32263
Post by: syypher
Situation:
You have a Predator DIRECTLY in front of a Razorback. The enemy is in the front facing of the Predator so he can only see the turret of the razorback. Like below:
E (enemy Dreadnought)
P (Predator)
R (Razorback)
What save would you get from this? They can't see the front nor the side facings. They can however see your turret. Would this grant a 3+ or 4+ cover save? Why?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I would give it a 3+ cover save because of the vehicle cover rules on p.6.
If the entire facing side is obscured, the save is 3+. I count the turret as part of the roof.
Then I would blow up the Predator.
25703
Post by: juraigamer
Don't you ignore the turret in terms of what is the hull of the vehcile?
Either way, as the rulebook states, if the side facing you is completely hidden, and you can see another part, the cover save is improved +1
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
You can see the front of the vehicle since you can see the front of the razorback's turret. (which is a 4+ cover save)
See this thread for the same discussion of a Manticore.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/369941.page#2823018
28669
Post by: Pedro Kantor
juraigamer wrote:Don't you ignore the turret in terms of what is the hull of the vehcile?
Either way, as the rulebook states, if the side facing you is completely hidden, and you can see another part, the cover save is improved +1
I would go with this for a 3+ cover. 
32263
Post by: syypher
Still no clear answer as far as from the rulebook. Anyone?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
The answer is clear, if you look at P.60, and P.62
you only use the 3+ cover save if you can not see any part of the hull or turret of the facing you are in. [P.62][P.60]
The dread was in the front facing, The dread could see the turret. The vehicle was 50% or more obscured so it gets a 4+ cover save.
you only get a 3+ cover if you can not see the facing you are in. Remember that as per P.60, you ignore gun barrels, but you do not ignore turrets. So if you can see the turret you have a shot at the front of the vehicle and you only get a 4+ cover for being 50% or more covered as detailed in the situation given in the original post.
37728
Post by: IdentifyZero
DeathReaper wrote:The dread was in the front facing, The dread could see the turret. The vehicle was 50% or more obscured so it gets a 4+ cover save.
you only get a 3+ cover if you can not see the facing you are in. Remember that as per P.60, you ignore gun barrels, but you do not ignore turrets. So if you can see the turret you have a shot at the front of the vehicle and you only get a 4+ cover for being 50% or more covered as detailed in the situation given in the original post.
It's 3+ as not only is more then 50% of the vehicle obscured, the shot takes it through an intervening model which is in the way.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
IdentifyZero wrote:DeathReaper wrote:The dread was in the front facing, The dread could see the turret. The vehicle was 50% or more obscured so it gets a 4+ cover save.
you only get a 3+ cover if you can not see the facing you are in. Remember that as per P.60, you ignore gun barrels, but you do not ignore turrets. So if you can see the turret you have a shot at the front of the vehicle and you only get a 4+ cover for being 50% or more covered as detailed in the situation given in the original post.
It's 3+ as not only is more then 50% of the vehicle obscured, the shot takes it through an intervening model which is in the way.
Please re-read Page 62, Left Column, last paragraph.
It clearly states that you only get the 3+ if you can not see any of the facing you are in. Then, and only then, can you shoot at a different facing, but the vehicle will receive a 3+ cover save.
A vehicle can be 99.999,999,999,999,999,999,999% out of LoS, but since the firing unit has LoS, because it can see .000000000000000000001% of the vehicle.
If 50% or more of the vehicle is out of LoS then the vehicle receives a 4+ cover save for being obscured by intervening models.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You are assuming that the turret is part of the facing. That isn't what the rule says. The rule is ambiguous with regards to turrets.
The Razorback turret isn't actually a turret.
What if the turret were facing a different direction?
I suspect a Predator in front of a Razorback would completely block LoS.
32263
Post by: syypher
Kilkrazy wrote:You are assuming that the turret is part of the facing. That isn't what the rule says. The rule is ambiguous with regards to turrets.
The Razorback turret isn't actually a turret.
What if the turret were facing a different direction?
I suspect a Predator in front of a Razorback would completely block LoS.
This pretty much. Just like my diagram in my original post is what I am talking about. It does not assume the turret is a facing. However I'm sure you can shoot at the RB because of the Dread can see the Turret and not just the barrels. Now then since the "facing" which I am ASSUMING is just the body front facing is completely blocked, it is a 3+ save. However I am unsure if this is right since I don't know what the turret counts for as far as this ruling goes and would like any clarification, even if I'm wrong.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
There is no "roof" facing; see the diagrams.
If you can see a roof mounted turret the vehicle can never get a 3+ save, as you will always be able to see part of that facig
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Kilkrazy wrote:You are assuming that the turret is part of the facing. That isn't what the rule says. The rule is ambiguous with regards to turrets.
The Razorback turret isn't actually a turret.
What if the turret were facing a different direction?
I suspect a Predator in front of a Razorback would completely block LoS.
The razorback turret is a turret, albeit a smaller one than other vehicles such as a predator.
The way a turret is facing has not bearing on what facing you shoot.
If you can see the turret or hull you can see the vehicle. as per P.60. So you hit the facing you are in if you can see a turret.
The only time you get a 3+ cover save is if you can not see the facing you are in, and can only see a different facing.
37728
Post by: IdentifyZero
DeathReaper wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:You are assuming that the turret is part of the facing. That isn't what the rule says. The rule is ambiguous with regards to turrets.
The Razorback turret isn't actually a turret.
What if the turret were facing a different direction?
I suspect a Predator in front of a Razorback would completely block LoS.
The razorback turret is a turret, albeit a smaller one than other vehicles such as a predator.
The way a turret is facing has not bearing on what facing you shoot.
If you can see the turret or hull you can see the vehicle. as per P.60. So you hit the facing you are in if you can see a turret.
The only time you get a 3+ cover save is if you can not see the facing you are in, and can only see a different facing.
That's the problem, turrets are never described as any particular facing of the vehicle. They don't have an armor value. I guess you would say, because you can see the pintle mounted gunner, you have a perfect shot to the vehicle as well??
963
Post by: Mannahnin
What part of the vehicle the turret is is irrelevant. Facing is based on the position of the firing model relative to the four quadrants of the vehicle as shown in the diagram.
I agree with Deathreaper, Nosferatu1001, and calypso.
18567
Post by: CadianXV
I'm a bit confused as to the explanation for when you receive a 3+ save.
As I understand it, the save is received if you cannot see the hull of the quadrant you are in. The issue I have is this- surely that would simply mean you couldn't fire, as you lacked line of sight? How would you see another part? Perhaps if a searchlight, pintle mounted weapon or antennae can be seen is what I'm thinking, but would like confirmation. If this is the case, the issue is if a Razorback's turret is the same class as these.
I would argue in favour of the 3+ save.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
IdentifyZero wrote:That's the problem, turrets are never described as any particular facing of the vehicle. They don't have an armor value. I guess you would say, because you can see the pintle mounted gunner, you have a perfect shot to the vehicle as well??
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles. So if you can see the turret from the facing you are in, you can shoot at the facing you are in. Turrets don't have an armor value because they are identical to hull for determining LoS. @CadianXV: What the rules are describing is lets say that when a rhino is fully behind a wall, but at the end of said wall, that is, say six inches high. And lets say a unit is firing at the rhino from the front facing, but it can not see the front at all due to the high wall, but they can see the side of the rhino because the rhino is parked at the end of said wall. In this case the firing unit can not see the front facing which is the facing they are firing from, but can see the side facing. In that case the rhino will receive a 3+ cover save.
32263
Post by: syypher
DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.
Where is this in the rulebook?
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
Go to the thread I linked or page 60 of the brb in the first sentence.
37728
Post by: IdentifyZero
calypso2ts wrote:Go to the thread I linked or page 60 of the brb in the first sentence.
On page 62 under Vehicles nd Cover - Obscured Targets. Go to the very bottom.
The turret does count as part of the vehicle to target, sure. It isn't specified as a specific facing though, therefore: it still receives a 3+ save as they are not really shooting at a visible facing of the vehicle, which means they are shooting at another facing of the target vehicle based on that slim bit of visibility.
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
IdentifyZero wrote:
On page 62 under Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets. Go to the very bottom.
Yes I know this rule, this rule is for when you cannot see anything in a particular armor facing.
IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret does count as part of the vehicle to target, sure. It isn't specified as a specific facing though, therefore: it still receives a 3+ save as they are not really shooting at a visible facing of the vehicle, which means they are shooting at another facing of the target vehicle based on that slim bit of visibility.
Now we are making up rules. Lets actually apply the real rules, rather than the idea that if a facing isn't specified then it is a 3+...The rule on page 62 actually states..."it may happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in ...may take a shot against the facing they can see"
Ok cool, I will shoot at the turrets facing, what facing is it? Wait, you answered this one...
IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though
Wait, what it the armor value of the turret if it has no facing...well looks like your interpretation broke the game, we better make up some random rules to fix it, I propose we give the unit a 4+ cover save on the front facing which is coincidentally the same thing you get when you apply the actual game rules.
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
Oh for crying out oud people! IF the vehicle is obscured by more than 50%, it is a 3+ cover. If you start having to use micrometers and calipers to determine this, than you may be playing the wrong game...
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Oh for crying out oud people! IF the vehicle is obscured by more than 50%, it is a 3+ cover. If you start having to use micrometers and calipers to determine this, than you may be playing the wrong game...
err, you sure you didn't typo this one...? Obscured base save is 4+...
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
yeah, I did... I was getting too annoyed with this already to proof read...
41879
Post by: Sabet
its a 3+ save, but it counts as shooting your side armour (rulebook states, can't remeber where though, i think in ordnance, that the roof is classified as the same armour as the side)
15948
Post by: VoxDei
Sabet wrote:its a 3+ save, but it counts as shooting your side armour (rulebook states, can't remeber where though, i think in ordnance, that the roof is classified as the same armour as the side)
That rule is only for ordinance barrages when they directly hit.
2515
Post by: augustus5
syypher wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.
Where is this in the rulebook?
How are you determining that the turret isn't part of the hull? The whole turret isn't the weapon. Some turrets have multiple weapons mounted on them. The turret is part of a vehicle's hull. Show me where the rulebook states that turrets are not part of a vehicle's hull. This is the same silly argument made over and over again by people with Valkyries claiming that their wings were not part of the hull.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
augustus5 wrote:syypher wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.
Where is this in the rulebook?
How are you determining that the turret isn't part of the hull? The whole turret isn't the weapon. Some turrets have multiple weapons mounted on them. The turret is part of a vehicle's hull. Show me where the rulebook states that turrets are not part of a vehicle's hull. This is the same silly argument made over and over again by people with Valkyries claiming that their wings were not part of the hull.
augustus5 wrote:syypher wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.
Where is this in the rulebook?
How are you determining that the turret isn't part of the hull? The whole turret isn't the weapon. Some turrets have multiple weapons mounted on them. The turret is part of a vehicle's hull. Show me where the rulebook states that turrets are not part of a vehicle's hull. This is the same silly argument made over and over again by people with Valkyries claiming that their wings were not part of the hull.
I dont think that he ment that the turrent is not part of the hull but more like not part of any hull quadrent/facing i still think you get a shoot but its a 3+ because you cant see the hull facing your in it would be like if i was in front arc of a LR but all i can see sticking out of cover is the side sponson
15948
Post by: VoxDei
Bishop99 wrote:
I dont think that he ment that the turrent is not part of the hull but more like not part of any hull quadrent/facing i still think you get a shoot but its a 3+ because you cant see the hull facing your in it would be like if i was in front arc of a LR but all i can see sticking out of cover is the side sponson
Except that's not the rule. You only get a 3+ if you can't see the quadrant your facing but you can see one of the other quadrants. Page 60 shows you a diagram of the quadrants. And the only quadrant he can see is the front facing. It doesn't matter which direction the turret is facing it's still the front quadrant because you are in front of the vehicle.
32263
Post by: syypher
augustus5 wrote:syypher wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.
Where is this in the rulebook?
How are you determining that the turret isn't part of the hull?
Umm...no? I'm not arguing that it is or that it isn't. I'm just wanting some concrete example on where on the book it says that, that's it. NOT siding with one side or the other. augustus5 wrote:syypher wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.
Where is this in the rulebook?
The whole turret isn't the weapon. Some turrets have multiple weapons mounted on them. The turret is part of a vehicle's hull. Show me where the rulebook states that turrets are not part of a vehicle's hull.
Dumb "counter-argument" to something I am not even arguing over. I just want facts, I am not even siding with any side. If you want me to play this game of "show me where" then I ask you "show me where" the rulebook states the turret is officially part of the hull? I am unaware of a part in the rulebook where it states that the turret should be counted as a hull side. Now correct me if I am wrong, that is fine! I have no problems with being wrong. I just want to know if I am wrong, or how I should interpret this. Hence I asked this question here, but with all the pages I have read people have posted there is still no concrete RAI or RAW that explains it clearly. I want to feel comfortable with taking whichever save for my vehicles in my given situation. I'm not sure which facing or quadrant it is in or whether it counts as what facing... augustus5 wrote:syypher wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.
Where is this in the rulebook?
This is the same silly argument made over and over again by people with Valkyries claiming that their wings were not part of the hull.
No that's just people trying to cheat and be dumb. This is a legit question as it is a turret. I play IG as my second army to SM's and I always count wings as part of the hull. I don't even see how they can argue that they are not. Anyways let's not talk about that anymore...back to my turret question...
24346
Post by: Bishop99
VoxDei wrote:Bishop99 wrote:
I dont think that he ment that the turrent is not part of the hull but more like not part of any hull quadrent/facing i still think you get a shoot but its a 3+ because you cant see the hull facing your in it would be like if i was in front arc of a LR but all i can see sticking out of cover is the side sponson
Except that's not the rule. You only get a 3+ if you can't see the quadrant your facing but you can see one of the other quadrants. Page 60 shows you a diagram of the quadrants. And the only quadrant he can see is the front facing. It doesn't matter which direction the turret is facing it's still the front quadrant because you are in front of the vehicle.
and what im saying is that the turrent isnt in the front Quad. there is no rule that says it is the only things shown in the BRB is the four acctual sides of the tank turrents are not specified as a specific quadrent
32263
Post by: syypher
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VoxDei wrote:Bishop99 wrote:
I dont think that he ment that the turrent is not part of the hull but more like not part of any hull quadrent/facing i still think you get a shoot but its a 3+ because you cant see the hull facing your in it would be like if i was in front arc of a LR but all i can see sticking out of cover is the side sponson
Except that's not the rule. You only get a 3+ if you can't see the quadrant your facing but you can see one of the other quadrants. Page 60 shows you a diagram of the quadrants. And the only quadrant he can see is the front facing. It doesn't matter which direction the turret is facing it's still the front quadrant because you are in front of the vehicle.
Still not 100% clarified on this. Why does it not matter which side the turret is facing? If you look at the picture on p60 as you point out the turret is also "divided" into quadrants as the line is drawn across. Does that make the turret have quadrants? I don't know...but what your saying doesn't make anything concrete and as far as I know, I CAN BE WRONG, nothing in the book says the turret is always the facing of wherever you are shooting from. So it's not that concrete as your making out to be..
15948
Post by: VoxDei
Page 60. Shooting at vehicles. "must be able to see its hull or turret" Gun barrels are an exception. But direction of line of sight are determined by the quadrants and the turret is not given any exception in that. Automatically Appended Next Post: syypher wrote:
Still not 100% clarified on this. Why does it not matter which side the turret is facing? If you look at the picture on p60 as you point out the turret is also "divided" into quadrants as the line is drawn across. Does that make the turret have quadrants? I don't know...but what your saying doesn't make anything concrete and as far as I know, I CAN BE WRONG, nothing in the book says the turret is always the facing of wherever you are shooting from. So it's not that concrete as your making out to be..
Super simple. Using the 4 quadrants shown on the picture which quadrant can you see? I'll give you a hint. The answer is the front. the picture on page 60 is very plain. The turret doesn't have it's own quadrants in the picture. There is only one set of lines drawn. You have one vehicle with one set of quadrants. no other options.
32263
Post by: syypher
VoxDei wrote:Page 60. Shooting at vehicles. "must be able to see its hull or turret" Gun barrels are an exception. But direction of line of sight are determined by the quadrants and the turret is not given any exception in that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
syypher wrote:
Still not 100% clarified on this. Why does it not matter which side the turret is facing? If you look at the picture on p60 as you point out the turret is also "divided" into quadrants as the line is drawn across. Does that make the turret have quadrants? I don't know...but what your saying doesn't make anything concrete and as far as I know, I CAN BE WRONG, nothing in the book says the turret is always the facing of wherever you are shooting from. So it's not that concrete as your making out to be..
Super simple. Using the 4 quadrants shown on the picture which quadrant can you see? I'll give you a hint. The answer is the front. the picture on page 60 is very plain. The turret doesn't have it's own quadrants in the picture. There is only one set of lines drawn. You have one vehicle with one set of quadrants. no other options.
Don't need to be cheeky about it. I ask a question and am still confused about it because there is no clear cut "super simple" way to look at it the way you are saying it. If your getting frustrated by it or are going to give attitude about it to someone who is asking a question and is NOT DISAGREEING with you just seeking clarification then please just don't answer?
It is clear that the turret is not "one of the quadrants" of the hull. What I see is the hull is divided into 4 quadrants, if were doing it your way and saying the picture if simple so don't count the turret being a divided turret. I don't think the only side I see is the front facing because to me the facing are the hulls. Hence I am saying I cant see it. You are saying the turret is simply the front facing, how are you coming about that? How are you coming about that what I am seeing the front quadrant? By all means if you want to continue please explain. I don't understand how you guys are coming up with the "front facing hull" as designated in the picture on p60 is what I can see, when I can't even see it because something is in the way. Unless you are saying the turret is the front facing, in which case I have been asking how do you come about with the turret being part of the front facing?
I am not trying to be rude and you may think it "super simple" but to me it is not. If you are actually reading and trying to understand what I am asking then you are not answering my question. Sorry.
15948
Post by: VoxDei
It doesn't matter which quadrant the turret is it. It only matters which quadrant the firer is in. You draw a line of sight from the firing model to the target. It will run straight down the middle of the tank and hit the turret. Thats the front. It doesn't matter if the turret isn't in the front quadrant just that the line of sight is. In order to hit the side quadrant the line of sight has to come from the side quadrant. Pg 60 "...depending on which facing the shot comes from"
Edit: Adding page number for clarity
24346
Post by: Bishop99
VoxDei wrote:It doesn't matter which quadrant the turret is it. It only matters which quadrant the firer is in. You draw a line of sight from the firing model to the target. It will run straight down the middle of the tank and hit the turret. Thats the front. It doesn't matter if the turret isn't in the front quadrant just that the line of sight is. In order to hit the side quadrant the line of sight has to come from the side quadrant. "...depending on which facing the shot comes from"
but thats doesnt answer the question of if its a 3+ or a 4+ if los is not draw to the forward quadrent but through the forward i think its a 3+
15948
Post by: VoxDei
You can't see any other quadrants because the vehicle is directly facing the firer (I just went back and read the OP and i realize this wasn't stated but it's what i understood from the message. If the razorback isn't directly facing the dread then all bets are off are short of being there and even then you may end up just dicing off).
32263
Post by: syypher
No your right. It's just as I put in my diagram. The RB is directly behind the Predator. You can only see the turret and the front of the Pred.
VoxDei wrote: In order to hit the side quadrant the line of sight has to come from the side quadrant. Pg 60 "...depending on which facing the shot comes from"
Edit: Adding page number for clarity
But page 63 talks about exactly what your saying you can't do. Your saying you cant draw LOS to side because you have to be in that quadrant. In p63 it says when your in a quadrant, but cannot see that facing of the vehicle and see another facing, you can still shoot but gain a 3+.
Still confused since there are both logical arguments yet neither is concrete yet
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Syypher, here is the easiest way I have found to do it.
For the front facing on a razorback, get down at table level and look at an unobstructed vehicle, look at it from dead center so you can not see the sides.
Anything you see is the front facing of said vehicle, turret and all.
In your case you could see the front of the turret (Which you can see if you look at the razorback as I have described)
Turret and Hull are Identical [P.60] as far as LoS is concerned, so you are shooting at the front in the case you described, and the vehicle can claim a 4+ cover save.
2515
Post by: augustus5
VoxDei wrote:Page 60. Shooting at vehicles. "must be able to see its hull or turret" Gun barrels are an exception. But direction of line of sight are determined by the quadrants and the turret is not given any exception in that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
syypher wrote:
Still not 100% clarified on this. Why does it not matter which side the turret is facing? If you look at the picture on p60 as you point out the turret is also "divided" into quadrants as the line is drawn across. Does that make the turret have quadrants? I don't know...but what your saying doesn't make anything concrete and as far as I know, I CAN BE WRONG, nothing in the book says the turret is always the facing of wherever you are shooting from. So it's not that concrete as your making out to be..
Super simple. Using the 4 quadrants shown on the picture which quadrant can you see? I'll give you a hint. The answer is the front. the picture on page 60 is very plain. The turret doesn't have it's own quadrants in the picture. There is only one set of lines drawn. You have one vehicle with one set of quadrants. no other options.
+1
30167
Post by: BoyMac
VoxDei wrote:Bishop99 wrote:
I dont think that he ment that the turrent is not part of the hull but more like not part of any hull quadrent/facing i still think you get a shoot but its a 3+ because you cant see the hull facing your in it would be like if i was in front arc of a LR but all i can see sticking out of cover is the side sponson
Except that's not the rule. You only get a 3+ if you can't see the quadrant your facing but you can see one of the other quadrants. Page 60 shows you a diagram of the quadrants. And the only quadrant he can see is the front facing. It doesn't matter which direction the turret is facing it's still the front quadrant because you are in front of the vehicle.
By using the same diagram couldn't you put the front arc of the turret facing the back so that when they shoot your at your rear and all they see is the turret they would count as hitting the front armour?
2515
Post by: augustus5
BoyMac wrote:VoxDei wrote:Bishop99 wrote:
I dont think that he ment that the turrent is not part of the hull but more like not part of any hull quadrent/facing i still think you get a shoot but its a 3+ because you cant see the hull facing your in it would be like if i was in front arc of a LR but all i can see sticking out of cover is the side sponson
Except that's not the rule. You only get a 3+ if you can't see the quadrant your facing but you can see one of the other quadrants. Page 60 shows you a diagram of the quadrants. And the only quadrant he can see is the front facing. It doesn't matter which direction the turret is facing it's still the front quadrant because you are in front of the vehicle.
By using the same diagram couldn't you put the front arc of the turret facing the back so that when they shoot your at your rear and all they see is the turret they would count as hitting the front armour?
No, all that counts is the facing of the firer in relation to the vehicle. Good try though. I'd get a good laugh in if somebody tried to pull that on me in a game.
24150
Post by: ChocolateGork
Mannahnin wrote:What part of the vehicle the turret is is irrelevant. Facing is based on the position of the firing model relative to the four quadrants of the vehicle as shown in the diagram.
I agree with Deathreaper, Nosferatu1001, and calypso.
This
24346
Post by: Bishop99
ChocolateGork wrote:Mannahnin wrote:What part of the vehicle the turret is is irrelevant. Facing is based on the position of the firing model relative to the four quadrants of the vehicle as shown in the diagram.
I agree with Deathreaper, Nosferatu1001, and calypso.
This
I dont think that the issue is faceing i think the debate is over if the faceing is covered by the preditor
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
ChocolateGork wrote:Mannahnin wrote:What part of the vehicle the turret is is irrelevant. Facing is based on the position of the firing model relative to the four quadrants of the vehicle as shown in the diagram.
I agree with Deathreaper, Nosferatu1001, and calypso.
This
Nah Brah, I'm totally going to shoot the rear armour of your turret as you're not allowed to rotate it during my shooting phase.
Again see the amazingly well detailed and thought-out diagram on page 60, sure it doesn't take into account to rare case of non-rectangular vehicles...
19754
Post by: puma713
VoxDei wrote:It doesn't matter which quadrant the turret is it. It only matters which quadrant the firer is in.
Had an IG player try to pull this rule on me when I was shooting his Hydras. Four huge autocannon barrels + large block turret standing well above his covering chimera and he was claiming I couldn't see his front facing. 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The quadrant the firer is in is not the only consideration for purposes of obscurement. What matters is which quadrant of the target he can see. If the firer is in the front quadrant but can't see it, he may be able to see the side quadrant.
That is the situation in which you get the 3+ cover save.
The diagram showing the division into four parts by diagonals, makes it clear that the roof is divided into four facings which count as the sides. If the attacker cannot see the front of the vehicle, its roof or turret, but could see the side of the roof or turret -- which counts as the left facing -- then the vehicle gets a 3+ cover save.
This could happen in the example give if the attacking unit was slightly higher compared to the target, because the hull and turret of the Predator might totally obscure the front facing of the target.
If the attacking unit was slightly lower or even on the same level he probably wouldn't be able to see the target at all, because the Predator is larger and closer to the firer.
If the target had sponsons it would be possible to see those from the same or lower level. They count as being in the side quadrants even when viewed from in front.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
For clarification:
The battlewagon is basically a long box and can mount a big gun/killkannon turret both on the driver compartment or above the rear passenger platform. If you mount it above the driver's compartment, it would always be considered front facing, if you mount it in the back, it would always be the rear facing, even if perfectly visible from the front.
35132
Post by: Smitty0305
If the entire facing from the arch your firing from is obscured, its a 3+ from what I understand.
27025
Post by: lunarman
I'm pretty sure this is how you get 3+ cover for vehicles
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Also pretty right 
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
You have too many Long Fangs in your squad...just saying 
18567
Post by: CadianXV
lunarman wrote:Diagram
Excellent- very clear. Thank you.
37728
Post by: IdentifyZero
calypso2ts wrote:IdentifyZero wrote:
On page 62 under Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets. Go to the very bottom.
Yes I know this rule, this rule is for when you cannot see anything in a particular armor facing.
IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret does count as part of the vehicle to target, sure. It isn't specified as a specific facing though, therefore: it still receives a 3+ save as they are not really shooting at a visible facing of the vehicle, which means they are shooting at another facing of the target vehicle based on that slim bit of visibility.
Now we are making up rules. Lets actually apply the real rules, rather than the idea that if a facing isn't specified then it is a 3+...The rule on page 62 actually states..."it may happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in ...may take a shot against the facing they can see"
Ok cool, I will shoot at the turrets facing, what facing is it? Wait, you answered this one...
IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though
Wait, what it the armor value of the turret if it has no facing...well looks like your interpretation broke the game, we better make up some random rules to fix it, I propose we give the unit a 4+ cover save on the front facing which is coincidentally the same thing you get when you apply the actual game rules.
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor. In this case, they are taking a shot at a part of the vehicle they can technically not see and is more then 50% obscured.
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.
Check & Mate.
** Page 60. Shooting at Vehicles **
"When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (Ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)." All that is visible behind the predator is the gun barrels. 
39309
Post by: Jidmah
There is no "top" facing, just a rule for barrage weapons being resolved against side armor with a fluff explanation(BRB pg. 60).
The razorback's turret should be in the rear facing.
37728
Post by: IdentifyZero
Jidmah wrote:There is no "top" facing, just a rule for barrage weapons being resolved against side armor with a fluff explanation(BRB pg. 60).
The razorback's turret should be in the rear facing.
Either way, if you recreate this diagram; you can only see gun barrels of the razorback. Which according to the rules, is not good enough.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Yup, agree.
15948
Post by: VoxDei
IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor. In this case, they are taking a shot at a part of the vehicle they can technically not see and is more then 50% obscured.
It is only counted as 'top' armour aka side if it's a barrage weapon and the hole of the template lands on the vehicle. 50% obscured is 4+ cover save. less than 50% Obscured is no cover.
IdentifyZero wrote:
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.
If this is true and the gun barrel is the only part that you can see then there is no LOS and shot auto misses and the whole thread is moot
39309
Post by: Jidmah
He is referring to the diagram above. In this case the turret would be out of LoS for the long fangs, and thus the entire facing would be hidden, granting a 3+ cover save against them, because they can see the front facing.
But as the gun barrels do not count the razorback's turret is in the rear facing anyway, so even if the could see it above the build, their facing is still hidden.
37728
Post by: IdentifyZero
VoxDei wrote:IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor. In this case, they are taking a shot at a part of the vehicle they can technically not see and is more then 50% obscured.
It is only counted as 'top' armour aka side if it's a barrage weapon and the hole of the template lands on the vehicle. 50% obscured is 4+ cover save. less than 50% Obscured is no cover.
IdentifyZero wrote:
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.
If this is true and the gun barrel is the only part that you can see then there is no LOS and shot auto misses and the whole thread is moot
That to, but I would allow someone to fire in such a situation with a 3+ save. Representing, the visibility is firing against a part of the hull that is not visible (I.E firing the shots on an angle with the turrets gun barrels as a guide).
Either way, it's a 3+ save or no shot at all.
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
At least you replaced this ridiculous statement...
IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though
with this one...
IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor.
This would be great other than the fact this rule actually says "Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle's side armour (representing its top armor)." (pp60) Which is not a blanket statement that the top is the same as the side, it just says barrage weapons hit the side. Does the turret have a rule that states it counts as the side armor as well? Please show me what page that is on.
IdentifyZero wrote:
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.
Funny, I see two of them made up in the post above - first the turret having not facing and then the turret counting as the side. Look at the diagram, it is a 2-d plane and the vehicle even has a turret as part of the front facing in the picture!
IdentifyZero wrote:
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.
Okay so I guess we are conceding the idea of a 3+ save completely now and moving onto another topic. We agree then, if you can see the turret then you can fire at that armor facing with a 4+ save.
Now onto our new topic, see the manticore thread I linked before, if you can only see the gun barrel itself, then there are no cover saves because your opponent cannot draw LoS to the vehicle. I do not think I ever stated otherwise.
2515
Post by: augustus5
IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor. In this case, they are taking a shot at a part of the vehicle they can technically not see and is more then 50% obscured.
Top of the vehicle counts as side armor? So how do you shoot at the top of a vehicle exactly? You claim that others are making up rules but this one takes the cake. Check and Mate? Hardly. Go back to the drawing board. If you take a look at lunarman's diagram, he shows exactly how a 3+ save is given to a vehicle. It's when the facing of the vehicle that the firer is in is completely obscured but the firer can see a part of the vehicle outside of his facing.
So if I am in the front facing of a Razorback, and it is almost completely covered by a Predator so that all I can see is the turret above the Predator, no matter how little of the turret I can see, the Razorback only get a 4+ save.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
calypso2ts wrote:At least you replaced this ridiculous statement...
IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though
with this one...
IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor.
This would be great other than the fact this rule actually says "Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle's side armour (representing its top armor)." (pp60) Which is not a blanket statement that the top is the same as the side, it just says barrage weapons hit the side. Does the turret have a rule that states it counts as the side armor as well? Please show me what page that is on.
IdentifyZero wrote:
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.
Funny, I see two of them made up in the post above - first the turret having not facing and then the turret counting as the side. Look at the diagram, it is a 2-d plane and the vehicle even has a turret as part of the front facing in the picture!
IdentifyZero wrote:
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.
Okay so I guess we are conceding the idea of a 3+ save completely now and moving onto another topic. We agree then, if you can see the turret then you can fire at that armor facing with a 4+ save.
Now onto our new topic, see the manticore thread I linked before, if you can only see the gun barrel itself, then there are no cover saves because your opponent cannot draw LoS to the vehicle. I do not think I ever stated otherwise.
we are not concedeing the 3+ cause in the this case the shooter is in the forward arch and if you go buy the diagram that shows the achs on the vehical a razorback turrent in in the back firing arch so the shooter cannot see anything in the arch he is in but can see somting of another arch making it a 3+ save
2515
Post by: augustus5
Bishop99 wrote:calypso2ts wrote:At least you replaced this ridiculous statement... IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though
with this one... IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor.
This would be great other than the fact this rule actually says "Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle's side armour (representing its top armor)." (pp60) Which is not a blanket statement that the top is the same as the side, it just says barrage weapons hit the side. Does the turret have a rule that states it counts as the side armor as well? Please show me what page that is on. IdentifyZero wrote:
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.
Funny, I see two of them made up in the post above - first the turret having not facing and then the turret counting as the side. Look at the diagram, it is a 2-d plane and the vehicle even has a turret as part of the front facing in the picture! IdentifyZero wrote:
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.
Okay so I guess we are conceding the idea of a 3+ save completely now and moving onto another topic. We agree then, if you can see the turret then you can fire at that armor facing with a 4+ save. Now onto our new topic, see the manticore thread I linked before, if you can only see the gun barrel itself, then there are no cover saves because your opponent cannot draw LoS to the vehicle. I do not think I ever stated otherwise.
we are not concedeing the 3+ cause in the this case the shooter is in the forward arch and if you go buy the diagram that shows the achs on the vehical a razorback turrent in in the back firing arch so the shooter cannot see anything in the arch he is in but can see somting of another arch making it a 3+ save
This just keeps getting deeper and deeper. So by your understanding, the turret of a razorback is always considered rear armor, no matter from what angle you shoot at it, since it appears on the back of the vehicle? Is this really what you are trying to propose? The lines in the diagram on page 60 of the BGB are drawn to show what facing the firer is in. If the firer is standing in the front arc and can see any of the front facing (and the turret has a front facing just as it has a side and rear facing dependent upon where the firer is standing, not dependent upon how the turret is turned) but the model is over 50% concealed then it gets a 4+ cover save. In order to get the 3+ the firer would have to be standing in one facing and the model be completely obscured from that angle, but the firer can still see part of another facing that he is not standing in. Again, reference lunarman's diagram in this thread as an example of how a 3+ vehicle save works.
32263
Post by: syypher
augustus5 wrote:IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor. In this case, they are taking a shot at a part of the vehicle they can technically not see and is more then 50% obscured.
Top of the vehicle counts as side armor? So how do you shoot at the top of a vehicle exactly? You claim that others are making up rules but this one takes the cake. Check and Mate? Hardly. Go back to the drawing board. If you take a look at lunarman's diagram, he shows exactly how a 3+ save is given to a vehicle. It's when the facing of the vehicle that the firer is in is completely obscured but the firer can see a part of the vehicle outside of his facing. So if I am in the front facing of a Razorback, and it is almost completely covered by a Predator so that all I can see is the turret above the Predator, no matter how little of the turret I can see, the Razorback only get a 4+ save.
We are not conceding this yet. I put the models on the table again and you CAN see part of the turret. Yes most of it you can see the barrels which don't count but you can see a part of the turret over the Predator so... Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle? See the reason I don't get it is because I dont see anywhere that it says or even implies that the turret will be determined facing whatever direction the firer is facing. Here are the specific rulings backing up why I am still confused. Please understand I am not disagreeing with anyone just not seeing anything clear cut and dry that will allow me to be comfortable explaining this to the people at my LFGS as well. I appreciate all the time and effort you guys are putting into trying to resolve this. I also believe the word "facing," "quadrant," "sector," and like words are getting mixed up between people debating back and forth. On p.60 it says "Armour Values for individual vehicles also vary depending on which facing the vehicle the shot comes from - its front, sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram." -This helps explain what a facing of a vehicle is. Clearly in the diagram the vehicle has 4 FACINGS. A Facing = front, side, rear. Each facing can be seen as having its section called a "quadrant." The entire "triangle" section of the picture for the front armor facing can be considered the front armor "quadrant." On p.62 it says "..but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they can may take the shot against the facing they can see" (this is in the 3+ save section) -Ok the above page was for clarification that we are on the same page. Now this is where it gets confusing. If you look at my situation (re-created it below) you will see that the RB is directly behind the Predator. Purposely done so you cannot see the hull and the enemy shooting can only see the turret on top. In my situation I gave everyone can agree that yes you can still fire at the razorback, correct? Yes. So based on the above quoted ruling it says if they can still see another facing of the target vehicle they can take the shot. Correct? Yes. So in order for the turret to count as being able to be shot at then that mean it should have some type of facing based on the rule above? Correct? Not necessarily. Because of the below... On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..." -So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at. Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why? You can't simply say you firing from the front "quadrant" thus you are firing at the front "facing" and you give it a 4+ cover save. Why? Because the 3+ cover save rule on p.62 bypasses this. It allows you to now fire at other "facings" even if your in the same "quadrant." (Allowing a 3+ cover save ofcourse) So we can all agree the enemy firer is in the front "quadrant" based on my situation I am putting forward. Now...the question is which facing is a turret considered when determining which save to use? That is the best way I can explain my predicament. Please read it thoroughly. Thanks again for all your guys help and patience. E (enemy Dreadnought) P (Predator) R (Razorback)
24346
Post by: Bishop99
The lines in the diagram on page 60 of the BGB are drawn to show what facing the firer is in. If the firer is standing in the front arc and can see any of the front facing (and the turret has a front facing just as it has a side and rear facing dependent upon where the firer is standing) but the model is over 50% concealed then it gets a 4+ cover save.
In order to get the 3+ the firer would have to be standing in one facing and the model be completely obscured from that angle, but the firer can still see part of another facing that he is not standing in. Again, reference lunarman's diagram in this thread as an example of how a 3+ vehicle save works.
on a normal turrent you would be correct because a normal turrent is in the center of the hull of a vehical. however on a razorback it is located on the back of the tank so its in the back fireing arch, if you where trying to fire at a preditor then yes the turrent is in all four archs.
but if you super impose that same diagram on a razorback you will see that the turrent is only in the back arch
8471
Post by: olympia
As others have said, in the case described in the OP the target would receive a 4+ cover save.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
augustus5 wrote:This just keeps getting deeper and deeper. So by your understanding, the turret of a razorback is always considered rear armor, no matter from what angle you shoot at it, since it appears on the back of the vehicle? Is this really what you are trying to propose?
Yes, that's what the rules say.
The lines in the diagram on page 60 of the BGB are drawn to show what facing the firer is in.
That's what you say. The diagram says " Vehicle armour facing" though.
If the firer is standing in the front arc and can see any of the front facing (and the turret has a front facing just as it has a side and rear facing dependent upon where the firer is standing, not dependent upon how the turret is turned)
If there is a rule actually giving facings to turrets, please quote it, I don't see one.
but the model is over 50% concealed then it gets a 4+ cover save.
In order to get the 3+ the firer would have to be standing in one facing and the model be completely obscured from that angle, but the firer can still see part of another facing that he is not standing in. Again, reference lunarman's diagram in this thread as an example of how a 3+ vehicle save works.
No one is arguing this point.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
olympia wrote:As others have said, in the case described in the OP the target would receive a 4+ cover save.
we are trying to prove that that infact is incorrect because the front cant be seen
32263
Post by: syypher
Reposted because I don't think anyone saw this while they were trying to post to each other..
I put the models on the table again and you CAN see part of the turret. Yes most of it you can see the barrels which don't count but you can see a part of the turret over the Predator so...
Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?
See the reason I don't get it is because I dont see anywhere that it says or even implies that the turret will be determined facing whatever direction the firer is facing. Here are the specific rulings backing up why I am still confused. Please understand I am not disagreeing with anyone just not seeing anything clear cut and dry that will allow me to be comfortable explaining this to the people at my LFGS as well. I appreciate all the time and effort you guys are putting into trying to resolve this. I also believe the word "facing," "quadrant," "sector," and like words are getting mixed up between people debating back and forth.
On p.60 it says "Armour Values for individual vehicles also vary depending on which facing the vehicle the shot comes from - its front, sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram."
-This helps explain what a facing of a vehicle is. Clearly in the diagram the vehicle has 4 FACINGS. A Facing = front, side, rear. Each facing can be seen as having its section called a "quadrant." The entire "triangle" section of the picture for the front armor facing can be considered the front armor "quadrant."
On p.62 it says "..but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they can may take the shot against the facing they can see" (this is in the 3+ save section)
-Ok the above page was for clarification that we are on the same page. Now this is where it gets confusing. If you look at my situation (re-created it below) you will see that the RB is directly behind the Predator. Purposely done so you cannot see the hull and the enemy shooting can only see the turret on top. In my situation I gave everyone can agree that yes you can still fire at the razorback, correct? Yes.
So based on the above quoted ruling it says if they can still see another facing of the target vehicle they can take the shot. Correct? Yes. So in order for the turret to count as being able to be shot at then that mean it should have some type of facing based on the rule above? Correct? Not necessarily. Because of the below...
On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.
Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?
You can't simply say you firing from the front "quadrant" thus you are firing at the front "facing" and you give it a 4+ cover save. Why? Because the 3+ cover save rule on p.62 bypasses this. It allows you to now fire at other "facings" even if your in the same "quadrant." (Allowing a 3+ cover save ofcourse) So we can all agree the enemy firer is in the front "quadrant" based on my situation I am putting forward. Now...the question is which facing is a turret considered when determining which save to use?
That is the best way I can explain my predicament. Please read it thoroughly. Thanks again for all your guys help and patience.
E (enemy Dreadnought)
P (Predator)
R (Razorback)
24346
Post by: Bishop99
syypher wrote:Reposted because I don't think anyone saw this while they were trying to post to each other..
I put the models on the table again and you CAN see part of the turret. Yes most of it you can see the barrels which don't count but you can see a part of the turret over the Predator so...
Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?
See the reason I don't get it is because I dont see anywhere that it says or even implies that the turret will be determined facing whatever direction the firer is facing. Here are the specific rulings backing up why I am still confused. Please understand I am not disagreeing with anyone just not seeing anything clear cut and dry that will allow me to be comfortable explaining this to the people at my LFGS as well. I appreciate all the time and effort you guys are putting into trying to resolve this. I also believe the word "facing," "quadrant," "sector," and like words are getting mixed up between people debating back and forth.
On p.60 it says "Armour Values for individual vehicles also vary depending on which facing the vehicle the shot comes from - its front, sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram."
-This helps explain what a facing of a vehicle is. Clearly in the diagram the vehicle has 4 FACINGS. A Facing = front, side, rear. Each facing can be seen as having its section called a "quadrant." The entire "triangle" section of the picture for the front armor facing can be considered the front armor "quadrant."
On p.62 it says "..but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they can may take the shot against the facing they can see" (this is in the 3+ save section)
-Ok the above page was for clarification that we are on the same page. Now this is where it gets confusing. If you look at my situation (re-created it below) you will see that the RB is directly behind the Predator. Purposely done so you cannot see the hull and the enemy shooting can only see the turret on top. In my situation I gave everyone can agree that yes you can still fire at the razorback, correct? Yes.
So based on the above quoted ruling it says if they can still see another facing of the target vehicle they can take the shot. Correct? Yes. So in order for the turret to count as being able to be shot at then that mean it should have some type of facing based on the rule above? Correct? Not necessarily. Because of the below...
On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.
Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?
You can't simply say you firing from the front "quadrant" thus you are firing at the front "facing" and you give it a 4+ cover save. Why? Because the 3+ cover save rule on p.62 bypasses this. It allows you to now fire at other "facings" even if your in the same "quadrant." (Allowing a 3+ cover save ofcourse) So we can all agree the enemy firer is in the front "quadrant" based on my situation I am putting forward. Now...the question is which facing is a turret considered when determining which save to use?
That is the best way I can explain my predicament. Please read it thoroughly. Thanks again for all your guys help and patience.
E (enemy Dreadnought)
P (Predator)
R (Razorback)
on a razorback i would say the turrent is on the back arch/facing even though you can see it from the front
its not like a preditor where the turrent is in the middle and therefore in all of the faciings/ archs
2515
Post by: augustus5
syypher wrote:
Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?
I'm not counting the turret as any facing. Your diagram shows the firer clearly in the front arc. He can see the turret. The turret is part of the vehicle. There is no way the dread is in the side arc because you drew it directly in front of the predator and razorback. It couldn't see the side of the vehicle at all unless the vehicle were turned at a slight angle. So how is the dread not looking at the front of the vehicle?
syypher wrote:Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?
People have given their answer and reasons behind it over and over agian in this thread. If you fail to understand their reasoning or choose not to accept it that's your perogative. You even answered your own question in your response as to why you are confused. You wrote:
syypher wrote:On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.
You don't need to consider the turret as having a facing. You simply then determine the facing of the firer. This isn't rocket science.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
augustus5 wrote:syypher wrote:
Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?
I'm not counting the turret as any facing. Your diagram shows the firer clearly in the front arc. He can see the turret. The turret is part of the vehicle. There is no way the dread is in the side arc because you drew it directly in front of the predator and razorback. It couldn't see the side of the vehicle at all unless the vehicle were turned at a slight angle. So how is the dread not looking at the front of the vehicle?
syypher wrote:Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?
People have given their answer and reasons behind it over and over agian in this thread. If you fail to understand their reasoning or choose not to accept it that's your perogative. You even answered your own question in your response as to why you are confused. You wrote:
syypher wrote:On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.
You don't need to consider the turret as having a facing. You simply then determine the facing of the firer. This isn't rocket science.
why are not trying to figure out if the shoot is valid but if its a 4+ or 3+ the issue is whcih arch does the turrent fall in becaue its arch idetermines the save the shooter is in the forward arch but (in my opinion) the shooter can not see anything in the forward arch he can however see the turrent which is in the back arch of the vehicle which makes it a 3+ cover save
32263
Post by: syypher
augustus5 wrote:syypher wrote:
Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?
I'm not counting the turret as any facing. Your diagram shows the firer clearly in the front arc. He can see the turret. The turret is part of the vehicle. There is no way the dread is in the side arc because you drew it directly in front of the predator and razorback. It couldn't see the side of the vehicle at all unless the vehicle were turned at a slight angle. So how is the dread not looking at the front of the vehicle? syypher wrote:Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?
People have given their answer and reasons behind it over and over agian in this thread. If you fail to understand their reasoning or choose not to accept it that's your perogative. You even answered your own question in your response as to why you are confused. You wrote: syypher wrote:On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.
You don't need to consider the turret as having a facing. You simply then determine the facing of the firer. This isn't rocket science.
Are you picking and choosing parts of my explanation as to why I'm still confused to make yourself feel like I'm disagreeing? It's not that I do not choose to accept anything. Are you serious? Did you even read any of my posts? I have been neutral this entire time. Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone since my answer hasn't clear cut been answered yet?. Answering my own question? I like how you cut that part out of what I said and do not take into account what I said directly before that...that section you so conveniently cut out was simply the reason I was confused because it contradicts my previous sentences. I don't need to consider the turret as having a facing? Once again, did you read the rules I brought out and even quoted so people would get a more clear vision of what I am confused about? They seem to contradict or not clarify with each other. Where does it say I only need to determine the facing of the firer? If that was right then there would be NO such thing as the 3+ cover save. Why? Because for a 3+ cover save it's not just "simply then determine the facing of the firer." You need to determine the quadrant the firer is standing in, then look at the facing of the vehicle he can see. Please read my post throughly. If you did you wouldn't be saying what you just put because that in no way answers my question. Thanks for trying though. (not sarcastic, appreciate your time but you really need to read what I wrote.) Bishop is on the right track. It's not as simple as you are putting it out Augustus.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
I made a quick drawing… what would you do in this situation?
24346
Post by: Bishop99
Im really interested in this cause im bringing 8 raxors to ard boys
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks boymac thats an awesome example
32263
Post by: syypher
Ya thats pretty much what I'm doing. Thanks Boymac. Firer in front, vehicle in front, firer can see nothing but turret. >_<
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
2515
Post by: augustus5
In BoyMac's drawing the entire shooting unit is in the razorback's front arc. They can see the turret over the top of the rhino. If they shoot the razorback gets a 4+ save.
The point drawn in the center of the razorback isn't there to divide the razorback up into 4 distinct pieces. It is there to draw a straight line from the center, through the corner of the vehicle, and beyond to determine the firing arc of those wishing to target the vehicle.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
The sponson isnt in the rear Arc, it can be seen from the front.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
but if you look at the diagram the shooter cannot see the facing they are in they can only see somthing inn the back facing as the above diagram shows
32263
Post by: syypher
nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
With that logic the turret has a facing then. Your saying the enemy can see the turrets front facing correct? Because clearly the hull portion of the vehicle is completely hidding. So if the turret was turned to the side to shoot something and the enemy is now looking at the side of the turret, it would be a 3+ based on what you said since the facing is not the side that the enemy sees yet they are in the front quadrant of the vehicle?
Or are you generalizing that "they are in the front" so it has to be "front facing." Because my last post and the 3+ save section on p.62 suggests otherwise and there are more factors to determine than where the firer is standing.
2515
Post by: augustus5
BoyMac wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).
There is no possibility of seeing the rear of the vehicle when you're standing in the front arc, unless you can transcend time and space.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
augustus5 wrote:In BoyMac's drawing the entire shooting unit is in the razorback's front arc. They can see the turret over the top of the rhino. If they shoot the razorback gets a 4+ save.
The point drawn in the center of the razorback isn't there to divide the razorback up into 4 distinct pieces. It is there to draw a straight line from the center, through the corner of the vehicle, and beyond to determine the firing arc of those wishing to target the vehicle.
but the chart that He got from is to determine what armour value to us not to determine los so buy that logic the shooters can not see anything that is in the front armour value of the tank and there for gets a 3+ cover and i would say that if the cover save is failed the shot would be against the back armour value
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Syppher - no, I am saying:
You are in the front facing
You can see the turret, which is hull
You can see the front facing.
4+ cover, as has been said in this thread a number of time.s....
30167
Post by: BoyMac
augustus5 wrote:BoyMac wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).
There is no possibility of seeing the rear of the vehicle when you're standing in the front arc, unless you can transcend time and space.
So, following the same logic you can't see the side if you are in the front arc? I don't think so. The turret in that example is clearly in the rear arc.
In case this argument comes up, the Razorback turret may not be exactly how I drew it - i used it as an example.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
nosferatu1001 wrote:The sponson isnt in the rear Arc, it can be seen from the front.
how is that so its clearly in the rear of the vehicle if i could see a side sponson from the front does that mean its in the front arch
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Bishop - seriously, ARC, not Arch.
Boymac - that is not the same logic, at all.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
augustus5 wrote:BoyMac wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).
There is no possibility of seeing the rear of the vehicle when you're standing in the front arc, unless you can transcend time and space.
so if im looking at a car from the front but can only see the spoiler on the trunk because of an intervining object im still lookling at the front of the car how is the if i pulled out a gun and shot it in the spoiler would you say i shoot it in the front arc of the car even though thats where i shoot from
25703
Post by: juraigamer
BoyMac wrote:I made a quick drawing… what would you do in this situation?
3+ cover.
Question: A (guard) player in my area stated you can't draw LOS to wargear, and that weapons, turrets and other such things aren't considered hull. Is this a load of bull or real, as it might be relevant.
Extra example: Shooting a dread, you can only see the rear of one arm, can't see dread or can?
24346
Post by: Bishop99
turrent count as a part of the hull it says so on pg 60 however smoke launchers search lights and the like do not count
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
augustus5 wrote:BoyMac wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).
There is no possibility of seeing the rear of the vehicle when you're standing in the front arc, unless you can transcend time and space.
There is if you are higher than the target vehicle, because GW defines the rear of the vehicle as a quadrant which extends over the roof, halfway to the front.
Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.
This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
augustus5 wrote:
BoyMac wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.
But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).
There is no possibility of seeing the rear of the vehicle when you're standing in the front arc, unless you can transcend time and space.
so if im looking at a car from the front but can only see the spoiler on the trunk because of an intervining object im still lookling at the front of the car how is the if i pulled out a gun and shot it in the spoiler would you say i shoot it in the front arc of the car even though thats where i shoot from
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
How is this taking 4 pages to understand?
It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.
The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.
So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...
24346
Post by: Bishop99
FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?
It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.
The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.
So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...
and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.
2515
Post by: augustus5
Bishop99 wrote:FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?
It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.
The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.
So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...
and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.
...and you're wrong.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
augustus5 wrote:Bishop99 wrote:FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?
It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.
The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.
So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...
and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.
...and you're wrong.
care to explain or am i just wrong caue you say so
25703
Post by: juraigamer
You determine what side of the vehicle you are shooting at by which one you are facing, as per the diagram in the rulebook.
If I'm shooting another razorback with a razorback head on, front facing front, yet can only see the rear of the enemy razorback due to obscurement, I'm still hitting front armor but my opponent now has a 3+ save. Shots don't curve, they move straight.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
augustus5 wrote:Bishop99 wrote:FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?
It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.
The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.
So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...
and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.
...and you're wrong.
How? Explain how a turret in the rear arc is not in the rear arc.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Because you are seeing it from the front arc....
Its not difficult.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
What? By that logic you don't get a 3+ cover save from not seeing the arc you are in like the example given in the rulebook. The rules state that if you are shooting at the front arc for example and only see the side then you use the side armour value and the vehicle is granted a 3+ save. This is the same with the front and rear arcs.
Edit: Here is what the rulebook says word for word.
It may rarely happen that he firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side, or rear), but they can still see a facing of the target vehicle. In this case they can take a shot against the facing they can see, but to represent an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
nosferatu1001 wrote:Because you are seeing it from the front arc....
Its not difficult.
i would refer you to my car example
2515
Post by: augustus5
Bishop99 wrote:augustus5 wrote:Bishop99 wrote:FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?
It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.
The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.
So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...
and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.
...and you're wrong.
care to explain or am i just wrong caue you say so
Read my older posts. They explain my point pretty clearly.
How? Explain how a turret in the rear arc is not in the rear arc.
The turret is not in any arc. The diagram on page 60 is for determining the arc that the firer is in.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
augustus5 wrote:Bishop99 wrote:augustus5 wrote:Bishop99 wrote:FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?
It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.
The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.
So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...
and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.
...and you're wrong.
care to explain or am i just wrong caue you say so
Read my older posts. They explain my point pretty clearly.
How? Explain how a turret in the rear arc is not in the rear arc.
The turret is not in any arc. The diagram on page 60 is for determining the arc that the firer is in.
Yeah, say the firer is in the front arc. They don't see anything in the front arc for whatever reason. What they can see is part of the rear arc. You then use the rules on page 62 about what happens when you don't see the arc you are in but you see another arc.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear of a razorback (Since it does not have any clear windows). Unless you are playing on a board with a lot of mirrors.
Get down at a models eye level, and look at the front facing of the Razorback, anything that is facing front is the front facing. This includes the turret as noted on Page 60. Same goes for the side and rear facings.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
What? Then what are the arcs for then? They separate the different sides of the vehicle. If anything that is facing the front counts as being in the front arc as you say then that means side sponsons and stuff are front armour too?
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
DeathReaper wrote:If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear of a razorback (Since it does not have any clear windows). Unless you are playing on a board with a lot of mirrors.
Get down at a models eye level, and look at the front facing of the Razorback, anything that is facing front is the front facing. This includes the turret as noted on Page 60. Same goes for the side and rear facings.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.
This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.
2515
Post by: augustus5
BoyMac wrote:What? Then what are the arcs for then? They separate the different sides of the vehicle. If anything that is facing the front counts as being in the front arc as you say then that means side sponsons and stuff are front armour too?
The arcs do not separate the vehicle at all. In fact, the only reason why the lines are drawn through the vehicle from corner to corner is to establish the angle of the firer's facing. Look at the picture on page 60 and try to ignore the lines drawn over the vehicle and just look at the lines radiating out from the corners.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
augustus5 wrote:BoyMac wrote:What? Then what are the arcs for then? They separate the different sides of the vehicle. If anything that is facing the front counts as being in the front arc as you say then that means side sponsons and stuff are front armour too?
The arcs do not separate the vehicle at all. In fact, the only reason why the lines are drawn through the vehicle from corner to corner is to establish the angle of the firer's facing. Look at the picture on page 60 and try to ignore the lines drawn over the vehicle and just look at the lines radiating out from the corners.
Incorrect those lines also establish the AV of where you are shooting and since he can not see anything in the front AV its a 3+ cover save
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
okay I guess this discussion changed again, now the claim is the turret is in the back of the vehicle, so it must be the rear facing? I would be so pumped to play it this way and get loads of AV 10 rear armor shots if it wasn't ridiculous.
I don't even know where to begin...augustus is partially correct, there is no precedent to state features appearing in on top of the vehicle belong to the front, rear or side arcs.
It is patently ridiculous to assume you get to fire at the rear armor with a 3+ save.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
calypso2ts wrote:okay I guess this discussion changed again, now the claim is the turret is in the back of the vehicle, so it must be the rear facing? I would be so pumped to play it this way and get loads of AV 10 rear armor shots if it wasn't ridiculous.
I don't even know where to begin...augustus is partially correct, there is no precedent to state features appearing in on top of the vehicle belong to the front, rear or side arcs.
It is patently ridiculous to assume you get to fire at the rear armor with a 3+ save.
not saying you get the rear armour value. what we are saying is that sense its in the rear of the tank and its the only thing you can see you are shooting at another arc of the tank and thats the qualifier for the 3+ save
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
ChrisCP wrote:DeathReaper wrote:If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear of a razorback (Since it does not have any clear windows). Unless you are playing on a board with a lot of mirrors.
Get down at a models eye level, and look at the front facing of the Razorback, anything that is facing front is the front facing. This includes the turret as noted on Page 60. Same goes for the side and rear facings.
Kilkrazy wrote: Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator. This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.
I was referring to the rear facing. If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear facing of a razorback. In the diagram above the top arrow can not see the rear facing of the vehicle.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.
This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.
This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.
Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.
This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
DeathReaper wrote:
I was referring to the rear facing.
If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear facing of a razorback.
In the diagram above the top arrow can not see the rear facing of the vehicle.
Another quick drawing for you.
25703
Post by: juraigamer
augustus5 wrote:BoyMac wrote:What? Then what are the arcs for then? They separate the different sides of the vehicle. If anything that is facing the front counts as being in the front arc as you say then that means side sponsons and stuff are front armour too?
The arcs do not separate the vehicle at all. In fact, the only reason why the lines are drawn through the vehicle from corner to corner is to establish the angle of the firer's facing. Look at the picture on page 60 and try to ignore the lines drawn over the vehicle and just look at the lines radiating out from the corners.
No. Stop making up rules. The book clearly states otherwise. This thread has gone from question to stupid.
See the above image. For those whom it doesn't make sense, please go to sleep and after you wake up tomorrow try reading all this again.
37943
Post by: CageUF
4+.
Unless the "turret" is hidden away also it is not possible to get a 3+.
24346
Post by: Bishop99
CageUF wrote:4+.
Unless the "turret" is hidden away also it is not possible to get a 3+.
it is possible to get a three plus if the facing your in s completle obscured but you can still see another facing
32263
Post by: syypher
CageUF wrote:4+.
Unless the "turret" is hidden away also it is not possible to get a 3+.
Please don't reply unless you have read the points we have tried to make...and the rulebook...you can get a 3+. Goto pg 62 in the rulebook. Anyways I'm still confused. Everyone is stating one thing or another. Saying this and that. No one is quoting anything concrete from the rulebook that can sway my question to a for sure to one side or the other. Everyone says a pg or quotes something and then I point out another page or something in the rulebook that contradicts it. (Goto page 3 of this topic to read my post) Then everyone goes about explaining the same thing. I highly doubt like a lot of people are saying that whatever you see when you get down to the models level from the front is the "front" of the vehicle. Obviously this is not true as if the front quadrant is obscured completely and you see only the side but you are in the front quadrant you get the coveted 3+ cover save. So no, just being in front of the vehicle does not designate "what you see" as the front quadrant. It's not that simple. The picture on p60 shows what the quadrants of a vehicle are divided into. I'm done with repeating myself, and I'm sure everyone here who is trying to get their point across is too. I have no sided with any side and remained neutral trying to understand both sides. I agree and disagree with both sides with a few things. BOTH sides seem right up to a point, then they seem wrong because of something else in the rulebook. (Like I said before read my long post on page 3 of this topic if you want to see what I mean. I don't want to repeat the entire thing) I have come to the conclusion there is no concrete 100% answer to this in the rulebook. If you think there is and that I am wrong, then read what I said on p3 of this thread, quote me in the rulebook where you can answer my question without obscuring words or any "grey areas" that can be interpreted otherwise. There is nothing I have read from either side, or any page quoted from the rulebook or any other similar thread linked here that has pushed me into being confident in this ruling to the fullest. I guess I will just interpret it with my opponent at the beginning of the game and see what they think, and resolve to roll-offs if we can't decide.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
How is there no concrete answer in the rulebook? Page 60 tells you what part of the tank is what. Front is front, side is side and rear is rear. It is based on sections of the tank, not what direction parts sticking out are facing...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
If your claim is that the turret is in the rear arc, then you would be shooting rear AV, albeit with a 3+ save.
Turret is in the front, 4+ save
38932
Post by: somerandomdude
BoyMac wrote:It is based on sections of the tank, not what direction parts sticking out are facing...
Except for page 60:
"If a unit has firing models in two different facings..."
And page 62:
"It may happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in..."
Both of these suggest that it is the area around the vehicle that is considering the front/side/rear facing, and not the vehicle. Otherwise, no enemy would ever be "in" any facing.
Facings are determined by the area outside of the hull of the vehicle. If you can draw line of sight from the firer to the target, and never cross into another facing, then there is no 3+ save.
30167
Post by: BoyMac
The diagram shows the facings on the vehicle as well as outside of it. 
38932
Post by: somerandomdude
I've read the thread. Thanks for the face palm.
I've also looked at the diagram.
And, furthermore, I've noticed that the diagram changes colors along the outside of the vehicle, and that the vehicle pictured shows no variation between the different sectioned areas.
Let me ask, if the turret is in the rear arc, why can't I always draw LoS to the turret and hit that sweet, sweet rear armor?
30167
Post by: BoyMac
Because you can see the arc that you are standing in.
2515
Post by: augustus5
BoyMac wrote:DeathReaper wrote:
I was referring to the rear facing.
If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear facing of a razorback.
In the diagram above the top arrow can not see the rear facing of the vehicle.
Another quick drawing for you.
You are still shooting at front the front of the vehicle. Turret position doesn't matter. juraigamer wrote:No. Stop making up rules. The book clearly states otherwise. This thread has gone from question to stupid.
See the above image. For those whom it doesn't make sense, please go to sleep and after you wake up tomorrow try reading all this again.
Thanks for adding something worthwhile to the thread?  DeathReaper wrote:If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear facing of a razorback.
In the diagram above the top arrow can not see the rear facing of the vehicle.
+1 calypso2ts wrote:okay I guess this discussion changed again, now the claim is the turret is in the back of the vehicle, so it must be the rear facing? I would be so pumped to play it this way and get loads of AV 10 rear armor shots if it wasn't ridiculous.
I don't even know where to begin...augustus is partially correct, there is no precedent to state features appearing in on top of the vehicle belong to the front, rear or side arcs.
It is patently ridiculous to assume you get to fire at the rear armor with a 3+ save.
+1 So now some of the people in this thread are claiming that the dread, standing directly in front of the razorback and predator is somehow shooting at the rear of the vehicle (so they can claim a 3+ save) but he isn't getting the benefit of hitting rear armor value (so they can benefit from the front armor value). This has got to be the biggest load of  I've seen in YMDC in a very long time. This thread is lowering the collective value of YMDC by making it to five pages.
27025
Post by: lunarman
It really is easy:
1) Can you see the tank at all? Turret? If yes then move on
2) Which facing are you in? Front, side or rear? This is determined by where the shooting squad is standing and nothing else.
3) Can you see the facing that you are in? If yes then go to 4. Else shoot with 3+ cover.
4) Is the vehicle more than 50% obscured? If yes, shoot with 4+ cover. Else, shoot without cover
39309
Post by: Jidmah
The diagram still says vehicle facings, nor firer facings. Any definition claiming something other than those four triangles is personal interpretation.
As we are having a very colorful thread already, I might as well contribute an image:
So you are claiming that exhaust pipe is part of the front arc when shooting? Is there any rules backup to this? I did have this example come up in a game, when my battle wagon was mostly hidden behind a ruin, and heavy weapon teams on top of another ruin in front of the wagon could see the exhaust pipe sticking out. We didn't even think about the possibility of it being part of the front arc...
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Arc is to determine where the shots are coming from.
Facing is used to determine what armor you use and what cover save, if any, the vehicle receives.
Jidmah, in your picture, if you weer in the front arc, then what you saw of the exhaust pipes were the front facing of the vehicle.
Think of the facings as a silhouette, and use that as an example of what is the front facing.
The vehicle rules do not allow you to shoot at the top of a vehicle, hense no top armor value is given.
In an abstract rules system for arc's facings and LoS is bulky to say the least,
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
DeathReaper wrote:Arc is to determine where the shots are coming from.
Facing is used to determine what armor you use and what cover save, if any, the vehicle receives.
Jidmah, in your picture, if you weer in the front arc, then what you saw of the exhaust pipes were the front facing of the vehicle.
Think of the facings as a silhouette, and use that as an example of what is the front facing.
The vehicle rules do not allow you to shoot at the top of a vehicle, hense no top armor value is given.
In an abstract rules system for arc's facings and LoS is bulky to say the least,
Could anyone please find a reference to Arc when firing at a vehicle?
The diagram on page 60, clearly shows the facings, it's inherently impossible to be in the rear facing zone when firing from in front of the vehicle.
The diagram also happily takes into account the three dimensional aspect of this situation by being top down. We know that the 'Top AV' is the same as whatever facing on is refencing - this is shown and explained.
If one can not see the facing in which one is standing then the cover save is 3+.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Which is the point.
You are in the front arc of the vehicle, and can see part of that arc (the turret) - meaning a 4+ save.
You are not somehow seeing the "rear" facing. That's nonsense.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are in the front arc of the vehicle, and can see part of that arc (the turret) - meaning a 4+ save.
Facing Nos, arc is only ever used for weapons and "arc of sight" pg 61 (admittedly changed to "arc of fire" on page 61).
The only time arc is mentioned in any rules beyond firing a vehicle and drawing LoS is on page 73 "if it is rammed in its rear arc". This error is highlighted by page 72 "Unlike infantry, a walker has a facing, which influences where it can fire (see below) and its Armour Value when fired at." lol lol lol
38932
Post by: somerandomdude
Could he be using "arc" as the general mathematic term, since each facing is determined by an arc on a circle centered on the midpoint of the vehicle?
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Arc being something already defined in the rulebook, along with facing. The rules we are currently discussing only metion facings, to bring other, inaccurate, terms into the discussion only serves to muddy the waters. DeathReaper wrote:Arc is to determine where the shots are coming from.
Facing is used to determine what armor you use and what cover save, if any, the vehicle receives.
Jidmah, in your picture, if you weer in the front arc, then what you saw of the exhaust pipes were the front facing of the vehicle.
Think of the facings as a silhouette, and use that as an example of what is the front facing.
The vehicle rules do not allow you to shoot at the top of a vehicle, hense no top armor value is given.
In an abstract rules system for arc's facings and LoS is bulky to say the least,
Leading to stuff like that. DeathReaper wrote:Facing is to determine where the shots are coming from.
Facing is used to determine what armor you use and what cover save, if any, the vehicle receives.
Jidmah, in your picture, if you weer in the front Facing , then what you saw of the exhaust pipes were the front facing of the vehicle. *Nope pretty sure they are rear or side*
Think of the facings as a silhouette, and use that as an example of what is the front facing.
The vehicle rules do not allow you to shoot at the top of a vehicle, hense no top armor value is given. *It is, as any part of the roof will belong to a facing
In an abstract rules system for arc's facingswhat??? and LoS is bulky to say the least,
Is why I'm sure Nos, wouldn't use a misleading term which already belong to another aspect of the game as the appropriate term is quite important as we are talking about "Vehicle armour facing" Pg 60 and "Armour Values for individual vehicles also vary depending on which facing of the vehicle the shot comes from" or "If a vehicle is even partially under a template weapon, it is hit on the Armour value the firer is facing." after that "It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle." There's no circle used to work out a vehicles facing either...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I think it was mainly too many uses of "arc" (or arch) in the thread.
If you can see the front facing, that is what you shoot at. Not sure you could consider the turret to be the rear facing, otherwise I'll happily always shoot the rear of your razorback....
39309
Post by: Jidmah
As long as you can't see any part of the front facing, and the shooting models are slightly elevated or tall enough to see it, you're fine to shoot the rear. The razorback would get 3+ cover in this case.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
What about if you can see both?
Which was the point we were making: you use the facing to determine what AV you shoot at (front, rear, side) and then see if you can see any part of the facing.
If you can see the turret, and are in the front facing - you shoot the front facing.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
That's if the turret is part of the front facing. The diagram on p.60 says it is.
The Razorback remote mount may be farther back on the hull, sitting in the Rear arc -- I don't know as I don't have a model of it.
The sponsons seem clearly to be in the side arcs, even if viewed from in front.
I just think this is another case where the rules do not cover all possibilities and we have to interpret a bit.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
nosferatu1001 wrote:What about if you can see both?
Which was the point we were making: you use the facing to determine what AV you shoot at (front, rear, side) and then see if you can see any part of the facing.
If you can see the turret, and are in the front facing - you shoot the front facing.
You may only ever shoot the facing you are in, 3+ shooting other facings is only allowed if you can't see your own facing. For an unobstructed view there is no option to shoot the razorback's turret.
By that same logic you are applying those 3+ shots would never, ever be possible, as the side of the vehicle would be front facing, too. If I see the side of a vehicle, it's still the side of the vehicle, even if I am standing in the front facing.
To find out facings you quarter the entire board from the center of the target vehicle, including the vehicle.
Any part of the vehicle that is in the same quarter as me(the shooter), is in the same facing.
If I can see more than 50% of that quarter of the vehicle, I can shoot it without cover.
If I can see 50% or less, I can still shoot that facing, but it gets cover.
If I can't see any part of the vehicle that is in the same quarter as me, but I can see a part of the vehicle in a different quarter, I can shoot that quarter and its corresponding facing while granting 3+ cover.
I don't really see any further definition or explanation than the quartering of the vehicle in the BRB, which would make the razorbacks entire turret part of the rear facing.
32263
Post by: syypher
Kilkrazy wrote:That's if the turret is part of the front facing. The diagram on p.60 says it is.
The Razorback remote mount may be farther back on the hull, sitting in the Rear arc -- I don't know as I don't have a model of it.
The sponsons seem clearly to be in the side arcs, even if viewed from in front.
I just think this is another case where the rules do not cover all possibilities and we have to interpret a bit.
This is exactly the conclusion I came out with. It doesn't give any exact ruling on it. The original purpose of this post was for someone to point out any rules in the rulebook that would address my issue. Since there hasn't been anything DIRECTLY addressing it I came up to my conclusion that I would just have to interpret it with whoever I play.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
Remember, the rules are abstractions.
'Facing' is how the vehicle is facing. 'Arc' is the portion of the battlefield that sees that facing of the vehicle, or that that portion of the vehicle 'sees'.
Cover is not Armour, and is not stopping the rounds. Even a lowly guardsman is counted as being able to basically tear through solid ferrocrete walls with their bare hands (or whatever equipment they have on them) so a couple bushes aren't going to be able to stop a Lascannon shot.
If you see any bit of the vehicle, that means that you know the vehicle is there. But you aren't going to waste your Lascannon shot on the exhaust of a Battlewagon, are you? No, you're going to try and shoot the main body of the Wagon. Trouble is, there's a wall there, and you can't see it. So you take your best guess as to where the engine is, and fire. Whoops! Turns out the Big Mek that put this Battlewagon together decided he'd rather use two smaller engines on either side, instead of one big one in the middle. You would have been able to tell this if you'd been able to see the Wagon, but since you couldn't, that Lascannon shot went right between the two engines, hurting neither. That's the 4+ cover save.
However, to even get to the engines, that Lascannon shot had to get through the armour facing that was directly behind that wall, between the Lascannon and the Battlewagon. It turns out that was the front (which you couldn't tell from the exhaust pipe, which was the only thing you could see) and so you had to shoot through AV14. It's lucky you had a Lascannon instead of a Heavy Bolter, isn't it?
Now in this case, since it's technically the top armour that's seen, and the Dred would probably think "Hey, that might be an important bit! I'ma shoot it!", I'd say use the Top armour. The closes thing in the rulebook to Top armour, I believe, is related to Barrage or Ordinance weapons, and says to treat Top armour as though it has the same value as the Side armour.
2515
Post by: augustus5
There is no such thing as top armor.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Anvildude wrote:
'Facing' is how the vehicle is facing. 'Arc' is the portion of the battlefield that sees that facing of the vehicle, or that that portion of the vehicle 'sees'.
No, it is not.
Look at page 59, arc of sight, use to determine what a vehicle can draw LoS to.
You facing comment is fairly accurate, as facings are what vehicle present to the battlefield.
Now in this case, since it's technically the top armour that's seen, and the Dred would probably think "Hey, that might be an important bit! I'ma shoot it!", I'd say use the Top armour. The closes thing in the rulebook to Top armour, I believe, is related to Barrage or Ordinance weapons, and says to treat Top armour as though it has the same value as the Side armour.
Yeah, the only time 'top armour' is mentioned is on page 60 "Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle’s side armour (representing its top armour)." as an abstraction, to only be used when a barrage weapons center hole end over the hull.
Otherwise one uses the AV of the facing one is in and can see, or if one can not see the facing one's in - any facing one can see and this shot's grants a 3+.
The diagram on page 60 show that all parts of a vehicle belong to a facing, there is no 'Top Av' because there doesn't need to be one.
Why would you make rules up instead of following the one's in the rulebook?
30167
Post by: BoyMac
ChrisCP wrote:Anvildude wrote:
'Facing' is how the vehicle is facing. 'Arc' is the portion of the battlefield that sees that facing of the vehicle, or that that portion of the vehicle 'sees'.
No, it is not.
Look at page 59, arc of sight, use to determine what a vehicle can draw LoS to.
You facing comment is fairly accurate, as facings are what vehicle present to the battlefield.
Now in this case, since it's technically the top armour that's seen, and the Dred would probably think "Hey, that might be an important bit! I'ma shoot it!", I'd say use the Top armour. The closes thing in the rulebook to Top armour, I believe, is related to Barrage or Ordinance weapons, and says to treat Top armour as though it has the same value as the Side armour.
Yeah, the only time 'top armour' is mentioned is on page 60 "Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle’s side armour (representing its top armour)." as an abstraction, to only be used when a barrage weapons center hole end over the hull.
Otherwise one uses the AV of the facing one is in and can see, or if one can not see the facing one's in - any facing one can see and this shot's grants a 3+.
The diagram on page 60 show that all parts of a vehicle belong to a facing, there is no 'Top Av' because there doesn't need to be one.
Why would you make rules up instead of following the one's in the rulebook?
This x100.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Anvildude wrote:Remember, the rules are abstractions.
'Facing' is how the vehicle is facing. 'Arc' is the portion of the battlefield that sees that facing of the vehicle, or that that portion of the vehicle 'sees'.
Cover is not Armour, and is not stopping the rounds. Even a lowly guardsman is counted as being able to basically tear through solid ferrocrete walls with their bare hands (or whatever equipment they have on them) so a couple bushes aren't going to be able to stop a Lascannon shot.
If you see any bit of the vehicle, that means that you know the vehicle is there. But you aren't going to waste your Lascannon shot on the exhaust of a Battlewagon, are you? No, you're going to try and shoot the main body of the Wagon. Trouble is, there's a wall there, and you can't see it. So you take your best guess as to where the engine is, and fire. Whoops! Turns out the Big Mek that put this Battlewagon together decided he'd rather use two smaller engines on either side, instead of one big one in the middle. You would have been able to tell this if you'd been able to see the Wagon, but since you couldn't, that Lascannon shot went right between the two engines, hurting neither. That's the 4+ cover save.
However, to even get to the engines, that Lascannon shot had to get through the armour facing that was directly behind that wall, between the Lascannon and the Battlewagon. It turns out that was the front (which you couldn't tell from the exhaust pipe, which was the only thing you could see) and so you had to shoot through AV14. It's lucky you had a Lascannon instead of a Heavy Bolter, isn't it?
Now in this case, since it's technically the top armour that's seen, and the Dred would probably think "Hey, that might be an important bit! I'ma shoot it!", I'd say use the Top armour. The closes thing in the rulebook to Top armour, I believe, is related to Barrage or Ordinance weapons, and says to treat Top armour as though it has the same value as the Side armour.
The lascannon example falls appart when you fit a killkannon turret with a lobba on top on the passenger compartment. It would still be in the rear facing, but a critical part of the wagon, and can be shot without penetrating the entire wagon. The two guns should be packing enough explosive ammunition to rip the bw appart when you hit the right spot.
You also mix up "cover" and "out of sight". Whether lasgun or lascannon, both can't shoot through a solid concrete wall. They shoot over it or through windows, but never through it. Cover represents the increased chance of missing(due to smaller target) combined with the increased chance of the enemy dodging the shot. If you can't see something, you can't shoot it at all, including a vehicle facing.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
The key here, to me, is do we include turrets in the "facing". To draw LOS, yes, as it is clearly outlined for that purpose. However, if all you can see is the turret, does that count as a facing? From what I see a lot of people doing, the facing is literally the hull front, sides, and rear and nothing else. Though the diagram doesn't exclude the turret, it isn't exacltly spelled out well.
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
The turret is explicitly included in the rules for drawing LoS to a vehicle.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
calypso2ts wrote:The turret is explicitly included in the rules for drawing LoS to a vehicle.
For LoS, yes, but not for facing. Though the diagram helps, it just isn't too clear.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
Another question could be, does the turret itself have facings? If you turn a turret around so it's looking behind, does that mean that the turret is showing rear armour where the hull is showing front? Or is the turret using the armour value of the hull, so if you have a 14, 12, 10 AV vehicle, and turn the turret, different parts of the turret (the parts facing 'forwards') will gain and lose that AV 14?
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
em_en_oh_pee wrote:calypso2ts wrote:The turret is explicitly included in the rules for drawing LoS to a vehicle.
For LoS, yes, but not for facing. Though the diagram helps, it just isn't too clear.
If you're already having trouble diving your vehicles into quarters to determine facings, then yes, the disgram won't help you. If you can divide your vehicles into quarters to tell which facing the shot is coming from, then the turret or whatever other pieces of the vehicle you can see belong to the facing that they belong to. That simple, they belong to the facing they occupy - it's possible for a turret to be in two facings.
If we have firers in two facings we've been told how to do that "If a unit has firing models in two different facings of a target vehicle shots are resolved separately for the two facings." Pg 60, so really it just telling where the firer is, front, side or rear, and seeing which bit's they can see.
|
|
