:I would say that tho a weapon they still count as a face of the vehicle.

also dont all units have to stay 1" apart so wouldn't there be a gap between the lemans...

Not sure what 1" apart has got to do with anything?

daedalus wrote:Well, can you fire at a weapon?

Also, I don't think that they ever actually stipulate if it's hull mounted or turret mounted. As I recall, the FW one is on a turret.

It is pretty obvious the G.W is not a turret

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing stops the weapon being a facing. you can shoot the mount just fine.

Right so would have been 4+ cover as we played it then.

Missiles may well be considered "gun Barrels"; and as such not targetable.

There is no minimum distance between friendly models(they may be in base contact at any time; some require it for abilities).

Turrets are a face; the facing you are in. If you can see a turret, but none of the rest of a tank; the tank gets a cover save, but it is a normal cover save(generally 4+) and you hit the turret with whatever AV you are currently "in".(BRB page 60; First sentence establishes Turret as visible targeting, Vehicle facing rules explain what they are titled as). Weapon mounts would be the exact same.

Also your concept of the "can't see the facing they are in =3+" is flawed; at the core it is correct, but what you fail to take into account is that the 3+ is granted against the facing that you CAN see.(BRB page 62, first column, last paragraph).

Mercer - I think the poster was getting confused with fantasy, where all units friend or foe have to remain 1" apart.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Missiles may well be considered "gun Barrels"; and as such not targetable.

There is no minimum distance between friendly models(they may be in base contact at any time; some require it for abilities).

Turrets are a face; the facing you are in. If you can see a turret, but none of the rest of a tank; the tank gets a cover save, but it is a normal cover save(generally 4+) and you hit the turret with whatever AV you are currently "in".(BRB page 60; First sentence establishes Turret as visible targeting, Vehicle facing rules explain what they are titled as). Weapon mounts would be the exact same.

Also your concept of the "can't see the facing they are in =3+" is flawed; at the core it is correct, but what you fail to take into account is that the 3+ is granted against the facing that you CAN see.(BRB page 62, first column, last paragraph).

So what you're saying then Kel is shouldn't have really fired at the Manticore at all as the missiles could be gun barrels?

Oh just want to point out the 3+ concept wasn't my idea it was someone elses and I thought I would check it here

The missiles themselves should probably fall under the same targeting restrictions as Gun barrels, antennae and etc. This is debatable

But if you could see any of the Rack; then the model is certainly fair game, as that is a weapon mount.

I do not own a Manticore yet otherwise I could say with certainty whether the situation is even arguable.

Decision on whether the missiles are valid for LOS is up to you and your opponents.

I personally play on a Sliding scale: If I am fielding the manticore/ any model that has questionable visibility; then the questionable bitz are visible. If my opponent is fielding the manticore/ any model that has questionable visibility; then the questionable bitz are not visible.

Some people will agree to take a 3+ save against highly obscured/debatable targets. The rule that explicitly grants a 3+ save for when you are in say the front facing but can only see and shoot at the side is different.


From the pictures in your battle report I think you played it correctly Mercer, the missile rack was visible from the other side of the board as far as I could tell.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of a few things.

1.) Are the missiles targetable? If so what facing do they count as.
2.) If the shooter can't get LOS to the side facing him he can shoot at another side he does have LOS to, but grants a 3+ coversave.

If the missiles are targetabe and count as the front side of the vehicle then you are looking at reverting to the 4+ coversave for 50% being obscured.
If they aren't targetable, and the shooter has LOS to another side, then 3+.
If they aren't targetable, and the shoot has NO LOS to another side, then automiss.

Considering the model, Id rule that the missiles are targetable and count as the same side as whatever arc is facing the model.
I.E. you can shoot the missiles from the rear and still get rear armor value.

I think everyone is right. It comes down to what you count the missiles as. We count them as shootable as you could fire at the rockets and they blow up the tank because of the payload etc etc. With a gun it would be different.

If you say the missiles are not targetable then the Manticore cannot be shot at hardly if the front armour and side armour was covered.