When it comes to true line of sight for shooting a raider, are the sails able to be targeted? If not... why?

Sails are not Hull, so you can not target them.

Edit: I thought there was an FaQ that stated this, now I am not finding it, Did they remove it?

However Aether sails would be targetable, as they are not decorative - they have an in game purpose.

I have the old models, so what part on the new ones (if it even comes with one) is the aethersails? I just want to make sure that what I use for my custom aethersails is close enough in size for the existing model.

Sails don't count (even Aether sails). It's the Hull and Turret of any vehicle only. P60 very first sentence.

A Leman Russ battle cannon barrel has an in game purpose, but it still doesn't count for targeting. Unless there's something listed in the Aether Sails rules.

Grendel - reread it. Note it excludes what ISNT hull, making everything else hull. Now, is an aethersail a decorative item? No, because it has an ingame effect - the 2D6" extra move.

Meaning it is hull.

I've re-read it and I stand by my statement.

It gives a few examples of things are aren't covered (gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc), it's not an exhaustive list ( note the 'etc'). Some of those have an in game use, some don't. Just because something has a use doesn't make it part of the hull.

A searchlight has an in game use, it is not part of the hull.

And ork wrecking ball or boarding plank has an in game use, they are not part of the hull.

The Hull is the body of the vehicle, sails are attached to the hull, they are not the hull whether they have an game use or not.

im pretty sure the rulebook mentions that sails are not hull, along with weapon barrels, antenaes, impressive wings etc.

the argument that "it has in game effect so its hull" is based on what statment of the brb?

to counter that... weapons all have in game effects. you measure your firing range from them, and determine LOS from them, NOT the vehicle hull. very much an in game effect, but you still cant target them when shooting.

aethersails have an effect but are STILL sails, and work the same as the ones provided on the kit. by definition they are still a sail, and lacking a specific rule that states items with "in game effects" count as hull... well sorry but no dice targeting them.

It lists "decorative elements" - it is not decorative if it performs a function.

It lists other things as well, things that arn't decorative. Things that have a function.

What it doesn't say is things with a function are counted as part of the hull.

where does it say performing a function is not decorative and therefore targetable via LOS? pg number for that rule pls.

because based on that argment, guns would be targetable. ork wrecking balls, boarding planks, SM pintle weapons (with crew on top) and so on. all targetable, because they are performing functions.

so please... provide a page number source for the rule that states "all items or features of a vehicle that perform a function are hull or ottherwise targetable".

the rule excluding SAILS and other decorative elements including gun barrels, etc has been provided and refrenced above.

"
the rule excluding SAILS and other decorative elements including gun barrels, etc has been provided and refrenced above. "

Wrong, it hasnt. See page 60. No mention made of SAILS (your caps) there.

Hull or turret, and then lists exclusions. Is an Aethersail on that list? No. Is it hull? Yes.

The question is, would you be able to draw LOS to the sail if there was no aether sail upgrade? The answer is no because it's a decorative element of the model.

Point out the rule that states as soon as something is taken as an upgrade, LOS can be drawn to it.

If something cannot be used to draw LOS to before it becomes an upgrade, it can't be used to draw LOS to after it becomes an upgrade.

It does not list all exclusions. There's an 'etc' in there.

The legs on a walker have a function. They are not part of the body.

The Hull is the body of the vehicle, sails are not. Doesn't matter if they're decorative or have an in game function.

I'm a dark eldar player and if someone can only see the sail of my raider/ravager I would let them, but I would have a cover save

it is part of the model, it's like saying oh no this guy has a tail, but it provides nothing in game therefore you cant shoot at him if thats all you can see

I guess if people were that worried about it you could leave the sails off. Or discuss with the opponent beforehand what counts as hull.

For example I dont include the pointy shock prow for measuring distances and I let people know this at the start of the game.

Actually Hukoseft that's the case, it is laid out in the rulebook on page 16, I'll even post it so you can see it

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 penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc.

That means if you've been playing that way, it's actually playing it wrong according to the rules of the book.

I also play Dark Eldar. And I play that the sails are indeed part of the model. I also play that the prow is also part of the model.

I discuss both of these facts with my opponent before the match and if they have a problem with it I just adjust my strategy.

Each configuration has its plusses and minuses.

The sail is hull so it can be targetted. The sail is hull so I can disembark within 2" of the top of the sail, gaining top floors of most of the ruins I play with.

The prow is part of the hull so I can disembark within 2" of it. The prow is part of the hull so the enemy's weapons can measure range to it.

One thing I insist on is if the sail is part of the hull, then the prow is too.

And conversly if the prow is not part of the hull, then neither is the sail.

I think this is a fair compromise.

time wizard wrote:I also play Dark Eldar. And I play that the sails are indeed part of the model. I also play that the prow is also part of the model.

I discuss both of these facts with my opponent before the match and if they have a problem with it I just adjust my strategy.

Each configuration has its plusses and minuses.

The sail is hull so it can be targetted. The sail is hull so I can disembark within 2" of the top of the sail, gaining top floors of most of the ruins I play with.

The prow is part of the hull so I can disembark within 2" of it. The prow is part of the hull so the enemy's weapons can measure range to it.

One thing I insist on is if the sail is part of the hull, then the prow is too.

And conversly if the prow is not part of the hull, then neither is the sail.

I think this is a fair compromise.

That seems like a reasonable stance, I would be perfectly willing to allow you to count them both, I kind of think it would be funny to watch things disembark from the top of a sail into the upper levels of a ruins.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:

time wizard wrote:I also play Dark Eldar. And I play that the sails are indeed part of the model. I also play that the prow is also part of the model.

I discuss both of these facts with my opponent before the match and if they have a problem with it I just adjust my strategy.

Each configuration has its plusses and minuses.

The sail is hull so it can be targetted. The sail is hull so I can disembark within 2" of the top of the sail, gaining top floors of most of the ruins I play with.

The prow is part of the hull so I can disembark within 2" of it. The prow is part of the hull so the enemy's weapons can measure range to it.

One thing I insist on is if the sail is part of the hull, then the prow is too.

And conversly if the prow is not part of the hull, then neither is the sail.

I think this is a fair compromise.

That seems like a reasonable stance, I would be perfectly willing to allow you to count them both, I kind of think it would be funny to watch things disembark from the top of a sail into the upper levels of a ruins.

Yeah I think that sounds pretty reasonable.

i play simaler.

my argument is, however how can people claim that the normal sails do not provide a valid LOS target, but aethersails DO, simply because they have in game function? a sail is a sail. simply having an in game function should not qualify it for being LOS viable or not. its a double standard. either sails are valid in all forms, and should be allowed as targets, or they shouldnt.

none of this "well its got a in game effect so it is, but that one dosent so it dont"

in game effects exist on other aspects of vehicles that do not provide a valid LOS target.

- also im pretty sure i saw somewhere that sails do not count for TLOS, but to the life of me i can't locate it. i just read the DE and brb FAQ's twice each and came up empty. also the BRB a few times and again nothing.

anyway, i usualy allow shooting at my sails but if its all thats visible i claim cover, and if its just a tip or portion of, no dice. likewise i use the prow for measuring ranges in movment, disembarking etc, but also for getting charged, and its a valid section to measure range to shoot at. my only argument here is the "in game effect" thing. apologies if i did not make that clear.

As a Dark Eldar player myself, we discuss this before game. Amongst my group of friends the sail can be fired at if that's all they can see, although they must be able to see over 50% of the sail. If they can indeed see over 50% of the sail (and just the sail), we've ruled the Raider/Ravager gains a 3+ cover save.

This provides the best compromise for our group, seeing as this rarely comes up in games.

We have played as time wizard states, for all vehicles.

e.g. Deff-rolla can be shot and disembarked from, or not - it is never yes to part of it.

And generally, it counts.

The sail is part of the "hull" per the definition of hull in the 40k rules.

You are told to ignore gun barrels, antennae, and decorative banner poles "etc.". IME the "etc" is normally read to refer only to purely decorative extras added to the model for the sake of appearance.

Any functioning part of a vehicle other than those items specifically exempted is a legitimate target. A sail on a DE skimmer is as much a target as a wing or tail flap is on a stormraven or valkrie.

right. and thats not a problem.... the issue i was raising was to the statments earlier that indicated sails could not be shot, but aethersails could, because the aethersails "had an in game effect" and that was the reason they could be shot at.

I agree with you on that; I can see the rationale behind which he was making that determination, but I think he erred in thinking that the regular sails are just decorative.

A regular sail does not seem like Hull to me. On a Anti-grav driven vehicle the sail seems decorative, since the normal sail does not do anything.

That may be more of the fluff side of things though.

how can you think the sails aren't a vital part of the vehicle? and thus hull worthy. I'm pretty sure it would need them to function properly. then again, in my last game my sails protected an allied Dread Knight from a Lascannon barrage from a Vendetta Gunship, but that makes even less sense.

Because having sails on a Fast Skimmer that has Anti-Grav propulsion would counteract the fact that the vehicle is trying to move very fast. This is why Drag Racers deploy Parachutes after they travel a quarter mile in under 4.8 seconds at a speed around 300 MPH/500KM/H. The parachutes are just big sails meant to slow them down.

While the Aether sails actually compliment the fast vehicle and make it move further. (Per the rules)

Speaking of LOS, would the Turret of a Baal Predator count as a something you could draw LOS to and fire at? I know it's almost definitely correct but I just want to make sure.

DeathReaper wrote:Because having sails on a Fast Skimmer that has Anti-Grav propulsion would counteract the fact that the vehicle is trying to move very fast. This is why Drag Racers deploy Parachutes after they travel a quarter mile in under 4.8 seconds at a speed around 300 MPH/500KM/H. The parachutes are just big sails meant to slow them down.

While the Aether sails actually compliment the fast vehicle and make it move further. (Per the rules)

well, actually, Lore-Wise they're not wind powered sails or something that would muck with your ability to go really fast, ALL Raiders have Aethersails, the upgrade is for Enhanced Aethersails.

Quite... So if you didn't take the upgrade, you would not be able to draw LOS to it. Correct?

Bloodhorror wrote:Quite... So if you didn't take the upgrade, you would not be able to draw LOS to it. Correct?

you talking to me? because I'm not going to debate with someone unless I know what you're really trying to say. elaborate.

....

If you don't take the Upgrade you can't draw LOS to the Sails.

I'm not really sure how else to elaborate...

Upgraded sails = Function in game = LOS
Unupgraded Sails = Decoration = No LOS

and thats the problem ive been arguing the entire thread.

upgraded sails have ingame effect = LOs valid
non upgraded, no ingame effect = no LOS.
ork wreckingball,grabbaclaws, boarding planks, weapons barrels across multiple styles, (battlecannons, railcannnons, lazcannons, assault cannons etc) are all examples of stuff that has an in game effect (as you measure range and LOS from them) - but they are not valid LOS targets.

so where in your rules does it state "items with in game effects count as viable LOS, but items that LOOK EXACTLY the same but have no in game effect dont count????

please clarify that with a page number.

Bloodhorror wrote:....

If you don't take the Upgrade you can't draw LOS to the Sails.

I'm not really sure how else to elaborate...

Upgraded sails = Function in game = LOS
Unupgraded Sails = Decoration = No LOS

I was asking for more reasoning, but fine. I say you can target it either way. it's a big funtional part of the vehicle, regardless of whether the upgrade is in place or not. like Mannahnin said, it's sorta like the wings of a human Gunship.

I believe one of the major reasons why we are having this disagreement is because we're talking about Sails like we have in our world today, but in this Sci-Fi universe, the Eldar have this mystical nature about them that make the sails a vital part of the construction and some folks don't equate the importance of a 'Wing of a Stormraven' to a 'Sail of a Raider'. heavy damage to either will ruin things for the pilots.

it's this lack of descrimination between Canvas or Nylon Sails when compared to the Dark Eldar Aethersails that had led to thier trivialization as a decorative part of the model. when one of our ships loses a sail it'll take a while till it falls to coasting speed, if a Riader loses it, it's gonna flip out or crash. (if it turbo boosted).

but what would I know? I mean, Raiders still have propulsion turbines and a rudder anyway. the sail only really helps them go really fast but a Voidraven can go even faster without the sails, so *shrug*

"rk wreckingball,grabbaclaws, boarding planks, weapons barrels across multiple styles, (battlecannons, railcannnons, lazcannons, assault cannons etc) are all examples of stuff that has an in game effect (as you measure range and LOS from them) - but they are not valid LOS targets. "

The barrels are not valid LOS targets because the rules specifically state so.

However the first two items you have included with no backing - WHY are you excluding them? Are they decorative? Are they Antenna? No. They are therefore targetable.

even if you dont include the orc upgrades, vehicle weapons are a very clear example of vehicle items that have in game effects, but are not targetable.

nothing in the BRB however mentions "in game effects" as being targetable vrs no in game effect being not targetable.

stating that un upgraded sails are not viable targets, then going to state the upgraded version is, based soley on the argument of "in game effect" is a double standard.

so again, please show me where it states as a rule that in game effects change the validity of targetting a part or portion of the owning vehicle.

I also believe another problem is where people draw the line. you give them a list of what counts and what doesn't but they just don't see the line that's so obvious to you.

wouldn't this mean that if you had two Predators, one having it's turret resting on a wall while the other is out in the open, wouldn't that mean only the one on the wall could fire? is the metal attached to the cannon part of the turret or the hull?

No, it isnt a "double standard", it is based on the list of untargetable items. You know, the actual rules, not your "im sure i've seen a rule about sails..."

Aether sails are nonfunctional items - they are decorative. Whether they are there or not makes no difference. They therefore fit the definition of decorative items that are to be excluded.

Upgraded enhanced aether sails do have an ingame effect, so the line about "decorative items" no longer applies to them - they muyst be modelled to represent the 2D6 item, so are not decorative. So now - find where they are excluded. The standard is it is Hull or Turret unless specifically excluded - and these are not excluded

It is not a double standard - you're just not actually reading the rules correctly

and your argument it appears is based on the fact that the "sail" is purley decorative, even though nothing states it is. your assuming it falls into "antenaes etc" descriptor, based on what? your interpretation of the fact they arent "hull"? sails are clearly a major part of the vehicle, comprising a good percentage of its visible surface area.

so how is it exactly sails are determined as "decorative"? whats the logic there? sails are definitly not, antanes, decorative banner poles, etc) - wich seem to me to be small thin, pointy or otherwise insignificant bits of stuff, like spikey bits and so on, wich the sails do NOT match up with. including sails in this category seems to be grasping at straws and having a pretty loose definition of "decorative banners, etc"

also, there is no mention of "in game effects" mattering for anything. where does it state that having an in game effect matters on the model?

he's not grasping at straws, he really does believe the Aethersails are insignificant, which they're not.

and he says in-game effects matter because they're not decorative once they pass that threshold. I thought that was clear, of course that doesn't matter much to me because I agree with everything else ou've said.

Find a use for the sail. Seriously. Is it a part of the physical hull? No. Does it perform any use in the game? No. It is decorative. Having it there or not has no effect on what the model can do. It is therefore not hull

Again, apparently you dont understand the rules - things are Hull unless they fall into the "decorative" list of exclusions. Something having an ingame effect *cannot* be decorative - because decorative by definition means "has no purpose" , and I *hope* you can at least agree that EAS have a purpose?

So, find where AS have a purpose in game. Then find where AES are decorative. That is the difference between the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lotet wrote:he's not grasping at straws, he really does believe the Aethersails are insignificant, which they're not.

Theyre not part of the physical, continuous hull. They ARE decorative, as pertains to the game, as they dont actually do anything for the vehicle. They are therefore NOT hull as far as the game is concerned.

but some items of wargear have in game effects, but remain as "untargetable" - gun barrels being a very specfifc example. even when said guns comprise a significant portion of the model. such as tau hammerhead rail guns, lemun russ battle cannons, and even some predator loadouts.

even look at things like searchlights, smoke launchers and so on. if all i can see is your searchlight or smoke launcher, can i shoot at your vehicle? - probally not. yet those items confer in game effects.

"decorative" seems to apply to very simple, smallish things like the examples given. sails, do not really fit that image...its like playing "one of these things is not like the other..." all over again.

"but some items of wargear have in game effects, but remain as "untargetable" - gun barrels being a very specfifc example. even when said guns comprise a significant portion of the model. such as tau hammerhead rail guns, lemun russ battle cannons, and even some predator loadouts. "

Yes, AND? The reason they are untargetable is because they are SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from being hull or turret. Otherwise they WOULD be included as hull or turret, as they are not decorative.

ok but there is a precedent rule for "non targetable in game effect items" but, no example for sails being "decorative". the examples of decorative are things like flag poles, banners, antanaes and so on! your taking very liberal use with the "etc/so on" part of that rule.

No, there is a specific exemption for a specific set of items - barrels. Sails are not mentioned, so you go by "decorative" - and very literally AS have NO function, and are therefore decorative.

Ruleswise they are decorative and are not hull. Ruleswise EAS are not decorative and so are not included on the list of exclusions, so are hull.

Blame GW for writing a poorly defined exclusionary list that excludes one but not the other.

the picture here is an example of what is meant by decorative banners, poles and so on. the sails are clearly NOT part of that example.

So, you're saying the Sails are functional?

as much as the rudder.

Some posts in this thread sound like people making up rules that conveniance themselves.

Its like declaring the exhaust vents on the back of a sentinel as decorative. They both serve a propulsion use, they both are essential when building the model yet neither of them have a rule use. Yet we both know that the sentinels exhaust ports are hull.

I mean its annoying that my vehicles can be shot by all the spikes and sails poking out of terrain but damn it we get 4+ flat out save, 5+ invul, -6" enemy range plus 4+ obscured.

Also there is no rule that says that a part of wargear counts as hull.

im saying they are a significant portion of the model, and the fluff indicates they help the raider navigate and move, much like engines and so on. and using real world information, you shred or destroy a sail boats sail....its generally not going to perform very well afterwards. also.... look at other "sail" style items. hang gliders, parachutes etc. punch holes in them, tear them up and they do not perform as they should, in some cases failing altogether. but again, thats just my opinion.

but the point i am making, is your taking a rather extended view of the word decorative. yes, its non functioning "additions, but its a fine line. poles, banners and so on are decorative optional items that really dont change the profile or surface area of the vehicle. sails, on the other hand DO change that. effectivly comprising about 15-30% of visibile surface area of the vehicle. whereas a banner, pole, spikey bit, and so on does not.

having said poles and banners on or off the vehicle does not really change its in game apparence, whereas leaving the sails off the vehicle, does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"rk wreckingball,grabbaclaws, boarding planks, weapons barrels across multiple styles, (battlecannons, railcannnons, lazcannons, assault cannons etc) are all examples of stuff that has an in game effect (as you measure range and LOS from them) - but they are not valid LOS targets. "

The barrels are not valid LOS targets because the rules specifically state so.

However the first two items you have included with no backing - WHY are you excluding them? Are they decorative? Are they Antenna? No. They are therefore targetable.

So you measure to/from a def roller? Interesting.

Yes - a deff rolla certainly should be hull.

Darth - the point you are making lacks substance in rules, whereas I am applying them exactly. The rules excludes decorative items. In game the sails have zero function. They are decorative. They are not obviously hull, as would normally be meant by "hull", and so cannot be shot at.

So by the "function = LOS" rule, LOS can be drawn to a Hunter-Killer Missile. It is not a gun barrel and certainly isn't decorative. Same with a Dozer Blade.

Homer

Homer S wrote:So by the "function = LOS" rule, LOS can be drawn to a Hunter-Killer Missile. It is not a gun barrel and certainly isn't decorative. Same with a Dozer Blade.

Homer

I don't agree with the sails being decorative, but @ Homer, page 56 specifically says to ignore dozer blades. Sorry.

sigh. once again the term "decorative" applies to such items as highlighted in my pic i put up earlier. sails... not so much. having an in game effect or not does not automatically make something decorative, and therefore not eligible.

this might be RAI but im pretty sure sails are not meant as decorative items.

but if you feel so strongley about it, leave the sails off your raiders, and deal with the crys of WAAC and modelling for advantage.

and you have still not provided a rule that states "no in game effect = decorative" your simply assuming that rule based on the "etc" clause of a single sentance in a paragraph consisting of a few examples of the same type. (again as pointed out in my picture above). either way its a RAI interpretation, and NOT RAW.

Lets look at the dictionary definition of "hull" real quick. Yes, I know the dictionary isn't in the rules but I think the answer is clear when people are reminded of what a hull is.

Hull - the main body of a ship/vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, riggings, engines, or other fittings.

Now, the rulebook state that LoS is draw to the hull, as we all know. The rulebook assumes we know what a hull is, which we do for the most part. Where the rulebook lists things such as antenna and other decorative bits as not counting, it is, in a way, reinforcing that basic definition except in terms of 40k. Granted, not EVERY example of things that don't count as the hull will be mentioned. There are just too many. So, GW gave us just a few examples. based on the above, I'd say that sails definitely fall into the "non hull" category and here's why. Lets assume that you DID take the upgrade and some punk long fang hits your sail with a missile. Will the vehicle crash and burn? nope. there'd just be a small hole in your sail. Now, in the game, we obviously can't target individual pieces of a vehicles. This example shows that although a sail is part of the vehicle, it's destruction would have no impact on if the vehicle lives or not. besides, dark eldar vehicles use real engines for propulsion, not silly sails.

Here's another example, one that has been FAQed and that we all agree on. The dozer blade. Lets say that said long fang turns around and shoots his ride's dozer blade. Will the blade take damage realistically? yes. will the vehicle? no. Hence, the FAQ rules that dozer blades do not count for LOS/as part of the hull since it is an extra fitting and not a part of the actual vehicle.

just my two cents

Posters have tried to use dictionary definitions to prove that the prow is/is not part of the hull. Regardless of what a dictionary states, if the item in question is not a dozer blade, gun turret, decorative item, etc, it is hull.

Happyjew wrote:Posters have tried to use dictionary definitions to prove that the prow is/is not part of the hull. Regardless of what a dictionary states, if the item in question is not a dozer blade, gun turret, decorative item, etc, it is hull.

It's an etc.. then!

Happyjew wrote:Posters have tried to use dictionary definitions to prove that the prow is/is not part of the hull. Regardless of what a dictionary states, if the item in question is not a dozer blade, gun turret, decorative item, etc, it is hull.

So how is a regular sail (not enhanced) not decorative. The raider is held up by the anti-grav ribbing on the bottom and has both manuevering engines and regular engines on the back for movement forward. So what purpose could the sail have on the raiders/ravagers?

Its Decorative and is solely to support the Pirate raider theme of the army. If one says we can measure line of sight to that, then I guess people who put regimental banners on their Leman russes are in for some bad news.

Darth - decorative means that something has no function. The obverse of that is something that HAS function is not decorative.

The aethersails are described in the fluff as having a purpose in the operations of the Raider. They tell of this, in my opinion, because we have no real-life example to base anything on. As far as I know, there is no real-life anti-grav sailboats descending from on high to sow terror and mayhem. So, we are left with their fluff descriptions to determine what is functional and what is decorative. And they tell us it's a functional part of the Raider, so we must treat it as such.

I do understand that according to the rules it is a bit unclear. So, I would discuss it with my opponent beforehand. But, in my opinion, it is a functional part of the vehicle so we must treat it as part of the hull for all gaming purposes.

There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull. Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

Best course, as mentioned, is discuss it with your oppent. Personally I believe sails are not part of the hull (aether sails or otherwise). Saying that the sails are part of the hull only if their aether sails (and not targeting 'normal' sails) I wouldn't accept. It's all sails or no sails, and I'd push for no sails.

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull. Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

Best course, as mentioned, is discuss it with your oppent. Personally I believe sails are not part of the hull (aether sails or otherwise). Saying that the sails are part of the hull only if their aether sails (and not targeting 'normal' sails) I wouldn't accept. It's all sails or no sails, and I'd push for no sails.

But they would still block LOS, correct?

time wizard wrote:But they would still block LOS, correct?

Again I suggest discussing that with your oppent at the same time. Personally no, I would say they wouldn't block LOS, in the same way that wings and banners don't (even functional ones).

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull.

They don't count because we are specifically told to ignore them by the rules.

grendel083 wrote:Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

The only way sails can not be considered hull, is if its in the list I quoted above. Which means you believe it's a decorative element. Correct? In the Raiders fluff the aethersails are described as a functional part of the vehicle, so must be considered hull.

grendel083 wrote:

time wizard wrote:But they would still block LOS, correct?

Again I suggest discussing that with your oppent at the same time. Personally no, I would say they wouldn't block LOS, in the same way that wings and banners don't (even functional ones).

Actually even banners and wings etc. block LoS to things behind the unit with the banner or wings etc..

The rules only tell you to ignore banners, wings, etc. for checking LoS to the model with said item.

my last post in this thread since it seems to be going in circles.

once again, defining sails as decorative is subjective. its interpretation that they fall under the "etc" part of the rule, that includes poles, flags and spikey bits. small insignificant extras.

the amount of visibile surface area, plus the fluff leads me to argue that they are indeed targetable, but will also block los and provide cover for stuff behind.

however my argument remains... its all or none. you cant have some sails counting and others not. an aethersail is an aethersail. if its got extra power or something else making it work better, whatever. its still a sail. its like buying a gold plated fork. yea the gold plated looks nicer, and costs more, but in the end its still a fork, and does the same job as a fork.

personally i could care less if sails count or dont. i just cant stand double standards, as mentioned above. either they all count or they dont. plain and simple.

ToBeWilly wrote:It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

The only way sails can not be considered hull, is if its in the list I quoted above. Which means you believe it's a decorative element. Correct? In the Raiders fluff the aethersails are described as a functional part of the vehicle, so must be considered hull.

Page 56 is measuring distances, page 60 Shooting at Vehicles is the rule you want.

"...gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles etc"

It's not an exhaustive list, they didn't include everything. I'd say sails are defiantly in the "etc".

Edit: totally agree with DarthSpader on the 'all or nothing' point'.

Actually, if you're going to bring fluff into it, then you should know that throughout the entire codex, the only mention of the sails being used at all is under the Enhanced Aethersails entry. With the exception to this being when vehicles come out of a webway portal, which is illegal in the game. All throughout the rest of the fluff, the codex only mentions the sleek design of the vehicles and it's engines. nothing about sails. They are decorative.

Just throwing that out there.

Starless Night wrote:Actually, if you're going to bring fluff into it, then you should know that throughout the entire codex, the only mention of the sails being used at all is under the Enhanced Aethersails entry.

They are actually also mentioned on page 44, third paragraph, the page on raiders.

Not that it contributes anything to the rule debate though.

yeah that's what I mean by the exception. And you're right because it only says that they are used when coming out of webway portals which in the game they cannot do.

ToBeWilly wrote:

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull.

They don't count because we are specifically told to ignore them by the rules.

grendel083 wrote:Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

The only way sails can not be considered hull, is if its in the list I quoted above. Which means you believe it's a decorative element. Correct? In the Raiders fluff the aethersails are described as a functional part of the vehicle, so must be considered hull.

Aethersails are a functioning (within the game universe) part of the vehicle, as much as tailflaps on a vendetta. Whether they serve a purely steering function, or in some way contribute to propulsion (as the upgrade Enhanced Aethersails seems to indicate) isn't 100% clear, but they're definitely a functional part, not decorative like a banner or trivial like an aerial.

The core rule paraphrased above exempts only gun barrels and decorative bits. Later dozer blades are also exempted. Everything else is "hull" for the purposes of the 5th edition rules. I see nothing there to in any way indicate that a sail would not be hull for rules purposes. It's no more decorative than the rudder or prow, and within the game universe seems more important to the vehicle's functions than the prow, certainly.

Mannahnin wrote:The core rule paraphrased above exempts only gun barrels and decorative bits. Later dozer blades are also exempted. Everything else is "hull" for the purposes of the 5th edition rules. I see nothing there to in any way indicate that a sail would not be hull for rules purposes. It's no more decorative than the rudder or prow, and within the game universe seems more important to the vehicle's functions than the prow, certainly.

The rule paraphrased above is misleading as it's for measuring distances, not shooting at vehichles. The correct rule on page 60 does not exclude gun barrels and decorative bits only.

I'm sorry I just don't hold to the belief that anything not decorative or a barrel is Hull. Keeping bits of wargear like grabbing claws and sails close to the hull (less they be targeted) makes for poor looking models. Let them fly high without punishing their battlefield performance! Be proud of your model and don't let someone blow up your battlewagon because the boarding plank was visible around the building.

The boarding plank is functional, it's wargear, and I would say you can't target it and point you at the correct rule on page 60 where it says "gun barrels, antennas, banners, etc."

Therein lies the problem with the "etc." catchall. It is entirely too subjective.

To some, a boarding plank falls under the "etc" but to another the same boarding plank is part of the hull.

It just adds to some of the things that must be discussed pre-game because there is nothing definitive from GW about what the "etc." covers.

Look at the diagram on page 3 of the main rulebook.

It shows range being measured to a Trukk's hull ignoring the ram on the model. At the time that rulebook was written, the current Ork codex was in print, which has the reinforced ram being an upgrade to the vehicle.

So clearly by the rulebook what is considered a decorative element seems to include pieces of wargear.

The key here IMHO (and has been stated on numerous occasions already) is that you just nee to play it consistently. If a ram/sail, etc is considered part of the hull, then it is considered part of the hull respects.

I personally play that my Deff Rolla is decorative on my Battlewagon, so I ignore it for all game purposes. I would also personally feel the same way about the sail on a Dark Eldar vehicle. Given that it is open-topped, passengers firing from inside the vehicle can draw line of sight from any point on the hull. The idea that line of sight could be drawn from the top of a sail is just ridiculous to me, which is personally why I do not think it can be considered part of the hull. It is a decorative element that could be modeled in any way you want and it should not affect how the vehicle actually plays in the game.

Starless Night wrote:yeah that's what I mean by the exception. And you're right because it only says that they are used when coming out of webway portals which in the game they cannot do.

they can make portals big enough to transport fleets, but these are too big to be put into the game and we can just assume that there's a 30 metre wide portal somewhere behined your deployment zone where they emit thier... aether stuff.

yakface wrote:Given that it is open-topped, passengers firing from inside the vehicle can draw line of sight from any point on the hull. The idea that line of sight could be drawn from the top of a sail is just ridiculous to me, which is personally why I do not think it can be considered part of the hull. It is a decorative element that could be modeled in any way you want and it should not affect how the vehicle actually plays in the game.

well, shooting from the sail might be hard for Orks but I don't think the Dark Eldar would have as much trouble doing so.

And then, to open a can of worms, what if you don't put a sail on your raider? Modeling for advantage?
Or put the sail from your raider on a Venom?

4oursword wrote:And then, to open a can of worms, what if you don't put a sail on your raider? Modeling for advantage?
Or put the sail from your raider on a Venom?

Two Possibilities:

1) If it counts as hull it is modeling for advantage because that way your vehicle has less targetable area.

2) If it doesn't you are only depriving yourself of cover saves so I wouldn't class it as "Modelling for Advantage", it's more like "Modelling for the Opponents Advantage"

Some good points, above.

Excluding bits of wargear and add-ons which are optional to the kit (like boarding planks, grabbin' claws, and dark eldar chains & hooks) makes sense, particularly in light of the dozer blade exception and what Yak pointed out about the measuring diagram & the ram.

There's been a longstanding debate about the deffrolla, and I think most folks see that it works either way, as long as you're consistent. If you count it as hull the orks gain a bit of pivoting distance, but also suffer a longer side arc. Most folks I see ignore the deffrolla.

I'm not convinced that the sail falls into this same category, but I can see how allowing people people to target the tip of it, and passengers to draw LOS from the tip of it, may harm suspension of disbelief. I could see both players agreeing to ignore the sails.

ever try hang gliding with a hole in the sail? what about trying to navigate your sail boat, with a busted up mast/sail? - they are totally "functional"

I concur, but I also see Yak's (and Time Wizard's) point about how counting the sail as hull also leads to somewhat silly things like the troops inside being able to trace LOS from the tippy-top of the sail, and troops being able to disembark from said tippy-top of the sail to the upper floors of buildings.

I think I'm more and more on board with Time Wizard's apprach, from page 1.

Time Wizard wrote:I also play Dark Eldar. And I play that the sails are indeed part of the model. I also play that the prow is also part of the model.

I discuss both of these facts with my opponent before the match and if they have a problem with it I just adjust my strategy.

Each configuration has its plusses and minuses.

The sail is hull so it can be targetted. The sail is hull so I can disembark within 2" of the top of the sail, gaining top floors of most of the ruins I play with.

The prow is part of the hull so I can disembark within 2" of it. The prow is part of the hull so the enemy's weapons can measure range to it.

One thing I insist on is if the sail is part of the hull, then the prow is too.

And conversly if the prow is not part of the hull, then neither is the sail.

I think this is a fair compromise.

early sea-faring pirates did actually mov around via the sails, to maintain rigging, act as lookouts, and otherwise perform some dutys. not so sure about swinging off from it to board other ships, (as i think launch points occured on deck) but utilizing the sail and getting on it did occur, and even on todays larger sail running ships, people need and do get up there to secure riggings and perform other duties. so not entirley unfeasable.

if you want to justify drawing firing LOS from the top of the sail, then "there is a lookout up there pointing out targets" model one of the crew hanging off the top of the sail (not hard)if you really need to, and bingo your done.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes - a deff rolla certainly should be hull.

Darth - the point you are making lacks substance in rules, whereas I am applying them exactly. The rules excludes decorative items. In game the sails have zero function. They are decorative. They are not obviously hull, as would normally be meant by "hull", and so cannot be shot at.

I've always counted the Deff Rolla as hull for embark disembark, and Los shooting purposes.
this is always discussed pre-game and no opponent has ever had an issue wih it, even at 'Ard Boyz.

One of these days, I'll add some bits over the Deff Rolla, but not extending beyond it, to clearly show how da boyz could shoot and disembark front the front of the vehicle.

Think about it, if the Deff Rolla wasn't the front, the Ork player would severely disadvantage himself by taking since it would reduce his or her open-top shooting and dis/embarking advantage. Hell of a trade off for something that might ram something else at some point.

PipeAlley wrote:
One of these days, I'll add some bits over the Deff Rolla, but not extending beyond it, to clearly show how da boyz could shoot and disembark front the front of the vehicle.

I would reckon the orks would have no problem jumping off the moving deffrolla just for kicks!

But again the point is to discuss any model issues with your opponent beforehand.

DarthSpader wrote:early sea-faring pirates did actually mov around via the sails, to maintain rigging, act as lookouts, and otherwise perform some dutys. not so sure about swinging off from it to board other ships, (as i think launch points occured on deck) but utilizing the sail and getting on it did occur, and even on todays larger sail running ships, people need and do get up there to secure riggings and perform other duties. so not entirley unfeasable.

Not just pirates, but of course the crew on every tall ship. Yes, of course, but the real-world sails you're talking about are vastly larger, with literally thousands of feet of of ropes and rigging, which are what they actually climbed. They didn't go up the mainsheet itself. They went up the rigging.

DarthSpader wrote:if you want to justify drawing firing LOS from the top of the sail, then "there is a lookout up there pointing out targets" model one of the crew hanging off the top of the sail (not hard)if you really need to, and bingo your done.

You COULD rationalize it this way, to represent all ten passengers drawing LOS from one guy perched on a rather narrow little point with no crow's nest, crosstrees, or yard arm. But I think that's the option which more people will squint at and go "what?"

Not to mention how difficult it would be to maintain balance taking in account the speed of the raider.

Let's not get too far into fluff; you can fluff-rationalize anything (like with superhuman Eldar dexterity and balance).

Agreed. Over fluffing tends to make people question the practicality of rules and start questioning things too much. As the answer to the OP has been given in spades, recommend this thread ends. If people want to talk about Fluff for a certain race or vehicle we can start a new thread....hmmmm. Starting new thread now....

Agreed. Still I can see Death-Rolla Jumping as a new national sport for orks, right before the Gnasher-Squig eating contests.

Ork Olympics anyone?

Mannahnin wrote:Let's not get too far into fluff; you can fluff-rationalize anything (like with superhuman Eldar dexterity and balance).

As supernatural as it may be... balancing on a SAIL...

ToBeWilly wrote:

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull.

They don't count because we are specifically told to ignore them by the rules.

grendel083 wrote:Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

You have left out etc. The actual hull of the Raider is the deck and plating on the side. The sail is not a part of the hull, so therfore it's not targetable.

Saying it is targetable is like saying "Since I can see the head on your Defiler, I can draw LoS to it." If you really aren't sure, consult your opponent, or in a tournament, ask an official before you start playing.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull.

They don't count because we are specifically told to ignore them by the rules.

grendel083 wrote:Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

You have left out etc. The actual hull of the Raider is the deck and plating on the side. The sail is not a part of the hull, so therfore it's not targetable.

Saying it is targetable is like saying "Since I can see the head on your Defiler, I can draw LoS to it." If you really aren't sure, consult your opponent, or in a tournament, ask an official before you start playing.

Can you point to a rule showing what GW means by "etc." or that only the "deck and plating" are hull? No. which is where this debate stems from. Also, if I can see the head of your defiler, why can't I shoot it? It'll get a cover save, but we have no idea, what GW means by "etc."

Happyjew wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull.

They don't count because we are specifically told to ignore them by the rules.

grendel083 wrote:Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

You have left out etc. The actual hull of the Raider is the deck and plating on the side. The sail is not a part of the hull, so therfore it's not targetable.

Saying it is targetable is like saying "Since I can see the head on your Defiler, I can draw LoS to it." If you really aren't sure, consult your opponent, or in a tournament, ask an official before you start playing.

Can you point to a rule showing what GW means by "etc." or that only the "deck and plating" are hull? No. which is where this debate stems from. Also, if I can see the head of your defiler, why can't I shoot it? It'll get a cover save, but we have no idea, what GW means by "etc."

There is something to be said for judgement. I judge the sails as not part of the hull, but other people may.

As I said, discuss it with your opponent and tournament officials before playing so that you are completely clear.

i dunno. im of the opinion that the sails, regardless of size are functional. even in small sailboats if your sail or mast or any part of that is busted, warped bet, has holes, etc your generally not going anywhere, and if you do manage any kind of momentum, good luck actually going where you want. and we use sails on tiny 4 person craft to gigantic yachts. (bluenose if your in canada)

additonally, the way the model is build it looks like the steersman is controlling the sail and the rudder. therefore you could assume that the sails and rudder allow and help the thing steer and otherwise navigate.

that would seem to me to indicate it is definitly "functional" and has in game effects, (your raider can turn after all), and should be targetable. obviously cover applies, and if all you can see is the sail, i would almost argue for the 3+ in that you cant see an actual 'facing' as such. as for LOS, like i said..the kit has passengers hanging off the sides, why not one perched on the mast or swining around by chains attached to the top of it? - hell put a targeting lense or something up there as a "lookout camera". or whatever. as for disembarking... well you loose alot trying to disembark from the sail, unless your going onto upper floors of buildings. but again, these guys are eldar pirates, who are known for agility and speed. not hard to believe they would have ropes or something to effect the move.

i guess in the end my opinion is that they are not decorative under the "etc" for the above and all the reasons i posted earlier. and the enhanced version is "definitly targetable" even nos said that. so why arent the normal ones? they have the same surface area, and do the same thing. there is also no entry that states wargear with effects are valid targets. look at dozer blades, hunter killers, search lights, rams, and so on. they are all wargear with effects, with varrying rules regarding targeting. aside from the deffrolla (wich i think is FAQ to be hull but i may be wrong) most are not targetable.

but yea i think we are otherwise just spinning our wheels on this, and i would request the mods that maybe this one is done before it get out of hand? - either way i think im done with this one, unless another compelling argument comes into play.

time wizard wrote:

PipeAlley wrote:
One of these days, I'll add some bits over the Deff Rolla, but not extending beyond it, to clearly show how da boyz could shoot and disembark front the front of the vehicle.

I would reckon the orks would have no problem jumping off the moving deffrolla just for kicks!

But again the point is to discuss any model issues with your opponent beforehand.

Ha! In the previous codex Orks had an awesome upgrade called spikes and blades which weren't allowed on Trukks because "da boyz would skewer themselves" but were allowed on Battlewagons for some reason?!?!

So da boyz have some experien e jumping of spiky rides as long as those are BW's!

DarthSpader wrote:
i guess in the end my opinion is that they are not decorative under the "etc" for the above and all the reasons i posted earlier. and the enhanced version is "definitly targetable" even nos said that. so why arent the normal ones? they have the same surface area, and do the same thing. there is also no entry that states wargear with effects are valid targets. look at dozer blades, hunter killers, search lights, rams, and so on. they are all wargear with effects, with varrying rules regarding targeting. aside from the deffrolla (wich i think is FAQ to be hull but i may be wrong) most are not targetable.

I completely disagree that a vehicle upgrade shock prow or aether sail is 'definitely targetable'.

The notion that if the object has some sort of gampeplay rule attached to it suddenly makes it part of the hull is not supported by the rules. You are tasked with drawing line of sight to the vehicle's hull and then they list a few things that are to be ignored (including the almighty 'etc', of course) and one of those things is 'decorative banner poles'.

In no way does that mean the argument hinges upon what items are decorative and what are game functional. All that matters is what you consider the hull of the vehicle or not. Now, obviously GW has left this completely wide open for us to endlessly argue about, but it does need to be said that the argument that because a piece of equipment has an in-game effect suddenly makes it part of the hull is not logically sound. I mean, hell, even gun barrels have an in-game purpose (you measure range from them, for gods-sake), but those are clearly listed as being ignored.

And as I have pointed out before, the rulebook shows a diagram measuring to the 'hull' of an Ork Trukk, ignoring its ram, which is a vehicle upgrade that has rules associated with it.


So I'm not saying that the rules say yes or no to an Aether Sail or Shock Prow being part of the hull or not. They don't. We each have to decide that on our own.

But the concept that classification of the prow or a sail on a Raider somehow changes into being part of the hull when you take the upgraded version literally has no basis in the rules. If you think the sail is part of the hull then it is part of the hull regardless of whether it is upgraded or not and the same is true of the regular prow vs. the shock prow.

Either these items are considered part of the hull all the time or they're not. Taking the wargear versions of them has no rules basis for changing this.