Now, I've never used shockprows before and I was considering them because I grow tired of random Haemonculi trinkets that don't do anything (stupid Casket of Fail) Anyhow, the shockprow is almost a full inch longer than the normal piece on a raider, this can be most beneficial in game, as every inch can make a difference in getting that crucial charge or even helping to multicharge more than one target with your wyches. So, before I put this on the table and start acting a fool I would like to clarify any stupidity I may stumble into. What do you think? Is the Shock Prow a usable piece of the hull? Or, and upgrade like a dozer blade that no longer counts as part of the hull?

It should fall into that category of 'not hull' along side things like guns/flags/dozerblades/decorative items/etc.

-cgmckenzie

really? i thought the plow and dozerblades would of been counted o.O because like, ramming? you need to be an inch inside of someone... hehe xD... before doing damage? o.o i would of thought that the'd be part of the hull o.O thats how ive always played it

In my games we count it as part of the hull because it can be used to ram vehicles.
As such, ranges can be measured to it, it can be used to establish LOS, etc.
YMMV however and it's best to go over this with your opponent before beginning the game.

No, dozerblades are specifically not part of the hull of a vehicle, a la measuring distances to vehicles in the BGB.

-cgmckenzie

It gets a bit sticky with Deffrollas, Dozer blades and Rams.

Measuring distances is to the hull, but i'd say that for ramming purposes any part of the vehicle that makes contact counts, as a 'how would you play it'.

I don't have a bucket of RAW to back this, but it seems to be a reasonable way to play it to avoid longwinded and vicious mudslingin.. i mean debates.

Strict RAW-wise i think it would have to be the hull making contact, which can be a bit hard to figure with some vehicles.

Just more grey area in the rules. Nothing new here. Make up a rule for it and discuss it with your opponent. *shrug* All you can do.

Hmmm. . .this doesn't answer my question at all I can already see having debates about this with other players. The normal, non-ram prow, is part of the hull. People use it all the time to draw LoS too and to get ranges. I imagine people will be using the shock prow for the same purposes. In that case, I don't have any qualms about using it to get an extra almost-inch. It's clearly not decorative as well, it just swaps the normal prow out unlike dozer blades which are just a silly add on. I must ponder.

It depends on if you measure distance from it. For my Deffrollas and on the rare occasion I put Dozer Blades on a Sisters Rhino I just tell my opponent at the start of the game that I count them as part of the hull for measurement, movement and disembarking purposes. It gets rid of the stupid "you can't get off there since no 2 models can occupy the same space" argument. On the downside, though it isn't an issue with a Raider since they have the same AV it does give your opponent more room to get a side shot on the lower AV.

Technically, ramming only matters when the vehicles make contact, so a Shock Prow would give you that extra inch. However, many people have a problem with playing this way since Deff-Rollas (even the standard, non-custom ones) are huge and give a massive distance advantage, for example allowing you to ram a vehicle and stay out of assault range of a unit that can only reach the "rolla" part (because assaults require you to reach the hull, which the deff-rolla is technically not).

Typically, I've seen people simply include "ramming appendages" like Deff-Rollas and Dozers/Siege shields as part of the hull, so Shock Prows would fall into that category.

Raiders come on a hover base. I always use that for measuring distances to and from a vehicle, as the BRB states you should, IIRC. You only measure to the hull for vehicles without a base, such as the Chaos Defiler and Leman Russ Battle Tank.

That's completely wrong. The rulebook allows you to measure to the base of a skimmer for the purpose of assaulting (and even then you can make contact with either base or hull).

Corrode wrote:That's completely wrong. The rulebook allows you to measure to the base of a skimmer for the purpose of assaulting (and even then you can make contact with either base or hull).

Really? Quote please, I won't argue if you can prove it.

Read 'Measuring Distances' in the skimmer section.

Actually, there even is a picture in the section with the measuring rules including a trukk, where its reinforced ram is explicitly ignored. Should be the same for shock prows then.

Meh, I'll take your word for it, don't have my BRB to hand.

It even tells you in the skimmer rules to ignore the base. So thats wrong on two accounts...

I would agree that the shockprow is an upgrade like a dozer blade and so not part of the hull.

jmurph wrote:I would agree that the shockprow is an upgrade like a dozer blade and so not part of the hull.

The rule on page 56 says to "...(ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)"

I would not consider a shock prow or a ram to be a decorative element.

Particularly since to make a ramming attack, the ramming tanks moves until it comes in contact with the enemy vehicle.

The shock prow is part of the vehicle and when it contacts an enemy vehicle, the collision occurs.

The picture on page 3 explicitly ignores the reinforced ram as hull on the trukk. Also almost exactly the same as a dozerblade, which isn't decorative either.

By the way, I even play my deff rollas as dozer blades unless the opponent wants to play it otherwise(I don't care either way), and this interpretation causes way less unintuitive situations than playing it as hull.

Right or wrong, I have always played rollas and blades are part of the hull. It just makes gameplay easier.

And, if someone were to get bent out of shape about it, then I just try to clarify it up front.

But, let me ask this question then to all the people that say it does not count: On a pitched battle deployment zone, would you allow the shockprow (rolla, whatever) to be an inch over the deployment line? After all, it doesn't count.

So, when you really boil it down, it does not really matter that much which way you count it as long as you are consistent the whole game.

Awesome! I answered to your post before you posted it

Most DE player's don't use shock prows but we still put them on our vehicles for aesthetic purposes so in that sense they are decorative.

I usually ask my opponent before hand and we usually agree to use the hull of the vehicles for measuring LOS and disembarking. Just be consistent.

If my opponent wants to shoot at the prow then I will let him, but that means I get to measure from it for my wyches to disembark.

It's not at all like a dozerblade or reinforced ram from a modelling perspective.

You dont have to put a blade on a rhino....it looks normal.

If you do not put a shock prow (or the other nosecone) on the raider model, the model is simply incomplete. The shock prow is a small bit longer than the normal nosecone but it is still part of the vehicle...not totally optional.

I've always played it as part of the hull since the new model came out...and never had a problem with it. Yes my wyches will jump 2" off the tip as well....after pivoting on the 12" line first. Hull or no...it's legal "Models can embark or disembark within 2" OF ANY POINT OF THE VEHICLE."

When I ram is my shock prow touching your model? Hull or no I've satisfied the rulebook requirement for a ram. "If the ramming tank COMES INTO CONTACT WITH AN ENEMY VEHICLE, the collision is resolved as follows."

If the shock prow of my raider is in contact with your tank, how is my vehicle not "in contact"? Hull or no, who cares? The vehicle is "in contact", ram is resolved.

Whether or not something is Hull only really matters during the shooting phase otherwise it's generally "in contact wit the vehicle." I generally consider the prow to be hull for shooting purposes, but that's just me.

You misquoted. Its within 2" of the HULL.

actually, I was typing straight out of the rulebook...go read it.

Open topped vehicles do not deploy troops from the hull...they deploy from any point of the vehicle. Raiders are open topped...hence...

Yet you are still told to ignore "decorative" elements - you cannot measure to them, therefore you cannot disembark 2" from them. meaning you end up back to disembarking 2" from the hull

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet you are still told to ignore "decorative" elements - you cannot measure to them, therefore you cannot disembark 2" from them. meaning you end up back to disembarking 2" from the hull

1. A shock prow is no more a decorative element than the normal prow...which is not decorative, its part of the vehicle.

2. Nowhere do you see the term "decorative element" or anything of the sort in the rules for Open Topped Transport Vehicles on page 70. However it does specifically say ANY point of the vehicle.

Sorry nos, you're wrong.

(not every army plays like Spaize MareenzHURRRR!)

I'd imagine that most people wouldn't really care as long as you're consistent (i.e. if you can ram me with that bit of the vehicle, I can shoot it when it's sticking out the side of a building). To be honest, most non-DE players probably don't even know the difference.

Deadshane1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet you are still told to ignore "decorative" elements - you cannot measure to them, therefore you cannot disembark 2" from them. meaning you end up back to disembarking 2" from the hull

1. A shock prow is no more a decorative element than the normal prow...which is not decorative, its part of the vehicle.

2. Nowhere do you see the term "decorative element" or anything of the sort in the rules for Open Topped Transport Vehicles on page 70. However it does specifically say ANY point of the vehicle.

Sorry nos, you're wrong.

(not every army plays like Spaize MareenzHURRRR!)

So I can disembark my troops from the top of the giant sail on my raider? For example onto a roof.

If you only have LOS to the top of of the sail can you shoot at the raider?

1) The shock prow itself IS decorative.
2) You are required to measure. Look up the rules on measuring to vehicles.

Open topped vehicles can disembark from any point of the vehicle, but you are only allowed to measure from the hull, so decorative elements like guns/antennae/banners/dozeblades cannot be disembarked from because you cannot measure to them.

I am not sure anymore about the shockprow, but if it is not hull, you can't disembark from it.

BTW, saying that it is a normal part of the vehicle doesn't matter, as my LRBT main battle cannon is a normal part of it but I still can't measure to it for being shot at/disembarking(just go with it).

-cgmckenzie

aggie0642 wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet you are still told to ignore "decorative" elements - you cannot measure to them, therefore you cannot disembark 2" from them. meaning you end up back to disembarking 2" from the hull

1. A shock prow is no more a decorative element than the normal prow...which is not decorative, its part of the vehicle.

2. Nowhere do you see the term "decorative element" or anything of the sort in the rules for Open Topped Transport Vehicles on page 70. However it does specifically say ANY point of the vehicle.

Sorry nos, you're wrong.

(not every army plays like Spaize MareenzHURRRR!)

So I can disembark my troops from the top of the giant sail on my raider? For example onto a roof.

It may seem ridiculous but I suppose if you'd find it advantageous...the rules support this.

If you only have LOS to the top of of the sail can you shoot at the raider?

Personally I dunno if the "sail" is as much a part of the hull as the prow is...this rarely matters to me however. I take shots and allow shots pretty much based off of my opponents opinion. These sort of rules debates never have much bearing on the outcome of a game. If I've got a needle sized part of the sail sticking up over a hill that the opponent wants to shoot at I would probably say...."really?" and make him feel foolish about it. If I decided it wasnt worth the arguement I'd just roll my 4+ cover save....again, it's not going to matter win or lose.

Any point of the vehicle for disembarkation. However, you could be


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) The shock prow itself IS decorative.

Thats your opinion. Which I do not happen to agree with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:Open topped vehicles can disembark from any point of the vehicle, but you are only allowed to measure from the hull, so decorative elements like guns/antennae/banners/dozeblades cannot be disembarked from because you cannot measure to them.

I am not sure anymore about the shockprow, but if it is not hull, you can't disembark from it.

BTW, saying that it is a normal part of the vehicle doesn't matter, as my LRBT main battle cannon is a normal part of it but I still can't measure to it for being shot at/disembarking(just go with it).

"any point of the vehicle" seems pretty straightforward of a rule to me. Trying to convolute it as you have here doesnt change a thing.

"any point of the vehicle" is any point of the vehicle. Not any point but.....

Fine. Now measure 2" to it.

The rules only let you measure to the hull. Thats it. So, feel free to try to disembark from the sail. When you try and measure 2" from it, I'll stop you and ask you to measure to the hull.

The shock prow in and of itself IS decorative, as it is not hull.

Pg 56 Vehicles and Measuring Distances
"Instead, for distances involving a vehicles, measure to or from their hull(ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners, and other decorative elements)."

So yes, it says you can disembark from any point on the vehicle, but you still can only measure to hull. You ignore the above list for all measuring(except gun barrels for their own shooting).

-cgmckenzie

Damn, I need to type faster.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The shock prow in and of itself IS decorative, as it is not hull.

And where in the rules does it state this? Tell me, I'd like to see it.

I'm sure a NORMAL prow is part of the hull, since the vehicle is incomplete w/o it and it forms a definate part of the vehicles "mass".

What, just b/c a shock prow has a different bit, is a little bit longer and you pay points for it now all of a sudden my raider is actually SHORTER than a raider with a regular prow?

Just b/c the models peice is pointed doesnt make it any different from the front of a rhino as far as ramming goes.

You do realise ramming and disembarking are 2 different things, with two different criteria, yes?

Ramming only requires contact with the vehicle, not the hull

Disembarking requires you to measure to the vehicle, and you are only allowed to measure to the hull.

The prow is decorative because it is not an essential part of the vehicles hull - see CGMs quote. Just because you dont agree doesnt mean youre right on this.

Again, the main cannon on my LRBT is essential and forms a large part of the vehicle, but it is not hull. In no way could you claim it is hull. The BGB specifically states that things like that are not hull. The Shockprow isn't hull.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Pg 56 Vehicles and Measuring Distances
"Instead, for distances involving a vehicles, measure to or from their hull(ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners, and other decorative elements)."

So yes, it says you can disembark from any point on the vehicle, but you still can only measure to hull. You ignore the above list for all measuring(except gun barrels for their own shooting).

-cgmckenzie

Damn, I need to type faster.

That's true, you're right...

BUT

It also states, under vehicles and movement that cruising speed is 12". You have to go to "FAST VEHICLES" to see exactly how THEY move...as they move differently.

Under the transport rules you measure to an access point and/or to the hull as the "Vehicles and Measuring Distances" rules states....but you dig a little further and go to open topped transport vehicles and UNLIKE regular transports we never mention the hull. It's simply "any point of the vehicle".

In effect this is an amendment to the rules you've quoted. Thats what these chapters are in the rulebook. A hard rule then several amendments to that rule. This is one such amendment. They mentioned "hull" in the normal transport rules. They didnt need to b/c of the rule you quoted of course. The omission of the word "hull" anywhere in the open topped transport section and instead saying "any point of the vehicle" tells me that this is an amendment to the rule you quoted.

This rule is one of two things

1. A poorly written rule. (if interpreted your way)
2. Perfectly amended and not confusing. (if interpreted my way or by RAW)

And, again, now find a way to measure to not-hull

When you can find permission to measure, come back.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You do realise ramming and disembarking are 2 different things, with two different criteria, yes?

Ramming only requires contact with the vehicle, not the hull

Disembarking requires you to measure to the vehicle, and you are only allowed to measure to the hull.

The prow is decorative because it is not an essential part of the vehicles hull - see CGMs quote. Just because you dont agree doesnt mean youre right on this.

I'm still waiting for evidence saying that a prow is not part of the hull. You say it's not an essential part of the vehicles hull...how did you come to this conclusion? Please tell me? I'd like to know where you're coming up with this.

I still disagree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, again, now find a way to measure to not-hull

When you can find permission to measure, come back.

What part of "any point of the vehicle" do you not understand?

What part of "the measuring rules only give you permission to measure to the hull" are you struggling with?

Simple concept. Find permission to measure to not-hull. Hint: The line about disembarking isnt it.

The fact that a shock prow can be added to, like a reinforced ram, the hull indicaets it isnt hull. Shockingly simple.

Tell you what, we'll 4+ it then...looky there a '6'.

Now what'cha gonna do?


Since it seems to me like you're not even reading my posts or responding to my inquiries to your stance, I guess we're done. Keep making up rules as you go along, I suppose it's going well for you. Good luck.

*blinks*

Sorry, I've read your dirth-of-rules posts, youre apparently struggling finding a rules quote to back your position, so I'll leave you to your conviction that youre right, lack of evidence and all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The fact that a shock prow can be added to, like a reinforced ram, the hull indicaets it isnt hull. Shockingly simple.

It's not added...it replaces. It's just a different bit TO an essential part of the hull. Yes, shockingly simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:*blinks*

Sorry, I've read your dirth-of-rules posts, youre apparently struggling finding a rules quote to back your position, so I'll leave you to your conviction that youre right, lack of evidence and all.

Not struggling at all sir. It's right there in black and white...you simply refuse to accept the RAW.

Replacing the battle canon with an executioner doesn't make it hull. Essential, yes, but not hull.

-cgmckenzie

1) The prow itself isnt hull. Decorative item in both cases

HIDEOUSLY simple.

2) What RAW? You've yet to give any.

a) you must measure 2"
b) you can only measure to the hull

GASP! that means you can only measure 2" to the hull!

So, please, find some rules or concede. And, as pointed out, a line requring you to measure isnt a line giving you the rules on how you measure.

cgmckenzie wrote:Replacing the battle canon with an executioner doesn't make it hull. Essential, yes, but not hull.

-cgmckenzie

I dunno where you get this from. We're not talking about a gun. We're talking about a peice of the hull that the model is incomplete w/o.

I suppose neither of you have put together a raider though.

Guess youre wrong, then.

So, any rules yet?

Nos your argumentative mood seriously hampers your debating ability. You should know this by now.

Deadshane is right on this issue. It does indeed count as the hull, as a raider without a shockprow, or a normal prow, is incomplete. It is clearly an essential part of the model and vehicle itself. Deadshane also said "I'm still waiting for evidence saying that a prow is not part of the hull. You say it's not an essential part of the vehicles hull...how did you come to this conclusion? Please tell me? I'd like to know where you're coming up with this. " Which you have yet to answer other than providing argumentative drivel.

A LRBT gun is an essential part of the model, without which it is incomplete.

Doesnt make it hull

An argument along those lines is not a winning argument. Try again.

Another immature, argumentative response. Surprising.

An example can never be used to prove your argument.

The dark eldar raider, when being built, is required to insert a prow into the gaping maw at the front end of the vehicle. It is not optional nor "decorative" but required, as an essential part of the vehicle itself.

In order to prove your claim correct, you must specifically show that the prow of the dark eldar vehicles is clearly, without a shadow of a doubt non essential to the operation of the vehicle. Your definition of hull is shaky at best when applied to vehicles outside of the Imperium.

the purpose of the rule your a citing is to not penalize players for adding decorative elements, as the hull is what is measured from. However, claiming that something isn't hull without further explanation other than "Try Again." is only proving the vagueness of your definition.

When building a LRBT you are required to put a cannon of some form, and fill the hole in the front with a heavy bolter, flamer, or lascannon. Doesn't make them hull.

-cgmckenzie

Nightsblood - Another post that failed to read and comphrend the post before it, shock.

When building a LRBT, you must add the gun, otherwise the vehicle is incomplete. You MUST add heavy flamer / bolter, otherwise there is a gaping hole.

This does not make the gun part of the hull. It does not make the flamer part of the hull. An argument along the lines of "the vehicle isnt complete without X" is not a sufficient condition for X being part of the hull.

So, does this mean that my Wyches cannot disembark out of the front of a Raider since the Shock Prow is decorative and it extends out farther than 2" (or something very close to that) past the hull? Does this mean that if my Hammie is shooting from the Raider then it can't use the Shock Prow for measuring its distance?

Exactly that.

However you can get out the front, as you only need to measure 2" coherency, not 2" unobsctructed coherency, meaning you can place a wytch either side of the prow.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prow

prow (prou)
n.
1. Nautical The forward part of a ship's hull; the bow.
2. A projecting forward part, such as the front end of a ski.

English language FTW

Now, if you can find a definition that a gun barrel is a PART of a tanks HULL, perhaps you can find a precedant for your arguement.

They can deploy out the front, just not directly in front of the prow. No shooting to it or from it either.

-cgmckenzie

A prow is not a weapon.

A prow is an essential part of the vehicle, a weapon is specifically stated as not being a part of the hull.

You seem to have a problem understanding that because someone disagrees with you, it means that they " failed to read and comphrend the post before it."
Someone can read and comprehend and also disagree.

Again i ask you - "In order to prove your claim correct, you must specifically show that the prow of the dark eldar vehicles is clearly, without a shadow of a doubt non essential to the operation of the vehicle."





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prow

prow (prou)
n.
1. Nautical The forward part of a ship's hull; the bow.
2. A projecting forward part, such as the front end of a ski.

English language FTW

Now, if you can find a definition that a gun barrel is a PART of a tanks HULL, perhaps you can find a precedant for your arguement.

Denial in

3

2

1

Can anyone actually define "hull" and "decorative element" as it applies to 40k rules?

Not specifically. But it is the nature of the beast when writing a rulebook for vehicles of all shapes and sizes.

Distilled into a rough definition, hull is the actual shadow of the vehicle. The actual dimensions and shape the vehicle takes. The "decorative elements" include things for vanities sake, with the key exception of weapons.

Wow, I could've saved myself a lot of typing by just posting that definition of prow earlier.

Guess that was a slamdunk. I didnt even realise how well it answered the OP.

DO SHOCKPROWS COUNT AS PART OF THE HULL?

Q-Now, I've never used shockprows before and I was considering them because I grow tired of random Haemonculi trinkets that don't do anything (stupid Casket of Fail) Anyhow, the shockprow is almost a full inch longer than the normal piece on a raider, this can be most beneficial in game, as every inch can make a difference in getting that crucial charge or even helping to multicharge more than one target with your wyches. So, before I put this on the table and start acting a fool I would like to clarify any stupidity I may stumble into. What do you think? Is the Shock Prow a usable piece of the hull? Or, and upgrade like a dozer blade that no longer counts as part of the hull?

A- prow (prou) n.
1. Nautical The forward part of a ship's hull; the bow.
2. A projecting forward part, such as the front end of a ski.

Three pages to get to this.

The silence is deafening.

I hate to ruin your party, but the Reinforced Ram on the trukk is an essential part of the model, too. If you leave it off, it is very obvious that some part of the model is missing, still the BRB itself even contains a picture of a measurement ignoring the ram(pg. 3).

I'd also like to point out two things:
- hanging around the forum longer than your opposite does not make you right
- dictionary quotes violate the tenets of YMDC

Nights - you clearly didnt read or comprehend, because I showed how your argument (that if you doint add the prow it does not "complete" the model, and is therefore hull) is not a sufficient argument. I used a clear example of a gun to show how this argument was wrong. You have still to provide another one.

BTW - dictionary definitions a) arent allowed and b) dont work in 40k, as skimmers dont have hulls, they probably have a fuselage. Meaning you cant ever disembark from your vehicle.

Sorry to ruin your celebrations with rules.

Here's the denial I was looking for.

Nice tactic though...wait until Nights goes offline to disagree with him.

.........

So, what do we have here? A "prow" is by definition the forward part of a vehicles hull. Yet you still deny that it IS part of the hull but offer NO REASON WHATSOEVER BESIDES YOUR OPINION to support your claim. Yet you continue to argue.

THIS is what bad debate is made of boys and girls. When people are offered solid evidence, and their reply is to shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, violently shake their head, and repeat "NONONONONO!"

Please, I implore you, don't go down that path.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:BTW - dictionary definitions dont work in 40k, as skimmers dont have hulls, they probably have a fuselage. Meaning you cant ever disembark from your vehicle.

This is not using the dictionary as a rule. We're defining a portion of a vehicle. To wit....a prow. By definition it is part of a hull. Vehicles in 40k have hulls. The logical conclusion when you combine the two is that the Shock PROW is part of the hull. Especially when you consider that a raider model is incomplete if you fail to attach any prow, shock or otherwise, to the model. This bit is a 'must have' portion of the model. Your conclusion is (no offense meant) completely lacking any logical track of thinking.

Sorry to ruin your celebrations with rules.

Don't be sorry, you didnt.

The only thing you should be apologising for (if anything) is for continuing this discussion needlessly when you've obviously been proven wrong.

I've done it before in YMTC. Been proven wrong and come back stating, "Wow, guess I was wrong." Your inability to finally admit you might have been mistaken is quite frankly mind boggling at this point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nights - you clearly didnt read or comprehend, because I showed how your argument (that if you doint add the prow it does not "complete" the model, and is therefore hull) is not a sufficient argument. I used a clear example of a gun to show how this argument was wrong. You have still to provide another one.

BTW - dictionary definitions a) arent allowed and b) dont work in 40k, as skimmers dont have hulls, they probably have a fuselage. Meaning you cant ever disembark from your vehicle.

Sorry to ruin your celebrations with rules.

I understand that you disagree, yet through all of this arguing you still can't answer the very first question i ask you - "Why exactly does the prow NOT count as the hull, what exact text are you using to justify your opinion?

You keep using this blunt example of a gun being essential. The barrels of guns are specifically mentioned to not count as hull. The rule debate here is whether the prow counts as the hull. i've provide multiple examples through the actual building of the model to the innate definition of a prow. You have provided none.

Never having encountered one in real life, so only going off photos from around the net, I have to say it just looks decorative.

I know that isn't really basis for this but it doesn't look like a vital part of the hull, so I am tempted to not count it as hull.

I apply that logic to the other vague hot spots about hull, namely vendettas and valkyries; some people claim that the wings are not hull, but they are clearly vital parts of the structure of the hull, so I play them as hull.

-cgmckenzie

Right, if you've seem one first hand it is extremely obvious that the prow is a continuation of the "spine" of the raider. That might not sound like an answer but it really is the truth.

cgmckenzie wrote:Never having encountered one in real life, so only going off photos from around the net, I have to say it just looks decorative.

I know that isn't really basis for this but it doesn't look like a vital part of the hull, so I am tempted to not count it as hull.

I apply that logic to the other vague hot spots about hull, namely vendettas and valkyries; some people claim that the wings are not hull, but they are clearly vital parts of the structure of the hull, so I play them as hull.

-cgmckenzie

If a boat doesn't have a prow it will sink................

Deadshane1 wrote:Here's the denial I was looking for.

Nice tactic though...wait until Nights goes offline to disagree with him.

Wow, conspiracy theory abounds. The other possibility is that I was doing something else and only came back to the thread then. The status of the person I was responding to is irrelevant.

Deadshane1 wrote:So, what do we have here? A "prow" is by definition the forward part of a vehicles hull.

Ships hull. Is a skimmer a ship? Does it sail in water? Do you now see the reason why that definition is of no use whatsoever?

Deadshane1 wrote: Yet you still deny that it IS part of the hull but offer NO REASON WHATSOEVER BESIDES YOUR OPINION to support your claim. Yet you continue to argue.

1) I showed how the argument that it is an "essential" part of the model, without which it is incomplete, is NOT a sufficient condition for it being hull. The fact you keep ignoring that FACT is telling.

2) The shock prow is, by definition, decorative. It is added to the model as a points upgrade. Meaning it cannot be essential to the hull. I've tried this 3 or 4 times now, but getting through to you seems tricky.

Deadshane1 wrote:THIS is what bad debate is made of boys and girls. When people are offered solid evidence, and their reply is to shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, violently shake their head, and repeat "NONONONONO!"

You ignored, repeatedly, proof that your argument was flawed. Your response is to insult people. Calm down.

Deadshane1 wrote:Please, I implore you, don't go down that path.

Sorry, youve already been there. Im not going to follow you.

This is not using the dictionary as a rule. We're defining a portion of a vehicle.

No, defining the portion of a ship. Is a skimmer a ship? Id love for you to say it is.

Again, do you see now why the definition is a bad idea, and is agaisnt the tenets of YMDC?

Deadshane1 wrote: To wit....a prow. By definition it is part of a hull.

....of a ship. I love how you keep "forgetting", conveniently, the part that entirely undermines your point. Entirely. 100%.

Deadshane1 wrote: Vehicles in 40k have hulls. The logical conclusion when you combine the two is that the Shock PROW is part of the hull. Especially when you consider that a raider model is incomplete if you fail to attach any prow, shock or otherwise, to the model.

I'm sure we've been down the "it MUST be hull if the model is incomplete without it!!!!!!!" argument before? Oh yes, we have. And i've shown you that that argument is not suffcient. Or in other, simpler words - it is irrelevant to the status of something being hull.

Deadshane1 wrote:This bit is a 'must have' portion of the model. Your conclusion is (no offense meant) completely lacking any logical track of thinking.

Your conclusion is, no offence, ignoring the counter example in the hope that repeated application of a flawed, baseless argument will result in concession. Oops.

Deadshane1 wrote:The only thing you should be apologising for (if anything) is for continuing this discussion needlessly when you've obviously been proven wrong.

I've done it before in YMTC. Been proven wrong and come back stating, "Wow, guess I was wrong." Your inability to finally admit you might have been mistaken is quite frankly mind boggling at this point.

Please, come back and admit it, once youve ACTUALLY read and comprehended the flaws in your argumnet. Im not holding my breath.

I don't see how you can say that it is in any way defined as decorative. There is a standard prow, and a shock prow piece for the model. The shock prow has a distinct bit from the standard prows. The instructions for the model direct you to assemble it with either option in place. It's never clearly defined one way or the other. For either side to say it is cut and dry is misleading and incorrect. It's not defined conclusively one way or the other.

The point was that, claiming it is "essential" to the way the vehicle is built and is therefore "hull", is not a good argument - there are plenty of essential pieces to models that arent ever hull. So claiming it is clearly hull by using a bad definition (skimmers arent ships) and a bad argument is not convincing.

Having taken a few more looks at detailed photos, I am confident to say the prow, shock or otherwise, isn't hull. The hull is the part of the raider that looks like a boat, with the prow sticking out on an arm, much akin to dozer blades or deff rollas.

-cgmckenzie

@cgmckenzie

You're saying that either prow does not count as hull? Now, I know there must be a metric sh#t ton of DE players out there who will disagree with you being they've been used to draw LoS so many times, or even used to draw ranges. By what you're saying, I could just flat out not put a prow on and hit the tables with shorter vehicles, making them much easier to hide. That's modeling for advantage, and is frowned upon. Further, you must realize by now, not including a prow on your DE skimmer is like not putting the side pieces a normal vehicle, making them substantially thinner. Again, modeling for advantage, and it doesnt work, because the vehicle is incomplete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prows are part of the vehicles outline, and I would count them as hull.

You dont not put it on - as it doesnt count as hull it doesnt count for measuring to you (drawing LOS, range, etc) either, but you take the rough with the smooth - you cant disembark by measuring to it either.

Again, this isnt about the vehicle being "Complete" or not - a leman russ isnt "complete" without the hull mounted gun, however that doesnt mean its hull.

So the question is whether that front pyramidal piece counts as hull, yes?

Yessir.

This picture actually illustrates my point very well; it is attached, yes, but by a thin arm, not directly attached to the rest of the hull. It looks more akin to a dozer blade than to the rest of the hull because of that.

This is particularly easy because it is shaped like a boat. If you were to take a drill to the 'skin' of the boat(like where that one model is hanging off of it), water would come in and it would sink. Drill a hole in the prow here, and it does not look as if water is coming in.

Again, this isn't perfect but is how I am seeing this. It simply looks like it isn't hull. Vital to the operation of the vehicle, I am sure, but not hull.

-cgmckenzie

Nos seems to find it impossible that a Wych would disembark the raider by doing a somersault off of the tip if the prow. (as her disembarkation)

Something I would say 100% of actual Dark Eldar players would disagree with.

Prows have been actually defined as PART of a ships hull by dictionary definition earlier in this threadl, and as you can see the model above would be incomplete w/o the prow bit.



Nos maintains that the raider is a skimmer and not a "ship" per se. A ridiculous arguement when you consider that a dingy has a prow and is not a ship or as Wikipedia states; ""Prow" may also refer to a pointed, projecting front part of other travelling objects, such as a racing skates, airplanes, or chariots.

So what have we established? Prows are a portion of a ships hull. (as defined in the dictionary). Also, "ships" whatever that describes, are not the only vehicles that might have a "prow". Based on these arguements, I feel this is sufficient to say that a Raider's Prow is a proper "prow" and is indeed part of it's Hull. Furthermore, the actual model (as you can see above) would be incomplete w/o a prow 'bit'.

There is no reason whatsoever (besides possible wishful thinking) to beleive that the prow bit of a raider is "decorative". We in the Prow-Hull-Yes camp have done everything really neccessary to enforce our point. Yet Nos has yet to explain why he beleives that the prow is decorative and not part of the hull. He has provided no text within the rules, no evidence whatsoever.

Deadshane - sigh

So, despite knowing the dictionary quotes are verboten, and this one in particular is inapplicable as well, a skimmer isnt a ship, you're still persisting and have apparently made this personal, despite a number of others disagreeing with you?

You have provided no rules. None. Absolutely nil. You STILL state that it would be "incomplete" without the prow piece as if that is even a relevant arguemnt - it isnt! Its been proven already that that argument is useless in determining hull status, yet still you cling to it, as if it were a life raft.

It isnt.

It isnt a piece of hull. Look at the pic. If you blunted that "prow" (whcih is more like an underwater ram than a prow, btw, in profile and position) would the SKIMMER be ok? Yes, as its hull would be intact. As in, the bit that is clearly meant to hold actual wytches.

You have yet to provide a single rules reference. Nothing.

Don't use dictionary definitions for 40K. It isn't a valid source for rules interpretation. Don't use the argument 'the model isn't complete without it, so it is hull' because that is simply false; a LRBT isn't complete without the cannon but the cannon isn't hull.

The prow on that picture you provided doesn't look anything like the one in the picture 3 posts up. The shock prow looks as if it were attached to the hull of the raider, and the picture you put to illustrate the shape of a prow reinforces that idea; the shape of the bow of the ship is much more similar to the shape of the raider behind the shock prow.

-cgmckenzie

One last little thing. If you know anything about a ships structure, it's obvious to you that a Rostrum (or bow ram) when placed on ships is indeed part of the main body structure (or hull) of a ship.

Otherwise....the bit simply breaks off. It is part of the ship, a peice of the hull.

Nos thinks that's decorative, for reasons only known to himself....b/c he wont share with us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No dictionary definitions.

Ok, what is a gun in 40k then?

What is a tank?

What is armour?

What is a Weapon?

What is a Bike?

What is Artillery?

What is a pistol?

What is a Bow?

Shane, stop quoting real life! This is a fantasy game in the far future represented with bits of plastic and metal. No correlation to the real world.

Nos and I think it is decorative because it looks decorative with the way the model is designed and when compared to other objects on models that have been declared to be decorative. It is far more similar to a dozer blade/deff rolla/siege shield than to any thing else, including hull of other skimmers.

-cgmckenzie

I was explaining that it isnt really a prow in shape or position, and *looks* like a ram. Not that it is (as this isnt even attached to / part of the spine like a real ram would be. ) Again, a failure on your part to actually read and understand. Im shocked, really I am. Or are you going to go back to claiming i've never built a raider, since the rest of your arguments have been debunked as irrelevant and useless?

ALso, for the last time - I have explained, TWICE now, why it is decorative. Your failure to comprehend this isnt really my problem, but in simple language:

1) Shock prow is optional, and added to the vehicle. Decorative.

2) The actual shape and positioning is not suggestive of a hull piece, as if you removed the cross section the hull would be intact and X-tight, where X is some fluid. It looks exactly as decorative as a dozer blade. You know, those really decorative bits explicitly mentioned in the rules?

Seriously DS - compare the two pics, one with the actual prow of a ship, one with the "prow" on the Raider. Notice anything STUNNINGLY different about the two?

Love the list of items at the end. Artillery is a defined unit type - youre aware of that, right? I glossed over the rest of your ranting

I'd like to point out that dozer blades, rams and prows are not decorative, and neither are gun barrels. Still, none of them count as hull per RAW.

I really had to laugh at the "you waited for him to go to sleep" argument. Two words: time zones.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was explaining that it isnt really a prow in shape or position, and *looks* like a ram. Not that it is (as this isnt even attached to / part of the spine like a real ram would be. )

and on what page of what book did you come to that conclusion? Or is it just your opinion?

And all these things are defined in the book when they are mentioned the first time.

All weapons are defined as weapons because they have a stat line, including guns.

A tank has a specific indicator saying it is a tank, otherwise it is merely a vehicle. Pg 68 BGB

Armour is defined by armour facing and has several handy diagrams. Pg 60

A bike has its own definition and a little indicator on the stat line of the vehicle. Pg 53

Artillery is defined in the BRB under the 'artillery' section. Pg 55

Pistols are defined in the types of weapon section. Pg 29

"Bow" isn't defined because the vehicles here are not boats, so they don't have a bow. 'Bow' is not defined because nobody uses archery or if they do, it has its own definition in its own codex.

-cgmckenzie

jmurph wrote:
So the question is whether that front pyramidal piece counts as hull, yes?

Just wanted to point out, that this is NOT a SHOCK PROW.

That is a "normal prow". It should not confer any in game benefit.


The RAVAGER kit includes a Larger prow. (same shape, but longer, wider and bigger lumps)
this larger piece is the "Official" Shock Prow.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440236a&prodId=prod900155a

The First Picture has a "prow" While the Second has a "Shock Prow"


Not sure how this affects the rules debate here, but just wanted to point that out.

cgmckenzie wrote:

Nos and I think it is decorative because it looks decorative with the way the model is designed and when compared to other objects on models that have been declared to be decorative.

This is opinion and has no more bearing on the rules than my dictionary quotations. (at least dictionary quotations can provide a guide as to what something IS) Furthermore, it is an opinion that most every dark eldar player you meet will disagree with....it is their army after all.

Deadshane1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was explaining that it isnt really a prow in shape or position, and *looks* like a ram. Not that it is (as this isnt even attached to / part of the spine like a real ram would be. )

and on what page of what book did you come to that conclusion? Or is it just your opinion?

Well, you see that really handy picture showing what a real prow looks like? Thats a start.

Still waiting for your rules quote stating it is hull. We've shown you that your arguments are baseless, so all you have left is to either quote out of context (because apparently you have no response to anything else, or maybe its so you can claim, in two or three posts time, that i still havent said "why" its decorative?) or provide a rules quote, for the first time this thread.

Over to you.


Edit: you're still going on about dictionary quotes that prove you wrong? Ingenious. Pretending they say one thing when they say another.
.You are also assuming im not a DE player. Like you assumed Ive never put a raider together. Now, whats that quote about assuming....

They are part of the hull.

They arnt decoration, they serve a distict purpose. Banners dont serve a purpose, prows do. Its part of the vehicle.

If your in range of a dozerblade you can shoot it, it just has access points not in front.

You cannot shoot a dozerblade because it is not hull. It is specifically declared to not be hull by the BGB.

-cgmckenzie

O really

Smitty0305 wrote:They are part of the hull.

They arnt decoration, they serve a distict purpose. Banners dont serve a purpose, prows do. Its part of the vehicle.

If your in range of a dozerblade you can shoot it, it just has access points not in front.

ERm, you may want to check your rulebook. Dozer blades are specifically listed as not shootable at.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was explaining that it isnt really a prow in shape or position, and *looks* like a ram. Not that it is (as this isnt even attached to / part of the spine like a real ram would be. )

and on what page of what book did you come to that conclusion? Or is it just your opinion?

Well, you see that really handy picture showing what a real prow looks like? Thats a start.

Still waiting for your rules quote stating it is hull. We've shown you that your arguments are baseless, so all you have left is to either quote out of context (because apparently you have no response to anything else, or maybe its so you can claim, in two or three posts time, that i still havent said "why" its decorative?) or provide a rules quote, for the first time this thread.

Over to you.

.....and I'm still waiting on your rules quote to say it isnt.


So what you're saying is that you feel that it looks decorative. You site nothing but opinion.

I disagree. I feel that it is indeed part of the hull. Firstly, due to the model being totally incomplete w/o the prow 'bit'. Unlike a model that can have a dozerblade. Same as the front "wings" of a devilfish still count as hull. Why? B/c I have a rudimentary knowledge of ship building/anatomy, and I know what a "prow" is. Also....you've got tournament players across the country disagreeing with you.

But you play your way. I'll continue playing 40k.


EDIT

Oh, and b4 someone says a LR demolisher is incomplete w/o the Demolisher cannon. (which isnt hull either) I will state the obvious.

A cannon barrel is not an extension of the ship's hull. It is a gun barrel, obviously. The prow 'bit' has no referance in the rules whatsoever. It is simply part of the model. If you dont glue it on there is a big gaping hole in the front part of the hull waiting for you to connect the rest of it.

@DS

You are an idiot.

Why are you arguing this point here. It's pretty obvious how this is supposed to be played, I know you've been to tournament and we both know how it's played when people who "know" 40k are playing a game.

Everybody who plays 40k "for real" or "professionally" plays it the right way, the way you're explaining it.

Quite arguing with the obtuse.

Personal attacks like this are unacceptable on DakkaDakka. ~Manchu

Beerfart wrote:@DS

You are an idiot.

Why are you arguing this point here. It's pretty obvious how this is supposed to be played, I know you've been to tournament and we both know how it's played when people who "know" 40k are playing a game.

Everybody who plays 40k "for real" or "professionally" plays it the right way, the way you're explaining it.

Quite arguing with the obtuse.

@Beerfart

Just trying to teach the kids b4 they run into problems with peeps that play occasionally.

Useful contribution beerfart. Read the tenets recently?

Deadshane - and you have tournament players from a different country disagreeing with you.

And yes, yet again you fall back on the "it isnt complete without it so it must be hull!!!" non-argument. For the nth time: that argument is wrong.

Deadshane not getting it wrote:If you dont glue it on there is a big gaping hole in the front part of the hull waiting for you to connect the rest of it.

What, you mean the same as a hull mounted heavy bolter on a chimera chassis leaves a big gaping hole if you dont glue it on? Does that make it part of the hull now?

Can you not see that problems with that argument? Really?

The shock prow is most likely part of the hull if the original pokey bit it replaces is part of the hull. Pretty sure that bit is not a weapon or decorative

The pointed bit it replaces is NOT a vehicle upgrade and is part of th hull, completely unlike the dozer blade which is replacing nothing on the model and is a completely new add on piece to the vehicle. The shock prow is like less than a fifth of an inch in difference than the standard hull bit.

I really see no reason to argue over this, counting it as part of the hull has so many draw backs i see it as pointless to want it this way (guns are technicly further away as you can only start the hock prow 12" on and no more, bigger model to shoot at, you dont even get bonus disembarking as you started no more than 12" on anyway). If everone here is so worried about it at the start of the game say to your opponent im counting this as part of the hull if they disagree take it like a man and say ok thats fine.

blaktoof wrote:The shock prow is most likely part of the hull if the original pokey bit it replaces is part of the hull. Pretty sure that bit is not a weapon or decorative

The pointed bit it replaces is NOT a vehicle upgrade and is part of th hull, completely unlike the dozer blade which is replacing nothing on the model and is a completely new add on piece to the vehicle. The shock prow is like less than a fifth of an inch in difference than the standard hull bit.

Are the spiky blades underneath also hull?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And yes, yet again you fall back on the "it isnt complete without it so it must be hull!!!" non-argument. For the nth time: that argument is wrong.

At least I have an arguement.

All you cite is opinion with no basis within the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

And yes, yet again you fall back on the "it isnt complete without it so it must be hull!!!" non-argument. For the nth time: that argument is wrong.

Why is that argument wrong? you have never cited a single rule for god's sake....

Nos, for the last time. Answer the question i have been asking you from the start.

"Why exactly does the prow NOT count as the hull, what exact text are you using to justify your opinion?

You still haven't answered the question, all you do is mindlessly repeat your opinion and bathe in your own superiority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

theonetyrant wrote:I really see no reason to argue over this, counting it as part of the hull has so many draw backs i see it as pointless to want it this way (guns are technicly further away as you can only start the hock prow 12" on and no more, bigger model to shoot at, you dont even get bonus disembarking as you started no more than 12" on anyway). If everone here is so worried about it at the start of the game say to your opponent im counting this as part of the hull if they disagree take it like a man and say ok thats fine.

Exactly, it is actually bad for competative dark eldar players (like myself) but it is nonetheless true. It enables one to be shot much, much easier.

Why is it wrong?

Apparently you've not read any of the last few posts? Just a blank "i dont understand"?

The argument the prow-is-hull side is proposing is: the part is HULL because the model would be incomplete without it. [as in, there is a hole in the model]

Proof that the argument is wrong, by contradiction: a hull heavy bolter for a chimera is hull because without it the model is incomplete (there is a gaping hole - the EXACT rationale used for the prow) - except guns are defined in the rules as not-hull

Your argument leads to a contradiction, and is therefore wrong. Can you at last finally understand that point? If you dont understand the argument, can you at least show some comprehension of the point?

And what exact text am I using? The definition of decorative in the rulebook. How is something you buy as an addition an essential part of the hull? How is it any less decorative (as in, no functional purpose) than a dozer blade?

Where is your RULES text proving it is hull? Page and paragraph. Note - an irrelevant dictionary quote that applies to sailing ships, not 41st millennium skimming antigravity craft, doesnt count.

The BRB never describes Dozer Blades as decorative.

It just lumps them into a list that ends with "and other decorative elements". Decorative or not, they still don't count for measurements.

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why is it wrong?

Apparently you've not read any of the last few posts? Just a blank "i dont understand"?

Again, i understand exactly what your argument is, and it is my attempt to show you why it is wrong. You still have the fundamental misunderstanding that because someone disagrees with you it somehow means they fail to comprehend....

nosferatu1001 wrote:The argument the prow-is-hull side is proposing is: the part is HULL because the model would be incomplete without it. [as in, there is a hole in the model]

Proof that the argument is wrong, by contradiction: a hull heavy bolter for a chimera is hull because without it the model is incomplete (there is a gaping hole - the EXACT rationale used for the prow) - except guns are defined in the rules as not-hull

You are still using the same terrible example of weapons. A PROW IS NOT A WEAPON. it is an entirely different rule debate. Your continued use of this example only proves you don'yt understand the debate being had.
What you need to prove your argument correct is to show how the prow is specifically decorative, which you have not done whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Your argument leads to a contradiction, and is therefore wrong. Can you at last finally understand that point? If you dont understand the argument, can you at least show some comprehension of the point?

And what exact text am I using? The definition of decorative in the rulebook. How is something you buy as an addition an essential part of the hull? How is it any less decorative (as in, no functional purpose) than a dozer blade?

Because the shockprow is an upgrade to the existing prow on a raider. The prow of a dark eldar raider is clearly a continuation of the "spine" of the vehicle itself. Do you see the ribbed spine continue into the formed "arrowhead" of the prow? That is clearly hull. A dozerblade is simple a piece of wargear glued to the front end of a rhino. As it was said above, NOT having the prow would be using an incomplete model, ergo, modeling for advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Where is your RULES text proving it is hull? Page and paragraph. Note - an irrelevant dictionary quote that applies to sailing ships, not 41st millennium skimming antigravity craft, doesnt count.

It's funny, you still haven't answered my question but simply ask the same one to me. I will answer it because it seems you are unable to.

Page 60 says " when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles). "

So, the prow falls into two catagories... one being hull, as an essential part of the vehicle, and the other "gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles". Can you honestly say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the prow honestly is in the same category as antennas ? If so then there is no sense continuing this discussion.

Now, lets see you pull some rules out yourself, or will i have to do that for you too?

nights blood wrote:You are still using the same terrible example of weapons. A PROW IS NOT A WEAPON. it is an entirely different rule debate. Your continued use of this example only proves you don'yt understand the debate being had.
What you need to prove your argument correct is to show how the prow is specifically decorative, which you have not done whatsoever.

Sigh.

Thats the whole point. You cannot use an argument that relies on "any incomplete part of the model makes that incomplete part hull" when weapons exist, as they act as a contradiction. So no, you dont comprehend.

Im proving YOU are wrong, not that I am right. Subtle difference. Showing YOUR argument leads to a contradiction, making it a useless argument.

Respond to the entirety of my post.

But pg 56 BGB says "Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners, and other decorative elements)."

I would say that the shock prow falls into the same category of dozer blades/deff rollas/siege shields. Antennas happen to be in that category as well, but so do banners, guns, and fiddly bits.

Aesthetically and usefully, the shock prow is the skimmer version of a deff rolla(damage stuff in front of it while looking like an ice breaker, the bull dozer of the sea). That fact that it looks and behaves similarly to other items that fall into the lump 'not hull' category tells me that it isn't hull.

-cgmckenzie

But the problem is that though dozer blades are specifically mentioned, siege shields, deffrollas and shock prows are not.

This is one of those areas where there is an opinion on two sides of what the shock prow is. (or indeed the regular 'prow' on the front of raiders and ravagers for that matter)

Nosferatu maintains that the prow and shock prow are decorative elements.

Others maintain that they are part of the hull.

Neither are wrong.

I play Dark Eldar. My regular opponent and I have house ruled that the prow is part of the hull, so LOS and ranges can be drawn to it. That's the disadvantage.

But my passengers can disembark within 2" of it. That's the advantage.

You aren't going to find anything in writing that says definitively whether it is or is not part of the hull.

But, of sourse, that's just my opinion.

Deff Rollas are dozer blades for orks(more or less), while siege shields are dozer blades for SM(again, more or less). It's not perfect but its the best precedent that I have for deciding where the shock prow fits into the game.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Deff Rollas are dozer blades for orks(more or less), while siege shields are dozer blades for SM(again, more or less). It's not perfect but its the best precedent that I have for deciding where the shock prow fits into the game.

-cgmckenzie

cgm

Not trying to be sarcastic but honest here.
there are two types of prows
there is the normal prow of the dark eldar raider, which is simply a piece of plastic on the end.

And the wargear option shockprow, which allows skimmers to tankshock.

The normal prow is clearly hull, but i understand the conflict of whether the shockprow indeed counts as hull, as it might fall into the "dozerblade" category.

Nights blood - I tried doing so previously, and you would then ignore parts of my post you wanted to ignore, and respond to others with irrelevancies. So, to make it simpler, I'm going to try you with one point at a time.

Can you finally admit the "its not complete without X therefore X must be hull" argument is bunk? Given I have proven it is wrong (proof by contradiction) you cannot hang any argument that prow == hull based on that argument. You simply cannot do so, without acnowledging your lack of an argument at the very least.

Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

So - nights blood - two things for you to properly respond to.

time wizard wrote:But the problem is that though dozer blades are specifically mentioned, siege shields, deffrollas and shock prows are not.

This is one of those areas where there is an opinion on two sides of what the shock prow is. (or indeed the regular 'prow' on the front of raiders and ravagers for that matter)

Nosferatu maintains that the prow and shock prow are decorative elements.

Others maintain that they are part of the hull.

Neither are wrong.

I play Dark Eldar. My regular opponent and I have house ruled that the prow is part of the hull, so LOS and ranges can be drawn to it. That's the disadvantage.

But my passengers can disembark within 2" of it. That's the advantage.

You aren't going to find anything in writing that says definitively whether it is or is not part of the hull.

But, of sourse, that's just my opinion.

Good synopsis. I hope this can clarify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nights blood - I tried doing so previously, and you would then ignore parts of my post you wanted to ignore, and respond to others with irrelevancies. So, to make it simpler, I'm going to try you with one point at a time.

Can you finally admit the "its not complete without X therefore X must be hull" argument is bunk? Given I have proven it is wrong (proof by contradiction) you cannot hang any argument that prow == hull based on that argument. You simply cannot do so, without acnowledging your lack of an argument at the very least.

Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

So - nights blood - two things for you to properly respond to.

I literally responded to every letter of the previous post, yet you continue to be unable to answer any of the questions raised.

time wizard wrote:But the problem is that though dozer blades are specifically mentioned, siege shields, deffrollas and shock prows are not.

This is one of those areas where there is an opinion on two sides of what the shock prow is. (or indeed the regular 'prow' on the front of raiders and ravagers for that matter)

Nosferatu maintains that the prow and shock prow are decorative elements.

Others maintain that they are part of the hull.

Neither are wrong.

I play Dark Eldar. My regular opponent and I have house ruled that the prow is part of the hull, so LOS and ranges can be drawn to it. That's the disadvantage.

But my passengers can disembark within 2" of it. That's the advantage.

You aren't going to find anything in writing that says definitively whether it is or is not part of the hull.

But, of sourse, that's just my opinion.

This.

Comon guys, neither side has any conclusive evidence to provide. One side thinks it appears decorative, another side thinks it looks like part of the hull. There are no hard rules on how to tell what is non-hull and what is hull, so just work it out in your own games and stop beating this horse to a bloody smear on the ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

In your opinion. That's all you have, is an opinion. Stop trying to browbeat people who don't see it the same way you do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

No it cannot do without it. W/o the prow peice, the Raider's aerodynamic sillouette appears compromised and incomplete. Hence it would not function optimally for a Dark Eldar Vehicle. (one can easilly and logically assume) If you are to veiw the raider without the prow bit, there is obviously a grotesque ommission in the vehicular body and streamlined aircraft-like shape.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

We are both trying to figure out where you're coming up with this assumption.

Nights blood - no, no you didnt. You took the painfully obvious point that it was a weapon, which was the entire point of the proof, and somehow decided this was a revelatory thing. It wasnt. it was the point of the proof. It proves the argument has no rational basis.

You have yet to respond to this in any meaningful way. Until you do, there is no point continuing, as this is your only "proof" that it counts as hull.

Right, an entire page worth of replies wont satiate you, and you continue to be unable to provide even the slightest use of rules to aid your OPINION. I'm done with you.

I have provided rules. You just missed them, obviously.

Where are your rules? You;ve not provided any, just an argument that was shown to be entirely meritless in proving your sides worth.

Night's Blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why is it wrong?

Apparently you've not read any of the last few posts? Just a blank "i dont understand"?

Again, i understand exactly what your argument is, and it is my attempt to show you why it is wrong. You still have the fundamental misunderstanding that because someone disagrees with you it somehow means they fail to comprehend....

nosferatu1001 wrote:The argument the prow-is-hull side is proposing is: the part is HULL because the model would be incomplete without it. [as in, there is a hole in the model]

Proof that the argument is wrong, by contradiction: a hull heavy bolter for a chimera is hull because without it the model is incomplete (there is a gaping hole - the EXACT rationale used for the prow) - except guns are defined in the rules as not-hull

You are still using the same terrible example of weapons. A PROW IS NOT A WEAPON. it is an entirely different rule debate. Your continued use of this example only proves you don'yt understand the debate being had.
What you need to prove your argument correct is to show how the prow is specifically decorative, which you have not done whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Your argument leads to a contradiction, and is therefore wrong. Can you at last finally understand that point? If you dont understand the argument, can you at least show some comprehension of the point?

And what exact text am I using? The definition of decorative in the rulebook. How is something you buy as an addition an essential part of the hull? How is it any less decorative (as in, no functional purpose) than a dozer blade?

Because the shockprow is an upgrade to the existing prow on a raider. The prow of a dark eldar raider is clearly a continuation of the "spine" of the vehicle itself. Do you see the ribbed spine continue into the formed "arrowhead" of the prow? That is clearly hull. A dozerblade is simple a piece of wargear glued to the front end of a rhino. As it was said above, NOT having the prow would be using an incomplete model, ergo, modeling for advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Where is your RULES text proving it is hull? Page and paragraph. Note - an irrelevant dictionary quote that applies to sailing ships, not 41st millennium skimming antigravity craft, doesnt count.

It's funny, you still haven't answered my question but simply ask the same one to me. I will answer it because it seems you are unable to.

Page 60 says " when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles). "

So, the prow falls into two catagories... one being hull, as an essential part of the vehicle, and the other "gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles". Can you honestly say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the prow honestly is in the same category as antennas ? If so then there is no sense continuing this discussion.

Now, lets see you pull some rules out yourself, or will i have to do that for you too?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Find yours.

Rules for decorative items. Sorry, not doing your work for you, especially when you pointlessly block quote text.

Now show your rules showing it is hull

Now finally accept your argument, that the model isnt complete without the prow and therefore the prow MUST be hull, is clearly untrue.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules for decorative items. Sorry, not doing your work for you, especially when you pointlessly block quote text.

Now show your rules showing it is hull

Now finally accept your argument, that the model isnt complete without the prow and therefore the prow MUST be hull, is clearly untrue.

"t's funny, you still haven't answered my question but simply ask the same one to me. I will answer it because it seems you are unable to.

Page 60 says " when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles). "

So, the prow falls into two catagories... one being hull, as an essential part of the vehicle, and the other "gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles". Can you honestly say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the prow honestly is in the same category as antennas ? If so then there is no sense continuing this discussion.

Now, lets see you pull some rules out yourself, or will i have to do that for you too?

Find yours.

Wow, apparently you believe the underlinign and bold makes your point any better. It doesnt.

Page 56, Vehicles and Measuring distances. DOZER BLADES are considered to not be hull (and in fact are considered decorative items) so yes, I do believe that a shock prow is akin to a Dozer Blade.

I've pointed this out a couple of times. So has CGM. Now, please find you rule stating a shock prow is hull. You have yet to do so.

Deadshane1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

No it cannot do without it. W/o the prow peice, the Raider's aerodynamic sillouette appears compromised and incomplete. Hence it would not function optimally for a Dark Eldar Vehicle. (one can easilly and logically assume) If you are to veiw the raider without the prow bit, there is obviously a grotesque ommission in the vehicular body and streamlined aircraft-like shape.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

We are both trying to figure out where you're coming up with this assumption.

Once again, you ignore that it's exactly the same for the reinfoced ram on trukks, which are explicitly ignored by the brb.

time wizard wrote:But the problem is that though dozer blades are specifically mentioned, siege shields, deffrollas and shock prows are not.

The ork's reinforced ram is ignored in the picture on page 3. That makes two precedents for those kind of upgrades, making it pretty clear. Someone arguing about the deff rolla being different might have a point though.

I was arguing that the deff rolla fits into the not hull category, but I have seen it played both ways. If it is hull, it adds an inch or two to the range of the orks firing from the BW, so I think it probably isn't. Then again, orks would fight unfair anyway...

But on topic, there is plenty of rules precedent for it to be considered 'not hull', most from its similarity to other items deemed to be decorative by the BGB.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:I was arguing that the deff rolla fits into the not hull category, but I have seen it played both ways. If it is hull, it adds an inch or two to the range of the orks firing from the BW, so I think it probably isn't. Then again, orks would fight unfair anyway...

But on topic, there is plenty of rules precedent for it to be considered 'not hull', most from its similarity to other items deemed to be decorative by the BGB.

-cgmckenzie

That's my point though, the argument boils down to whether you agree that it follows the same rules as dozerblades. Since the prow is NOT an upgrade but simply a part of the vehicle it would not fall into that catagory.

You can repeat your opinion all you want but you are not going to browbeat everyone who disagrees with you.

While regular prow is part of the hull, a shock-prow wouldn't be, as it is a vehicle upgrade similar to dozer blades and reinforced rams.

Jidmah wrote:While regular prow is part of the hull, a shock-prow wouldn't be, as it is a vehicle upgrade similar to dozer blades and reinforced rams.

Exactly my view. I think part of the misunderstanding here is between the prow and the shockprow.

You measure any point on the hull.
I don't understand why this is so hard to figure out.

Because in typical GW fashion they don't actually define what is and is not part of the hull, beyond some vague wording about "decorative elements."

So what you might think is clearly part of the hull, I might think is clearly not part of the hull.

kmdl1066 wrote:Because in typical GW fashion they don't actually define what is and is not part of the hull, beyond some vague wording about "decorative elements."

So what you might think is clearly part of the hull, I might think is clearly not part of the hull.

It's literally a quarter of an inch advantage over the regular front piece. It's basically the same thing with little bits sticking out.

First post in this thread explains the problem. While no one cares about the regular prow, the shock prow is long enough for it to actually have an impact.

Given what you have to go through to get the fething things i'm inclined to nod in acknowledgement of effort if the force contains more than a couple, and am fine with them being hull.

Don't they only come on the Ravager set ? I know that they were selling for $5 each at my local.

I thought they were part of the normal raider kit - seem to remember extra pointy bits on the ones i was building, but its a while since i did so...

Most people I know don't allow you to deploy from either the shock prow or the standard Raider prow.

Pretty sure it's only ravager.

You get several different prow styles in the raider kit, but the actual Shockprow is in the Ravager. (i checked )

I considered that the shock prow was a prow that you painted like a power weapon, much like that the difference between most stuff is "I painted that differently than ____ to mean that it is this"

The prow seems like it would be part of the hull since it is not in the accessories in the instructions manual that comes with the raider and that without it there's a huge gaping hole in the front which I dont believe i've ever seen another model have without a piece.

I deploy from the prow since I vision my guys running down the sides and the prow like a high wire to jump off in the front.

There are many, many non-hull pieces (as in, specifically stated in the rules to not be hull) that leave a gaping hole if you dnot attach them. Chimera chassis hull mounted weapons, for example.

The shock prow IS a decorative item along the same lines as a dozer blade, and by extension a normal prow should be treated the same.

Edit:

Actually, nevermind.

There are much more glaring gapes in the rules than this one.

As optional war gear the only condition in the rules (obviously after dealing with TMIR, which difficulties we ignore for this forum) is that the upgrade be ‘visually represented’ on the model.

"The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing." Page 47.

There are many ways in which to visually represent something – some more inane than others - without altering the dimensions of a model. When one ought to use the altered dimensions of a model, the rules explicitly tell us to use this new set:

“Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

There is however a notable exception, a vehicle’s weaponry. When firing a vehicle’s weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon, whilst line of sight is determined from the weapon’s mounting point” Pg 56,

” Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body). In these cases, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalized for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc.” Pg 16.

As such, anything, which alters the basic dimensions for a model is ignored for measurement, unless we have a rule telling us, otherwise, as per the permissive rule-set.
Quod erat demonstrandum.

nosferatu1001 wrote:There are many, many non-hull pieces (as in, specifically stated in the rules to not be hull) that leave a gaping hole if you dnot attach them. Chimera chassis hull mounted weapons, for example.

The shock prow IS a decorative item along the same lines as a dozer blade, and by extension a normal prow should be treated the same.

You epitomize the straw man fallacy.

Actually, that isn't straw man at all. From how I have been reading this, the largest argument that the 'it is hull' side has been repeating ad nauseam is 'it leaves a gaping hole, so it is hull'. If he extrapolated this argument or magnified it from a tiny part of the overall side, it would be straw man. He didn't, as they continue to repeat it over and over again despite being proven to not be a valid point in this argument.

-cgmckenzie

The argument has been expanded beyond that. It has now been my attempting to force nos to show how, using rules to reinforce his opinion, how something that is practical and part of the vehicle can be considered decorative.

Guns are practical and part of the vehicle, yet considered decorative.

Dozerblades are practical and part of the vehicle, yet considered decorative.

Deffrollas are practical and part of the vehicle, yet decorative.

The earthshaker cannon(the only reason to take a basilisk and a gigantic part of the vehicle) is practical and part of the vehicle, yet considered decorative.

The point being that there is precedence for it being considered decorative and not hull because other things that serve a similar purpose(dozers, deff rollas, siege shields, etc) are decorative.

The purpose of a prow, nautically naturally, is to allow for the boat/ship/canoe to more easily traverse difficult water like swells, or to ram enemy ships in times of war. A dozer blade does that on land, with brush and small hills.

Sorry about using the real world application of prows/dozer blades but I don't know enough about the fluff to be able to speak entirely on it. Plus fluff doesn't matter for this anyway.

-cgmckenzie

It is fully possible that "Banners and other decorative items" is one item of a four-item list, as antennas, dozer blades and gun barrels are obviously not decorative.

Night's Blood wrote:The argument has been expanded beyond that. It has now been my attempting to force nos to show how, using rules to reinforce his opinion, how something that is practical and part of the vehicle can be considered decorative.

And I have done so. Notice how since the third time the rules were pointed out to you that you are now ignoring the rules, and our requests for YOU to provide some rules to back up your assertion that an optional, paid for upgrade is somehow essential hull?

Please, provide something. Anything at all.

Oh, and if you noticed - i put both arguments forward. First the fallacious argumet you had proposed, that something leaving a gaping hole must be hull, and secondly that the rules consider a dozer blade to be decorative and i certainly equate a shock prow to a dozer blade.

Stop citing fallacies you clearly dont understand the meaning of, in an attempt to deflect posters from your own utter lack of rules.

Jidmah - the conjunction with "other" indicates that "and other decorative items" includes the preceding items. Otherwise it isnt anywhere close to being correct English

It is really a "how you play it question"

While RaW comes down firmly on the side of all rams being decorative, the fair playability of that comes into question, just like a deathrolla.

How we "play" it in my area is as hull. Mostly because of "fairness" issues that arose from Rollas.

We did the math over and over again comparing the advantages/disadvantages of Rollas being hull. Sure, with the Rolla being hull, it gives the Orks a slightly longer assault/shooting range from the front,; however, since as hull the Rolla must start inside the deployment zone that distance effects the game very little. On the flip side, the Rolla being hull gives the BW a much larger footprint and longer side armor. This makes for bigger disadvantages than the previously stated advantages, in most game situations.

The real kicker for us was the BW ramming/tank shockng vs. getting shot at. If the Rolla isn't hull, then it has a major advantage vs. being shot at. It basically gets 2" of free move when ramming, since ANY part of the vehicle counts for ramming, not just the hull; conversely, the opposition still needs that extra 2" of range to fire at the hull of the BW. This was too big of advantage for us to stomach, so we "play it" as rollas being part of the hull.

Why do I bring this up? Well, by extension, we now treat all rams as part of the hull out of a sense of fairness. I know this is not RaW, but it works for us.

Additionally, there is one "Ram" that no one seems to make a big deal about, but is far more obtrusive to game play that either Rollas or Shock prows, when played by RaW....the Seige Shield on the Vindi. Technically it too is a Ram, and thus "not hull", meaning that very few models will be able to fire at a Vindi from the front, since all they will "see" is the "ram or gun barrel", espcially with some minor conversions to the Seige Shield. Ironic.

Someone has a sig about thanking Twilight fans for making us 40kers look ... well, better.

But 5 pages of nerd rage on this? Shock-prows/dozer blades & Straw Man Fallacies.

"Well, since you can't find the rule, you're wrong!"
"No, since *you* can't find a citation, you're wrong!"

Really guys? This is a set-back, even for YMDC.

It's time to end this. Kinda like when the Incredible Hulk's buddy Rick Jones busted up a row between him and Wolverine (Hulk #340, 20 years back, with a good/famous cover with the Hulk reflecting in Logan's claws). Rick asks, "Don't you have something better to do?"

Wolverine admitted, that yeah, he did.

-- Oh, nuts. I'm trying to end a nerd argument, by referencing an old comic book, with Wolverine no less.

Jidmah wrote:It is fully possible that "Banners and other decorative items" is one item of a four-item list, as antennas, dozer blades and gun barrels are obviously not decorative.

Hmm, that could be grammatically right. If it was "dozer blades, guns, antennas, banners, and other decorative items" it lumps them all into the 'decorative items category. Seeing as how it doesn't have that comma there, it is possible it is a 4 item list, with the 4th item being a category. But then there would need to be another 'and' before banners.

On the other hand, GW has horrible grammatical skills and often butchers the English language. I think that's funny for an English company of nerds

-cgmckenzie

Theyre nerds, but not about the English language

Well, for the record, at least according to current U.S. collegiate writing standards, the last comma is no longer used.

What used to be the proper way of writing lists, ie: "Trains, planes, and automobiles" is now properly written as "Trains, planes and automobiles".

It really made me mad that I had to learn the new way of using commas when working on a Master's degree....lol.

The good news is that we have succesfully turned a pathetic thread about a rule on which individual groups and TO's will ultimately rule, into a more pathetic thread about the proprer use of commas!

Wait, when did this happen!? I always wrote it with the comma, and NOW people are telling me it isn't needed?

Something about that doesn't seem right.

-cgmckenzie

And US standards apply to the UK how?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Jidmah - the conjunction with "other" indicates that "and other decorative items" includes the preceding items. Otherwise it isnt anywhere close to being correct English

"Ignore ((gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners) and other decorative items)."

"Ignore (gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, (banners and other decorative items))."

Given that at least gun barrels are not decorative, but have a function rules-wise, I think it can be read both ways. Doesn't really do anything to the rules though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And I have done so. Notice how since the third time the rules were pointed out to you that you are now ignoring the rules, and our requests for YOU to provide some rules to back up your assertion that an optional, paid for upgrade is somehow essential hull?

Just like to point out, that Night's Blood has said at least twice in this thread that he was questioning whether the regular prow counts as the hull or not. That is not an optional upgrade.

If it is counted as part of the hull, then taking the option of a Shock Prow actually reduces the size of the hull - something I didn't really think was possible.

If I don't take the sponsons on my shadowsword, I reduce the size of the hull. Mind you, I also get 14 armor on the sides, but the hull size is reduced.

-cgmckenzie

Replacing turret-mounted weapons with hull- or pintle-mounted weapons also reduced hull.

Reviewing the Games Workshop Assembly Guide for the Raider (online version that is the same as the one that comes with the Raider itself)

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=1&aId=12400031a&multiPageMode=true&start=2

Stage 11: "The kit comes with a choice of two prow designs, so simply decide which one you'd like on the Raider."

Stage 12: "Slot the prow into the hole at the front of the kit."

Stage 27: "With all the necessary parts assembled, what follows is all about personalising your Raider. The kit comes with a large range of extra components that can adorn the hull and deck to your liking. We began customising it by placing the three smaller blades in the depressions under the air intake."

These include

Spikes: Stage 28
Chain Snares: Stage 29
Banners: Stage 30
Splinter Rifles: Stage 31
More Spikes: Stage 32

I would submit that all of the above items (Spikes, Chain Snares, Banners, Splinter Rifles, More Spikes) are items that are "purly decorative"

Everyone in my area also plays that the Prow and Shock Prow is part of the hull, f.y.i. I have never had a person tell me that it wasn't part of the hull. I also allow people to shoot the front as well.

The argument that the orignal prow on the vehicle is not hull strikes me as disengenuous. I might as well take the position that any part of any vehicle is 'just for decoration' and not a part of the vehicle hull at all. This is a similar arument to people that claim that the Stormraven/Vendetta/Razorwing's "wings" are purely for decoration and not part of the hull, and therefore you can't measure distance to it. Put your model together, when you are finished putting the base model together (minus, purity seals, banner polls, spikes, heads, skulls (x20)) you have the hull of your vehicle. Everything after that is purely decorative.

In regards to the Shock Prow specifically. I would also state that the fundamental difference between a Shock Prow and Dozer Blade etc... is that the Dozer Blade is an addition to the model itself. It does not replace anything on the model but adds to the model itself. A rhino without a dozer blade is a complete model that may be fielded. A Dark Eldar model without a prow is not finished and model and cannot be fielded. A Shock Prow is a replacement to the model itself and therefore replaces the hull with another hull piece, changing the deminsions of the hull.



IMHO

Except for the last paragraph I would agree. But that last paragraph fails for Ork reinforced rams, which are also not part of the hull, but part of the base model, and leave an ugly front when removed. GW still ignores it when measuring, as seen on page 3.

well for the purposes of ramming a vehicle when the vehicle comes into contact with the vehicle it is ramming it will stop. For purposes of seeing the shock prow for LOS it wouldn't count due to the fact that it is a comparative element to a dozer blade or a weapon (Basilisk gun barrel etc.) which dont count for purposes of LOS as stated in the Rules. Why there is a serious argument on this is beyond me.

cgmckenzie wrote:If I don't take the sponsons on my shadowsword, I reduce the size of the hull. Mind you, I also get 14 armor on the sides, but the hull size is reduced.

-cgmckenzie

Forgive me, I don't know anything about Apocalypse - do you pay points to "upgrade" your Shadowsword to have no sponsons?

I was merely enlightening nos another part of the debate. He was talking about an upgradable part of the model, while the poster he was replying to was more concerned about the original part.

No, it is a free upgrade to AV 14 on the sides. Standard is sponsons with TL HB or TL HF and a lascannon, upgraded is without sponsons.

-cgmckenzie

Someran - I was aware he was trying to drag it away from the topic, but I was trying to actually get them to admit they have zero rules backing for their position. Absolutely none.

Once you determine the shock prow isnt hull, a logical extension would be that the prow isnt - but that wasnt the question. Once you resolve the status of the shock prow (not hull) you can then resolve other items.

There is no real rules base for the regular prow not being hull. It's really nothing different than the two front parts of a serpent or a "nose" on many other xenos vehicles.

Yet if you determine that one similar item is decorative and not-hull, then the other item should ideally be decorative for consistency.

Certainly when you look at the model it does not appear to be part of the contguous hull section, but stuck out by itself.

The shock prow is only not hull because its functionality as vehicle upgrade, like dozer blades or reinforced rams. Just looking at my avatar, I can find dozens of pieces which are less hull than the regular prow by that definition, the most striking one probably being the wheels, but also the pieces of metal the 'ard case sits on and the boards beneath the doors.

The shockprow/prow is part of the continuous under body of the vessel. If you look at it, it has the same ribbing is the under body. Not sure if it matters here, but my local GW store manager, and event coordinator, also agrees that the shock prow is hull because the essence of the rule about decorative items is to aid against people attempting to draw LoS to silly things like "Oh, look, I can see your banner pole through this window, so I can shoot your vehicle." However, after explaining the argument, he did state that you should always ask the event coordinators before a tournament to find out how they may be running prows. Apparently, the question caught him off guard because no one has ever asked him about it or taken the prow for anything but hull. From what it looks like, you, those in the "not hull" camp, are trying to say that the shockprow, and hell, by extension, the normal prow, is a weapon, which it is not, or a dozer, banner, etc, etc, which it is also not. All references to a LRBT and its cannon are useless and pointless. Because a shockprow/normal prow is not a gun. I also can't see how it's lumped into the category of decorative items. It certainly is not a dozer blade. It's not added on. With a dozer blade, you attach it to your existing model. You don't add anything to your model when you use a shockprow. It just takes the normal prows place. The prow, either one, must be included on the vehicle per construction. I know you'll say "but my tank is required to put weapons in the holes. . ." yes, clearly, you must, but as already stated, the prow, either one, is not a weapon so that argument is pointless. Reading what a dozer blade does, and then reading what a shockprow does, you'll find they have nothing in common what so ever. I don't see it as being close enough to draw enough weight to lump it into decorative. It's certainly not a banner pole, or a random spiky bit, it is definitely not a gun, hence I don't see it going into the decorative category. It's also a very large piece of the model in width, height, and depth. "But my cannon is really big on my tank. . ." yeah, clearly, but again, a shockprow/prow is not a weapon, so that has no bearing. Just a few thoughts to stir the pot.

Again, everything you just said applies just as well to the trukk's reinforced ram. And the picture on pg. 3 of the BRB shows GW ignoring the exact same ram.

But, that's an ork trukk, not dark eldar raider. Further, I believe there's space between the ram and trukk. There's no space between the prow and midsection of a raider, it's one continuous piece. I would say this argument doesn't apply.

Oh, there isn't a space. It's firmly attached to the exact same part as the motor, the grill and the front wheels, With one piece even securing it from below(those three spikey things). That's about as much connection to the trukk as that prow, if not even more.

"that's an ork trukk, not dark eldar raid" is a great argument, really. If you use that, your army may never assault, shoot or move. There are no pictures of dark eldar in the BRB, just orks, marines, imperial tanks and a few tyranids.
Reinforced rams and shock prows are functionally and model-wise almost identical, so no reason to treat them any different.

This is not a fun merry-go-round...

I really don't see the problem at all. A regular prow is hull, any vehicle upgrade isn't, even if it looks almost the same as the regular thing. Funky models get funky rules, a battlewagon, for example allows you to disembark into the second level of a ruin, if you use the big shoota turret on top of the (kill)kannon turret. And let's not talk about valkyries and stormravens. Abstract rules do abstract stuff.

I just don't see it that way. Perhaps, gw will FAQ it once and for all. Using your same argument about vehicle upgrades = no hull; what about a vehicle with extra armor? If it has this upgrade does the entire vehicle become not hull? Your point doesn't work very well IMO. So it's either both prows are hull or neither IMO. Physically there's almost no difference between the two, just rules that separates them.

Only the wysiwyg upgrade to your vehicle "extra armour" (see forgeworld for EA kits) is the non-hull bit.

And this is because one could stick a piece of paper on it with 'extra armour' written on it and have satisfied the 'visually represented' demand.

So, you're saying that either I have to buy forge world direct product to properly represent extra armor, and I've seen them, they cover quite a bit of the model in question, namely rhinos, or it doesnt count? Hmmmm. . .I don't think so. "Look! I've covered my entire model with "Extra Armor"! Oh, you can't see hull for targeting purposes? Guess you can't shoot at it." Just doesn't work in my mind. And is, frankly, dumb, if that's the case.

No - did I say that?

I said it must be visually represented, and gave an *example* of FW items that show how it must be visually represented.

The point still stands however. If only the wysiwyg portion is not hull, why not just put huge side plates onto your vehicle, as extra armor, like they did in WWII, and just claim "no hull" alllllllllllllllllLLLLLLLllllllllllLLLLLLllllll day long? Essentially, what you're claiming, is that if I do use large extra armor plates, even the ones from forge world, my vehicle is essentially invisible from the sides. This is completely absurd. I think that argument has failed you. Oh, btw, if you think I was being silly with the huge side plate comment, here's something from Forge World, just for you. . . I'd say 100%, or very close to it, it completely covered by those plates. Guess since I cant see hull from the side I can't shoot that rhino can I?. . .Might as well just always turn to to the side when it ends movement so that people can't shoot at my rhino that bought the "upgrade" "extra armor" because upgrades don't count as hull. . .right? I think we can toss your argument about upgrades = no hull right out the window.

Wow, wall o text rant.

You treat them as if they arent there. When you do that you can see thehull just fine.

It isnt my argument, its GWs. Get over it.

Where does it say that you treat wysiwyg not present on the physical realm? I also don't think you can claim GW's argument for them. . . at least not without reference.

Ignoring non-hull items for shooting means they do not block LoS either. On ork vehicles there are extra bits for extra armor, the battlewagon has those little triangular things hanging in front of the tracks (see my avatar), the trukk has six big glyph plates and a bunch of little ones as armor plates. Also the reinforced ram on battlewagons (the "jaw") blocks a good amount of the front, no one ever implied that you can't shoot through it.

Or were they just shooting to it?

Nope. Actually had a baneblade exactly hitting the front thing, and the player discarded the hit to my confusion. He then pointed me to the very picture on page 3.

Prodigalson wrote:Reviewing the Games Workshop Assembly Guide for the Raider (online version that is the same as the one that comes with the Raider itself)

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=1&aId=12400031a&multiPageMode=true&start=2

Stage 11: "The kit comes with a choice of two prow designs, so simply decide which one you'd like on the Raider."

Stage 12: "Slot the prow into the hole at the front of the kit."

Stage 27: "With all the necessary parts assembled, what follows is all about personalising your Raider. The kit comes with a large range of extra components that can adorn the hull and deck to your liking. We began customising it by placing the three smaller blades in the depressions under the air intake."

These include

Spikes: Stage 28
Chain Snares: Stage 29
Banners: Stage 30
Splinter Rifles: Stage 31
More Spikes: Stage 32

I would submit that all of the above items (Spikes, Chain Snares, Banners, Splinter Rifles, More Spikes) are items that are "purly decorative"

Everyone in my area also plays that the Prow and Shock Prow is part of the hull, f.y.i. I have never had a person tell me that it wasn't part of the hull. I also allow people to shoot the front as well.

The argument that the orignal prow on the vehicle is not hull strikes me as disengenuous. I might as well take the position that any part of any vehicle is 'just for decoration' and not a part of the vehicle hull at all. This is a similar arument to people that claim that the Stormraven/Vendetta/Razorwing's "wings" are purely for decoration and not part of the hull, and therefore you can't measure distance to it. Put your model together, when you are finished putting the base model together (minus, purity seals, banner polls, spikes, heads, skulls (x20)) you have the hull of your vehicle. Everything after that is purely decorative.

In regards to the Shock Prow specifically. I would also state that the fundamental difference between a Shock Prow and Dozer Blade etc... is that the Dozer Blade is an addition to the model itself. It does not replace anything on the model but adds to the model itself. A rhino without a dozer blade is a complete model that may be fielded. A Dark Eldar model without a prow is not finished and model and cannot be fielded. A Shock Prow is a replacement to the model itself and therefore replaces the hull with another hull piece, changing the deminsions of the hull.



IMHO

Quoted for the Truth.

Just give up arguing with Nos, your sanity will thank you

Nights Blood - so, still no rules then? Are you saying a shock prow isnt similar to a dozer blade?

Still waiting for those rules you've constantly ducked providing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nights Blood - so, still no rules then? Are you saying a shock prow isnt similar to a dozer blade?

Still waiting for those rules you've constantly ducked providing.

From page 4. <text redacted; if you can't argue politely, you're going to lose the privilege of doing so --Janthkin>


"t's funny, you still haven't answered my question but simply ask the same one to me. I will answer it because it seems you are unable to.

Page 60 says " when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles). "

So, the prow falls into two catagories... one being hull, as an essential part of the vehicle, and the other "gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles". Can you honestly say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the prow honestly is in the same category as antennas ? If so then there is no sense continuing this discussion.

Now, lets see you pull some rules out yourself, or will i have to do that for you too?

For measuring, the list includes dozer blades. The Shock prow is a dozer blade.

You are not using the definition for hull in the measurements section about vehicles. It includes guns, dozer blades, antennae, and decorative items.

I wouldn't say it fits into the same category as antennas, but can comfortably say beyond the shadow of a doubt that they fit into the same area as dozerblades.

-cgmckenzie

Again, dozer blades are a wargear upgrade, while prows are not.

I understand where you are coming from cgm, but i just disagree.

Being upgrade or not doesn't matter. Things that come standard on vehicles can be not hull while upgrades can be considered hull.

'not hull' standard on vehicles
-all guns
-open hatches
-antenna/vox equipment
-searchlights

'hull' upgrades
-sponsons
-extra armor
-red paint job
-optional turrets(there are a few)

Being an upgrade, wargear, or coming standard on the vehicle has no bearing on its status as 'hull' or 'not hull'. This is hardly a comprehensive list.

-cgmckenzie

True, but the counter would be prodigalson's post.

Night's Blood wrote:Again, dozer blades are a wargear upgrade, while prows are not.

I understand where you are coming from cgm, but i just disagree.

Regular prows are hull, because they don't fit in any of the excluded categories. Shock prows do, however.

Night's Blood wrote:

Jidmah wrote:While regular prow is part of the hull, a shock-prow wouldn't be, as it is a vehicle upgrade similar to dozer blades and reinforced rams.

Exactly my view. I think part of the misunderstanding here is between the prow and the shockprow.

We agree.

We were all discussing the shock prow on this page

Oh, well, now they know my opinion in that.

We;ve all been discussing Shock Prows for a while now.

And, sorry to burst your bubble - we've all pulled out rules showing shock prows fall into the same camp as Dozer blades. Repeatedly. You choose to ignore them. Repeatedly.

And i agree that shockprows do not count as hull, you seem to ignore all other opinions that NORMAL prows count as hull.

No, you just started talking about normal prows in an effort to deflect away from it.

You can argue by extension that it makes sense for aprow to not be hull, and it is logical. There are no rules totally "for" hull on that one.

I've been saying since page 4 that shockprows do not count as hull. But, normal prows do. That is not "deflecting". That is simply my opinion. You can call it whatever you want. i was under the impression you were attempting to claim the normal prow did not count as hull, if that is true i still disagree.
If you thought that me referring to "prows" as "shockprows" than it was simply a misunderstanding.

Night's Blood wrote:And i agree that shockprows do not count as hull, you seem to ignore all other opinions that NORMAL prows count as hull.

Obviously GW has made it vague and unclear. But don't you think that GW would intend for regular prows and shockprows to be treated the same? Why would they be different?

So basically you are saying if I buy the upgrade you can't shoot at it, but if I don't buy the upgrade you can. That just doesn't pass the common sense test, especially considering that the shock prow is larger.

Neither does most of GW's rules. However, with the precedent set by other vehicle upgrades such as dozerblades, deffrollas, then the only logical solution is that it does not count as hull.

This issue really needs a FAQ, just like the Valkyrie wing question.

Night's Blood wrote:Neither does most of GW's rules. However, with the precedent set by other vehicle upgrades such as dozerblades, deffrollas, then the only logical solution is that it does not count as hull.

This issue really needs a FAQ, just like the Valkyrie wing question.

Just because you say that it is the only logical solution doesn't make it so. The shock prow is not categorically similar to the dozerblade or deffrolla because it does not add another part onto the vehicle, but rather slightly changes the shape of an existing piece. You are not adding a piece onto the vehicle like your examples, making it a different category.

Again there is no standard by which to determine if the prow is hull. I consider it to be hull, but others may not (though everyone I know IRL considers it to be hull). Regardless of whether you consider the prow to be hull or not, the shock hull should follow the same rules you use for the prow as it is essentially the same piece.

Dracos wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:Neither does most of GW's rules. However, with the precedent set by other vehicle upgrades such as dozerblades, deffrollas, then the only logical solution is that it does not count as hull.

This issue really needs a FAQ, just like the Valkyrie wing question.

Just because you say that it is the only logical solution doesn't make it so. The shock prow is not categorically similar to the dozerblade or deffrolla because it does not add another part onto the vehicle, but rather slightly changes the shape of an existing piece. You are not adding a piece onto the vehicle like your examples, making it a different category.

Again there is no standard by which to determine if the prow is hull. I consider it to be hull, but others may not (though everyone I know IRL considers it to be hull). Regardless of whether you consider the prow to be hull or not, the shock hull should follow the same rules you use for the prow as it is essentially the same piece.

It really wouldn't if one was to follow the rules.

And one was never allowed to have parts of a model off the board - every good wargamer know the world ends at the edge of the board

ChrisCP wrote:As optional war gear the only condition in the rules (obviously after dealing with TMIR, which difficulties we ignore for this forum) is that the upgrade be ‘visually represented’ on the model.
"The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing." Page 47.

There are many ways in which to visually represent something – some more inane than others - without altering the dimensions of a model. When one ought to use the altered dimensions of a model, the rules explicitly tell us to use this new set:
“Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).
There is however a notable exception, a vehicle’s weaponry. When firing a vehicle’s weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon, whilst line of sight is determined from the weapon’s mounting point” Pg 56,

” Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body). In these cases, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalized for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc.” Pg 16.

As such, anything, which alters the basic dimensions for a model is ignored for measurement, unless we have a rule telling us, otherwise, as per the permissive rule-set

If I wished to show my Extra Armour as a piece of paper with that written on it stuck to my vehicle I could - it don't make the paper hull

I would say that shockprows DO count as part of the hull, as bare in mind, apart from a couple of mm length difference... there is still a prow on the non upgraded raider/ravager

Dracos wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:Neither does most of GW's rules. However, with the precedent set by other vehicle upgrades such as dozerblades, deffrollas, then the only logical solution is that it does not count as hull.

This issue really needs a FAQ, just like the Valkyrie wing question.

Just because you say that it is the only logical solution doesn't make it so. The shock prow is not categorically similar to the dozerblade or deffrolla because it does not add another part onto the vehicle, but rather slightly changes the shape of an existing piece. You are not adding a piece onto the vehicle like your examples, making it a different category.

Again there is no standard by which to determine if the prow is hull. I consider it to be hull, but others may not (though everyone I know IRL considers it to be hull). Regardless of whether you consider the prow to be hull or not, the shock hull should follow the same rules you use for the prow as it is essentially the same piece.

Which is why this is such a contentious issue. IMHO it follows the same reasoning as dozerblades, which are specifically mentioned, however i can understand why some would consider it hull.

I'll repeat, FAQ is needed.