Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Situation:
You have a Predator DIRECTLY in front of a Razorback. The enemy is in the front facing of the Predator so he can only see the turret of the razorback. Like below:

E (enemy Dreadnought)

P (Predator)
R (Razorback)

What save would you get from this? They can't see the front nor the side facings. They can however see your turret. Would this grant a 3+ or 4+ cover save? Why?

I would give it a 3+ cover save because of the vehicle cover rules on p.6.

If the entire facing side is obscured, the save is 3+. I count the turret as part of the roof.

Then I would blow up the Predator.

Don't you ignore the turret in terms of what is the hull of the vehcile?

Either way, as the rulebook states, if the side facing you is completely hidden, and you can see another part, the cover save is improved +1

You can see the front of the vehicle since you can see the front of the razorback's turret. (which is a 4+ cover save)

See this thread for the same discussion of a Manticore.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/369941.page#2823018

juraigamer wrote:Don't you ignore the turret in terms of what is the hull of the vehcile?

Either way, as the rulebook states, if the side facing you is completely hidden, and you can see another part, the cover save is improved +1

I would go with this for a 3+ cover.

Still no clear answer as far as from the rulebook. Anyone?

The answer is clear, if you look at P.60, and P.62

you only use the 3+ cover save if you can not see any part of the hull or turret of the facing you are in. [P.62][P.60]

The dread was in the front facing, The dread could see the turret. The vehicle was 50% or more obscured so it gets a 4+ cover save.

you only get a 3+ cover if you can not see the facing you are in. Remember that as per P.60, you ignore gun barrels, but you do not ignore turrets. So if you can see the turret you have a shot at the front of the vehicle and you only get a 4+ cover for being 50% or more covered as detailed in the situation given in the original post.

DeathReaper wrote:The dread was in the front facing, The dread could see the turret. The vehicle was 50% or more obscured so it gets a 4+ cover save.

you only get a 3+ cover if you can not see the facing you are in. Remember that as per P.60, you ignore gun barrels, but you do not ignore turrets. So if you can see the turret you have a shot at the front of the vehicle and you only get a 4+ cover for being 50% or more covered as detailed in the situation given in the original post.

It's 3+ as not only is more then 50% of the vehicle obscured, the shot takes it through an intervening model which is in the way.

IdentifyZero wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The dread was in the front facing, The dread could see the turret. The vehicle was 50% or more obscured so it gets a 4+ cover save.

you only get a 3+ cover if you can not see the facing you are in. Remember that as per P.60, you ignore gun barrels, but you do not ignore turrets. So if you can see the turret you have a shot at the front of the vehicle and you only get a 4+ cover for being 50% or more covered as detailed in the situation given in the original post.

It's 3+ as not only is more then 50% of the vehicle obscured, the shot takes it through an intervening model which is in the way.

Please re-read Page 62, Left Column, last paragraph.

It clearly states that you only get the 3+ if you can not see any of the facing you are in. Then, and only then, can you shoot at a different facing, but the vehicle will receive a 3+ cover save.

A vehicle can be 99.999,999,999,999,999,999,999% out of LoS, but since the firing unit has LoS, because it can see .000000000000000000001% of the vehicle.

If 50% or more of the vehicle is out of LoS then the vehicle receives a 4+ cover save for being obscured by intervening models.

You are assuming that the turret is part of the facing. That isn't what the rule says. The rule is ambiguous with regards to turrets.

The Razorback turret isn't actually a turret.

What if the turret were facing a different direction?

I suspect a Predator in front of a Razorback would completely block LoS.

Kilkrazy wrote:You are assuming that the turret is part of the facing. That isn't what the rule says. The rule is ambiguous with regards to turrets.

The Razorback turret isn't actually a turret.

What if the turret were facing a different direction?

I suspect a Predator in front of a Razorback would completely block LoS.

This pretty much. Just like my diagram in my original post is what I am talking about. It does not assume the turret is a facing. However I'm sure you can shoot at the RB because of the Dread can see the Turret and not just the barrels. Now then since the "facing" which I am ASSUMING is just the body front facing is completely blocked, it is a 3+ save. However I am unsure if this is right since I don't know what the turret counts for as far as this ruling goes and would like any clarification, even if I'm wrong.

There is no "roof" facing; see the diagrams.

If you can see a roof mounted turret the vehicle can never get a 3+ save, as you will always be able to see part of that facig

Kilkrazy wrote:You are assuming that the turret is part of the facing. That isn't what the rule says. The rule is ambiguous with regards to turrets.

The Razorback turret isn't actually a turret.

What if the turret were facing a different direction?

I suspect a Predator in front of a Razorback would completely block LoS.

The razorback turret is a turret, albeit a smaller one than other vehicles such as a predator.

The way a turret is facing has not bearing on what facing you shoot.

If you can see the turret or hull you can see the vehicle. as per P.60. So you hit the facing you are in if you can see a turret.

The only time you get a 3+ cover save is if you can not see the facing you are in, and can only see a different facing.

DeathReaper wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You are assuming that the turret is part of the facing. That isn't what the rule says. The rule is ambiguous with regards to turrets.

The Razorback turret isn't actually a turret.

What if the turret were facing a different direction?

I suspect a Predator in front of a Razorback would completely block LoS.

The razorback turret is a turret, albeit a smaller one than other vehicles such as a predator.

The way a turret is facing has not bearing on what facing you shoot.

If you can see the turret or hull you can see the vehicle. as per P.60. So you hit the facing you are in if you can see a turret.

The only time you get a 3+ cover save is if you can not see the facing you are in, and can only see a different facing.

That's the problem, turrets are never described as any particular facing of the vehicle. They don't have an armor value. I guess you would say, because you can see the pintle mounted gunner, you have a perfect shot to the vehicle as well??

What part of the vehicle the turret is is irrelevant. Facing is based on the position of the firing model relative to the four quadrants of the vehicle as shown in the diagram.

I agree with Deathreaper, Nosferatu1001, and calypso.

I'm a bit confused as to the explanation for when you receive a 3+ save.

As I understand it, the save is received if you cannot see the hull of the quadrant you are in. The issue I have is this- surely that would simply mean you couldn't fire, as you lacked line of sight? How would you see another part? Perhaps if a searchlight, pintle mounted weapon or antennae can be seen is what I'm thinking, but would like confirmation. If this is the case, the issue is if a Razorback's turret is the same class as these.

I would argue in favour of the 3+ save.

IdentifyZero wrote:That's the problem, turrets are never described as any particular facing of the vehicle. They don't have an armor value. I guess you would say, because you can see the pintle mounted gunner, you have a perfect shot to the vehicle as well??

Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.

So if you can see the turret from the facing you are in, you can shoot at the facing you are in.

Turrets don't have an armor value because they are identical to hull for determining LoS.


@CadianXV: What the rules are describing is lets say that when a rhino is fully behind a wall, but at the end of said wall, that is, say six inches high.
And lets say a unit is firing at the rhino from the front facing, but it can not see the front at all due to the high wall, but they can see the side of the rhino because the rhino is parked at the end of said wall.

In this case the firing unit can not see the front facing which is the facing they are firing from, but can see the side facing.

In that case the rhino will receive a 3+ cover save.

DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.

Where is this in the rulebook?

Go to the thread I linked or page 60 of the brb in the first sentence.

calypso2ts wrote:Go to the thread I linked or page 60 of the brb in the first sentence.

On page 62 under Vehicles nd Cover - Obscured Targets. Go to the very bottom.

The turret does count as part of the vehicle to target, sure. It isn't specified as a specific facing though, therefore: it still receives a 3+ save as they are not really shooting at a visible facing of the vehicle, which means they are shooting at another facing of the target vehicle based on that slim bit of visibility.

IdentifyZero wrote:

On page 62 under Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets. Go to the very bottom.

Yes I know this rule, this rule is for when you cannot see anything in a particular armor facing.

IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret does count as part of the vehicle to target, sure. It isn't specified as a specific facing though, therefore: it still receives a 3+ save as they are not really shooting at a visible facing of the vehicle, which means they are shooting at another facing of the target vehicle based on that slim bit of visibility.

Now we are making up rules. Lets actually apply the real rules, rather than the idea that if a facing isn't specified then it is a 3+...The rule on page 62 actually states..."it may happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in ...may take a shot against the facing they can see"

Ok cool, I will shoot at the turrets facing, what facing is it? Wait, you answered this one...

IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though

Wait, what it the armor value of the turret if it has no facing...well looks like your interpretation broke the game, we better make up some random rules to fix it, I propose we give the unit a 4+ cover save on the front facing which is coincidentally the same thing you get when you apply the actual game rules.

Oh for crying out oud people! IF the vehicle is obscured by more than 50%, it is a 3+ cover. If you start having to use micrometers and calipers to determine this, than you may be playing the wrong game...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Oh for crying out oud people! IF the vehicle is obscured by more than 50%, it is a 3+ cover. If you start having to use micrometers and calipers to determine this, than you may be playing the wrong game...

err, you sure you didn't typo this one...? Obscured base save is 4+...

yeah, I did... I was getting too annoyed with this already to proof read...

its a 3+ save, but it counts as shooting your side armour (rulebook states, can't remeber where though, i think in ordnance, that the roof is classified as the same armour as the side)

Sabet wrote:its a 3+ save, but it counts as shooting your side armour (rulebook states, can't remeber where though, i think in ordnance, that the roof is classified as the same armour as the side)

That rule is only for ordinance barrages when they directly hit.

syypher wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.

Where is this in the rulebook?

How are you determining that the turret isn't part of the hull? The whole turret isn't the weapon. Some turrets have multiple weapons mounted on them. The turret is part of a vehicle's hull. Show me where the rulebook states that turrets are not part of a vehicle's hull. This is the same silly argument made over and over again by people with Valkyries claiming that their wings were not part of the hull.

augustus5 wrote:

syypher wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.

Where is this in the rulebook?

How are you determining that the turret isn't part of the hull? The whole turret isn't the weapon. Some turrets have multiple weapons mounted on them. The turret is part of a vehicle's hull. Show me where the rulebook states that turrets are not part of a vehicle's hull. This is the same silly argument made over and over again by people with Valkyries claiming that their wings were not part of the hull.

augustus5 wrote:

syypher wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.

Where is this in the rulebook?

How are you determining that the turret isn't part of the hull? The whole turret isn't the weapon. Some turrets have multiple weapons mounted on them. The turret is part of a vehicle's hull. Show me where the rulebook states that turrets are not part of a vehicle's hull. This is the same silly argument made over and over again by people with Valkyries claiming that their wings were not part of the hull.

I dont think that he ment that the turrent is not part of the hull but more like not part of any hull quadrent/facing i still think you get a shoot but its a 3+ because you cant see the hull facing your in it would be like if i was in front arc of a LR but all i can see sticking out of cover is the side sponson

Bishop99 wrote:
I dont think that he ment that the turrent is not part of the hull but more like not part of any hull quadrent/facing i still think you get a shoot but its a 3+ because you cant see the hull facing your in it would be like if i was in front arc of a LR but all i can see sticking out of cover is the side sponson

Except that's not the rule. You only get a 3+ if you can't see the quadrant your facing but you can see one of the other quadrants. Page 60 shows you a diagram of the quadrants. And the only quadrant he can see is the front facing. It doesn't matter which direction the turret is facing it's still the front quadrant because you are in front of the vehicle.

augustus5 wrote:

syypher wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.

Where is this in the rulebook?

How are you determining that the turret isn't part of the hull?

Umm...no? I'm not arguing that it is or that it isn't. I'm just wanting some concrete example on where on the book it says that, that's it. NOT siding with one side or the other.

augustus5 wrote:

syypher wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.

Where is this in the rulebook?

The whole turret isn't the weapon. Some turrets have multiple weapons mounted on them. The turret is part of a vehicle's hull. Show me where the rulebook states that turrets are not part of a vehicle's hull.

Dumb "counter-argument" to something I am not even arguing over. I just want facts, I am not even siding with any side. If you want me to play this game of "show me where" then I ask you "show me where" the rulebook states the turret is officially part of the hull? I am unaware of a part in the rulebook where it states that the turret should be counted as a hull side. Now correct me if I am wrong, that is fine! I have no problems with being wrong. I just want to know if I am wrong, or how I should interpret this. Hence I asked this question here, but with all the pages I have read people have posted there is still no concrete RAI or RAW that explains it clearly. I want to feel comfortable with taking whichever save for my vehicles in my given situation. I'm not sure which facing or quadrant it is in or whether it counts as what facing...

augustus5 wrote:

syypher wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Turrets are identical to Hull when determining LoS for shooting at vehicles.

Where is this in the rulebook?

This is the same silly argument made over and over again by people with Valkyries claiming that their wings were not part of the hull.

No that's just people trying to cheat and be dumb. This is a legit question as it is a turret. I play IG as my second army to SM's and I always count wings as part of the hull. I don't even see how they can argue that they are not. Anyways let's not talk about that anymore...back to my turret question...