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.

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.