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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

MANY THANKS TO YAKFACE FOR THE POLL FORMAT

Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.



QUESTION: When deploying a vehicle with side mounted sponsons, do the sponsons themselves have to be fully within the deployment zone?



OPTION A. Only the hull has to be fully within the deployment zone. The sponsons can be outside it.


OPTION B. Both the hull and sponsons must be fully contained within the deployment zone.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

Please note that the deployment rules themselves are rather vague, thus the lack of a rules introduction for this poll.
However, I have provided a handy diagram below outlining what the two options represent, for clarity.

I voted 'B' because based on the rulebook's vague-ish definition of 'hull' I believe that any part of a vehicle that isn't a 'decorative element' (which they define as stuff like antennas, gun barrels, dozer blades, etc) is considered part of the vehicle's hull.

So IMHO, the sponsons are part of the vehicle's hull, or at least that's how I would try to play it.

Sponson=Part of the hull, thus behind the line - gun barrel projecting from sponson however can be over the line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"B"

I said A on the grounds that weapons barrels were on the list of things that are excluded from being hull. Most of a Sponson's mass is gun barrel, leading me t think it isn't hull. If asked politely about it though I'd play B with little complaint.

I vote B.
I feel that the point you're measuring the firing from should be behind the deployment line.

OPTION B. Both the hull and sponsons must be fully contained within the deployment zone.

This one.

Would you shoot at a vehicle if all you could see was a sponson? I'd say no, therefore not hull, therefore A.

I'd say option B. The deployment rules clearly state that the models must be deployed so that they are more than X" from a certain point on the board. If the sponson is placed over this line, then the model is closer than X" and is therefore breaking the rule.

Same goes for decorative elements, too.

I vote A because that extra inch or so could make all the difference later on.

The sponsons on the Predator and the 'Russ are not mandatory, but an upgrade, and it seems unfair to saddle a Space Marine or Guard player with a bigger target just because they bought the extra firepower. For the Land Raider you're given a choice for the sponsons' position. As we know all ranges bar weapons are from the hull, I vote option A as personal preference.

edit: The poll format works well, by the way.

B...I can think of more instances where the sponsons would be considered part of the hull than not.

Soup and a roll wrote:Would you shoot at a vehicle if all you could see was a sponson? I'd say no, therefore not hull, therefore A.

Hrm...might have been a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway.

If my opponent thinks that his sponson is in position to fire at my units (even if the rest of the model is out of range or LOS), then, yes, I believe I should be able to target the vehicle by seeing its sponson.

I voted A, because that's how me and my friends play it, however the query has never cropped up before, as we usually just deploy our vehicles facing forward. If challenged about it though, I would happily play with B.

B. Absolutely nothing may be over the line.

I voted A as it seems ot me in game terms it would make little difference.

What is the reasoning behind this issue?

Lorne wrote:I voted A as it seems ot me in game terms it would make little difference.

What is the reasoning behind this issue?

Your guns can shoot at enemies slightly farther away, as they are beyond the deployment line.

I voted B, because to me the rules seem to imply that you are to keep everything that has an impact on the game on your side of the deployment line.

marv335 wrote:I vote B.
I feel that the point you're measuring the firing from should be behind the deployment line.

This is the only answer that makes any sense.

I may be in danger of applying too much common sense here.

But anyways, though I can't imagine this situation ever becoming too relevant in a game. The way I/the club play things is that the model fits whereever it can be err... fitted. All that matters is that the opponent and you know that it's 'more than' 24 inches away from whereever (if it's a normal pitched battle for example).

Anything more than that or similar situations is just getting pedantic and gaming is supposed to be fun!

Ahh, 24 inch range guns getting first turn shots. I suppose if they are doing it for that then it would only be fair if they deployed behind the lines. If it was a flamer sponson or something it would not make a difference to me.

Also if they are limiting themselves to only one shot as they can not bring the main turret or other sponson into range. The tank may as well move the 6 inches and get the single shot anyways.

If I could I would vote none of the above because we've never had to rule on it, guess we are blessed in our neck of the woods to not have a bunch of TFG's trying stuff like this

If someone is using it to get 24" range shots on the first turn by having their guns an inch out of the deployment zone then B. If not, then A isn't really an issue.

People would really throw up some side armor for this? I guess it is a LR in the example though.