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.

 If a vehicle has some additions on it purely for decoration, like a banner , blades or the like, which will not affect or enhance it's performance or that of any units around it, may it be targeted if these are the only parts of it sticking out of cover? 

  This is a question I ask after witnessing enough arguments over situations like this, and I was curious what most Dakkites thought about it.

I find that to be a very unsportsman like move. I have seen many a game ruined over that very argument, as well as a veteran gamer who has won best sportsman at a GT actually rip off the blades on his raider in the middle of a game to spite his opponent.

You cannot target banners/arms stickingout/gun barrels/etc, only the hull/main body (see page 6&7 of the BGB).

While I agree with the overall sentiment of Snoogums I personally believe the rule that prohibits such an action is on page 21.

LOS must be drawn to the "body" of a model, which in the case of a vehicle is a bit uncertain but I believe most people generally consider "hull" to be the equivilant to "body" in this case.

http://www.tsoalr.com/view.php?date=2004-04-08

personaly i think that if there is a piece like a defiler leg or a leman russ gun barrel is sticking out of a piece of terrain its fair game , i mean at least make it hull down ( sorry obscurred target) . i'm sorry but common sense says to me if their is something big enuff for me to shoot at i'm taking the shot & i would expect my oponet to do the same. i'm sorry let me say i think a common ground has to be reached . example bolters & antenna don't count but dreadnaught legs & arms do

Its very simple to me, its unsportsmanlike to fire at things not the main body of a tank/vehicle. Firing at guns, the Hunter Killer Missle, or banner poles for this purpose seems to me to be punishing an opponent for adding flare to their army. Creative modeling shouldn't be a form of punishment for players.

And herein lies the problem. As noted in the difference between ATI and Shrew-what constitutes "body?" Personally I subscribe to the turrent/body view, but what about legs and arms (aka dreadnought)?

snoogums is correct. you cannot legallly by the rules target  protruding, spikes, gun barresl, blades, antenna or any other bit as the BB clearly states the HULL constituted the base of the model and that targeting bits, banners etc.... is illegal

You wouldn't believe the silly arguments I've heard where someone shoots at banner poles or antannas sticking out. It gets comical sometimes.
Thanks to Lord Sutekh, that comic says it all!

I would say that dreadnaught arms poking out from a building are untargetable. I mean, if its just an arm then its not a man sized target. Yesterday I played a game where my plasma pistols could hit the dozer blade of a vehicle but not the main vehicle itself. My opponent wanted to give me the shot, I said absolutely not, the shot has to hit the body of the tank, not its bits.

Normally I would say tactically this is very disadvantageous to me, however, fate has a way of paying me back. But again, i think that firing at a tanks bits constitutes punishment for being dramatic with an army. TSoaLR i guess has the best depcition for this against vehicles.

I think the rule on page 21 is pretty clear. You may shoot the body of the vehicle, but not little stuff like antenna, flags, banners or spikes. However with dreadnoughts, vehicles that buy dozer blades and especially defilers, I'm fine with say that the arms/legs are legitamate targets simply because well if you don't shoot them they'll beat you with them!! I'm fine with shooting at dozer blades as part of the body of the vehicle and gun barrels on tanks (earthshaker cannon on basilisk comes to mind), those are massive targets and have a physical game effect.

But you measure range from the hull and not from the tip of the gun barrel. And you measure LOS from where the gun is mounted to the hull of the vehicle, not from the end of the barrel. So a Russ/Basi gun barrel *doesn't* have a game effect.

IMHO, it's just as bad to target a Russ gun barrel as it is to target a banner. Page 21 still applies, as the gun is not the 'main body' (ie hull) of the vehicle.

I generally try to follow: if you can shoot, you can be shot. And if you can't be targetted, you can't target the thing that can't target you!

A couple of poitns to be made. The first is that you should be shooting at the main body of the tank. However there are some additional notes. First is that the turret is part of the main body so if you can see the turret, you can fire. The second (and probably the most important) if it can see you, you can see it. Range and line of sight is measured from the guns, so if they can fire on you from where they are, you can fire back. There is no "I can see you but you can't see me" crap.

I take as the same as shooting a tank commander's nose.

But yeah,even as the Big Book sez',you cant.

The question now is people who make large parts (wings,enormous dozer blades that go an inch around the edges of the hull etc) to cover LOS.

Would you count those in?

You cant fire -at- them since its not the hull BUT they also block your LOS.

 

I just say model what you want,dont go over the top and if the question arises,we'll talk it over while gaming