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.

I am curious how people determine the facing for LOS for armour sides. I have noticed that some people do it differently and some people include and exclude various parts of the model as being part of the hull or not.

For example was playing a guy at a tourney recently with a valkyrie who didn't include the wings as part of the hull. This worked heavily in his favor as the long rectangle shape of the valk without its wings made its rear armour facing incredibly narrow, so I couldn't get a shot in at the rear armour. With the specific regard to the valk I feel that the RAW includes the wings as part of the hull. They are not listed as any of the parts that should be excluded (dozer blades etc) and they also aren't decorative (you need them to fly).

Theres also this issue of the wave serpent which is more like an oval than a rectangle as shown in the rulebook's diagram.

I have noticed people either do one of two things when determining facings.

1. They drawn an invisible box around the model, then cut it corner to corner.

2. They find the most extended front point on one side and connect it to the most extended point at the back on the other side.

method two often results in a lot of non-boxy vehicles having incredibly small rear armour angles. So I want to know what other people think of all this, and what is the correct way to divide a vehicle?

I do it by the rules: Draw an X from corner to corner of the vehicle. Wherever you fit in the X is the facing you're on.

For the Valkryie, you should call him on it - he can't proxy something that changes the utility or firing of a vehicle like that.

as for the Waveserpent...Hull to hull. Same with the rest of vehicles.

You actually divide the vehicle from a point in the middle into four 90 degree quadrants, with the front one "centred" on the front of the vehicle (if that makes sense)

The real problem in this situation is the "What is the hull?" question. As it's never really defined in the BGB, It's a hard thing to determine in certain situations.
I actually would not include wings. wings would not be considered a part of the hull in a real vehicle and from a logical point, if the side armor is, we'll say 12, then that would obviously be the armor of said wings and the fact that this gives a narrow rear armor window represents the slim chance you have of hitting those small, sensitive bits that make a jet move in the very center of their rear.

Dashofpepper, I guess the point I was confused about was a vehicle like the wave serpent has corners that are further inwards than their outlying shape.

So what I am asking is, if you draw from corner to corner, which corners are you drawing from? The actual corners of the vehicle or the invisible extended corners of a box being drawn around the vehicle.

Gwar, it seems to not say anything about this in the rules, as in written words. It just says to refer to a diagram that divides a predator from corner to corner. Is there more written about this matter elsewhere?

NeoMaul wrote:Gwar, it seems to not say anything about this in the rules, as in written words. It just says to refer to a diagram that divides a predator from corner to corner. Is there more written about this matter elsewhere?

Well, actually, what it is doing is finding the centre of the vehicle, drawing an imaginary line to the front of the vehicle, then drawing two more at 45 Degree angle to that. That sections off the vehicle into four 90 degree sections. Thats how I have always done it and how everyone I ever know had, because that is what they show you in the rules

Gwar! wrote: Thats how I have always done it and how everyone I ever know had, because that is what they show you in the rules

That's not at all what they show you in the rules.

All it shows is a predator divided into quarters more or less diagonally. No line to the front, and then divided up... just the vehicle divided.

How that applies to vehicles not based on the rhino chassis is anyone's guess.

I'm too lazy to go upstairs and get my rulebook to look right now, so I can't speak to Gwar's assertion, but I *can* tell you that you don't draw an invisible box. You measure on the hull itself.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote: Thats how I have always done it and how everyone I ever know had, because that is what they show you in the rules

That's not at all what they show you in the rules.

All it shows is a predator divided into quarters more or less diagonally. No line to the front, and then divided up... just the vehicle divided.

How that applies to vehicles not based on the rhino chassis is anyone's guess.

Yeah it is divided diagonally, through the centre of the vehicle, which is what I said, only with more prose and explanation to try and help people.

Gwar! wrote:Yeah it is divided diagonally, through the centre of the vehicle, which is what I said, only with more prose and explanation to try and help people.

You mean '...with a bit I made up...'




They show a predator with diagonal lines. That's it. Yes, your way is a handy way of dividing the vehicle up, but it's not how the rules say (or in this case show) to do it.

The fact is, the rules just don't say how to do it. So the invisible box method, the drawing lines across from foremost and rearmost corners method and your lines and angles method are all equally valid... ie: house rules.

All we know by RAW is that we need to divide the vehicle up into quarter-ish pieces, but can presumably ignore some parts of the vehicle when doing so, since the lines shown on the predator go to the corners of the track guards, while the rear of the hull and the tracks protrude further.

So, as far as I'm concerned, this is simply another of those 'Talk to your opponent about how to do it before the game' situations. The rules (a grand total of one example picture) are simply too vague to be remotely useful unless everyone's just using rhino variants.

insaniak wrote:unless everyone's just using rhino variants.

It's almost as if GW didn't realise that not everyone plays marines!

Wait a minute, if you don't count the wings as hull, can't you get into "The Valkyrie can shoot around this terrain, but can't be shot at, because only the wings stick out, and their 'Not hull'" situations?

Just find the center and draw a big X so that the front is right in the middle of one quadrant. It really is that simple.
Not worth fighting over.

Hello!

I know this picture in the rulebook and think, although you get the general expression of how to proceed with other vehicles, it's not that clear.

Personally I would try (did play two to three games until today) to go for a little bit of the "realistic" approach, but in harmony with the rules. Sounds funny somehow...

...my point: As far as I know, todays AT weapons prefer to hit their target orthogonally. If the angle is too steep (right word?), the missle or shell might be reflected, because it can't transfer all its kinetic and explosive energy properly into the direction of the vehicle.
So, when trying to find out which armour side has been hit, I'd always tend to use that side of the armour that as the best angle for the shot. On boxy vehicles like the Rhino this should be quite easy, I guess you can see which angle is the better one. I agree that very rounded vehicles can give you some problems with this method, but apparently thats already the case.

Of course, you could say that the shooter could aim at the rear armour, even if the side armour has the better angle, due to his knowledge that the plates are thinner there...but I would argue that the AT guy knows his chances are better with a good shot angle, even if the plates might be a bit thicker there.

Hum. You understand what I mean? This was more difficult to explain than I thought Well, first post, don't be too harsh

Gwar! - 3rd edition had four equal faces for armour. 5th (and 4th I think although I don't have a BRB handy) changed this to corner-to-corner.

Unfortunately, the rhino chassis used as an example is really unhelpful as the two diagrams are virtually identical. I can only guess that the change was due to the difficulty of determining facing without a template. However, it makes it even harder on odd-shaped vehicles. (ETA, it may have been an editing error...)

Also, some vehicles produce odd results. Dreadnaughts, for example, have enormous rear faces.

If you can't come to an agreement with your opponents then 90degree faces is probably a good compromise to offer.

Gwar, you say that when the vehicle has been divided as per the diagram in the rulebook each facing should be a 90 degree angle?

I do not think this is the case. If the vehicle was a square this would be true, but the predator is a rectangle and so when you divide between the center you will have a variety of different angles.

I measured the angles in the rulebooks diagram and the side ones come to 115 degrees, with the back and front coming to 65 degrees.

So it seems that it is definitely a case of drawing from corner to corner. And ultimately leads to the problem of what a corner is on a round vehicle like the wave serpent.

I agree with everyone that the rules aren't clear here and in an actual game I would definitely give my opponent the benefit of the doubt or roll off on sides.

Eight Ball wrote:Wait a minute, if you don't count the wings as hull, can't you get into "The Valkyrie can shoot around this terrain, but can't be shot at, because only the wings stick out, and their 'Not hull'" situations?

I'm not sure what you mean. For a weapon to fire, the weapon has to be in LOS, and for you to fire at a vehicle, you don't have to see the hull, you just have to see the model. If, however you can only draw LOS on a facing that you are not actually in, then the vehicle gets a 3+ cover rather than the 4+ regular obscurred.

Deffgob wrote:

Eight Ball wrote:Wait a minute, if you don't count the wings as hull, can't you get into "The Valkyrie can shoot around this terrain, but can't be shot at, because only the wings stick out, and their 'Not hull'" situations?

I'm not sure what you mean. For a weapon to fire, the weapon has to be in LOS, and for you to fire at a vehicle, you don't have to see the hull, you just have to see the model. If, however you can only draw LOS on a facing that you are not actually in, then the vehicle gets a 3+ cover rather than the 4+ regular obscurred.

Page 60 of the rule book, very top.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Just find the center and draw a big X so that the front is right in the middle of one quadrant. It really is that simple.
Not worth fighting over.

Please define the front of a Waveserpent or a Falcon.

Deffgob wrote:The real problem in this situation is the "What is the hull?" question. As it's never really defined in the BGB, It's a hard thing to determine in certain situations.
I actually would not include wings. wings would not be considered a part of the hull in a real vehicle and from a logical point, if the side armor is, we'll say 12, then that would obviously be the armor of said wings and the fact that this gives a narrow rear armor window represents the slim chance you have of hitting those small, sensitive bits that make a jet move in the very center of their rear.

Why would you not include wings as part of the hull? They are attached to it. Is a weapon sponson not part of a tank? Do they not get destroyed?

Emperor forbid shooting the very structure that is making a flying vehicle capable of flying.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Deffgob wrote:The real problem in this situation is the "What is the hull?" question. As it's never really defined in the BGB, It's a hard thing to determine in certain situations.
I actually would not include wings. wings would not be considered a part of the hull in a real vehicle and from a logical point, if the side armor is, we'll say 12, then that would obviously be the armor of said wings and the fact that this gives a narrow rear armor window represents the slim chance you have of hitting those small, sensitive bits that make a jet move in the very center of their rear.

Why would you not include wings as part of the hull? They are attached to it. Is a weapon sponson not part of a tank? Do they not get destroyed?

Emperor forbid shooting the very structure that is making a flying vehicle capable of flying.

I explained why I would not include them, but to further the point, it's not that you can't hit the wings, it's that if you hit the wings, you are hitting the side armor. If wings don't have side armor, I don't know what in the world does.
And furthermore, no... a weapon attachment is not a part of the vehicle's hull.... not by any deranged interpretation of the word Hull.

Deffgob wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Deffgob wrote:The real problem in this situation is the "What is the hull?" question. As it's never really defined in the BGB, It's a hard thing to determine in certain situations.
I actually would not include wings. wings would not be considered a part of the hull in a real vehicle and from a logical point, if the side armor is, we'll say 12, then that would obviously be the armor of said wings and the fact that this gives a narrow rear armor window represents the slim chance you have of hitting those small, sensitive bits that make a jet move in the very center of their rear.

Why would you not include wings as part of the hull? They are attached to it. Is a weapon sponson not part of a tank? Do they not get destroyed?

Emperor forbid shooting the very structure that is making a flying vehicle capable of flying.

I explained why I would not include them, but to further the point, it's not that you can't hit the wings, it's that if you hit the wings, you are hitting the side armor. If wings don't have side armor, I don't know what in the world does.
And furthermore, no... a weapon attachment is not a part of the vehicle's hull.... not by any deranged interpretation of the word Hull.

I must have misunderstood you then since it seems that you are saying not to count wings as hull. Do you mean for measurement of range as well? Or only for facing armor?

I mean for dividing a vehicle into armor facings. IIRC, you don't have to have range to the hull to take a shot., just the model. But for armor facing, you divide the hull into 4 sections by drawing a line from the center to each corner, and I don't believe that wings should count for that.
EDIT: looks like I was wrong, you do have to see the hull to shoot at a vehicle... hmm. This makes me rethink not counting wings as hull

Gotcha.

With a valk, at my FLGS we solved this problem, since its absolutely rediculous to say that the wings of the valk cant be shot at, since they block LoS and a valk cant fly without wings. SO I agree that you dont consider the back of the wings as rear armor, count add-ons like that as the armor facing they come out from, so anywhere on the wing would be side armor. The valks main chassis is rather thin yes, which can be anoying and so yes it has a very small rear facing, only a couple inches or less if IRC, so yes you would have to hit that hull only if you have appropriate angle to it. Easiest way to determine which facing you fire at, get your aiming rod out and mark the distance to the nearest part of the valk, that is what you hit! I wouldnt worry about the whole, box and diagonal thingy, almost never do you have it where the closest point on the vehicle is the exact corner, so just find the nearest facing.

re enforcing what others have said in here. You draw an x from the center of the vehicle. I would say the mounting p oint to the base would be good. Whatever zone you are in that is the side that you are shooting.

In 4th and 5th, I beleave it's corner to corner. If the ship only has rear angles (rounded front) we've done corner to middle, or in the case of a round vehicles, defalted to 45 degree angles.

As for the Valk itself, I'd include the wings in the mesurement, even if this does give it a much larger rear facing. If you want a fluff explination, an aircraft's wings are designed to take impacts from that direction, unlike front on. (As I noted in an earlier argument, Hull does not have a technical definition for an airplane refering only to the 'main part', most people confuse that with fusologe, which does specificly exculde wings)

Steelmage99 wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Just find the center and draw a big X so that the front is right in the middle of one quadrant. It really is that simple.
Not worth fighting over.

Please define the front of a Waveserpent or a Falcon.

To touch on this..who cares? What is the difference between the front and side of a wave serpent and falcon anyway? I'm pretty sure they were designed with front and side the same for this specific reason.

Axyl wrote:To touch on this..who cares? What is the difference between the front and side of a wave serpent and falcon anyway? I'm pretty sure they were designed with front and side the same for this specific reason.

Oh Snap! Go get the dishes cause you just got served!

smart_alex wrote:re enforcing what others have said in here. You draw an x from the center of the vehicle. I would say the mounting p oint to the base would be good. Whatever zone you are in that is the side that you are shooting.

Just to clarify, what you say is only true if you find the center by measuring corner to corner. The diagram is clear on this if nothing else. Using the mounting point of a skimmer base is not wise as it may not be in the center of the vehicle as defined by its corners.

The problem will always remain that different people will have different ideas about what the corners are of any non-box shaped vehicle. It seems like a minor issue in some ways but I really don't think it is. We're talking about the difference between like a 35 degree angle becoming a 90-110 degree angle depending on people's interpretations. With rear armor generally being weaker, players are always going to try for it if they can.

As for the valk wings issue. I also believe the wings should be included as part of the hull. It seems silly to think that such large parts of the vehicle which can block LOS, have weapons attached and allow the valk to fly should be deemed decorative elements.