How do you determine front/side/back armour on Eldar vehicles?

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.

**Sliggoth**

Yes, the imaginary box works perectly fine, and for those challenged in drawing their own box a printable diagram of said imaginary box would alleviate all traces of a problem. A player could easily slip the 1-2 diagrams that his army would need into his codex, any judge could easily have the handful of diagrams in his (pocket sized) brb.

Would be simple, follow the obvious rules in the brb, and be an easy guide for any TO. Whats not to like?

Sliggoth

**Xenith**

Id personally gowith the facing that they can see the most of.

On the borderline, as shown in the first example, because of the angle of the tank, the meltagun can see more of the side armour than the rear, so I'd go with that.It generally works out with the image Gwar put up, apart from slightly wider front and rear arcs.

**kill dem stunties**

Id always played it as the green example, with anrrow front and back .... never seemed like a waac thing, as thats literally the front rear and sides profile, its not my fault gw gave the falcon a tiny front and rear ...

Also, to the valk thing, there are no "wings" on the falcon, those forward protrusions are entirely hull.

**DarknessEternal**

yakface wrote:I think the problem with any other approach than using true 45 degree arcs

90 degrees. 45 won't go all the way around.

**drade79**

I think the large Blast is the best way it's almost on the table to use and it is kinda using the GW thing.... if you show someone that they almost always start using it and it's easy to remember.

**Halfpast_Yellow**

I've never had a problem with using imaginary box on my Eldar vehicles, and using a tape measure to draw the diagonal and extend it out.

**chub**

I think gwar has it right assuming 0 is the shooter he would be shooting rear arnour, surely it is a matter of common sense I am reminded of the 90 degree arc of fire

**Mahtamori**

yakface wrote:
Sliggoth wrote:Using a "square" approach for any vehicle that is non-rectangular has one major problem... it is going directly against the very clear example shown in the brb.

If a vehicle is not square (as the vehicle illustrated in the brb is obviously longer than it is wide) then the rules quite clearly show that the arcs are different sizes. Thats definetely RAW, and as difficult as RAI is to determine we would have to think that its also RAI at this point.

There simply arent that many vehicles out there that arent rectangular (all of the eldar vehciles use the falcon basic body, at least for the moment there arent many different DE shapes) so why not simply provide a couple paper templates for INAT that can be printed out and held over the model in question?

A paper diagram with a couple dotted lines would be fast, easy, and settle all questions in an instant.

It would have the plus of being able to adhere much closer to RAW than a square which wxpands the front/ rear arcs and squeezes the side arcs.

Because Im certainly not going to want to apply the square idea to a converted ork bw that is built on a falcon body shape.

Sliggoth

Most vehicles are not rectangular. Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar, Drop Pods, Valkyries, all walkers, Land Speeders, etc, etc, etc.

There is absolutely no way you could try to come up with some sort of scheme that would appease all these vehicles, especially if you're talking about trying to make something for people to print out...nobody would ever go for that.

The fact is, if players can agree on what the arcs are, they're going to play that way in a tournament no questions asked. But if there is a disagreement, using true 45 degree arcs for all non-retangular vehicles is the only way that is 100 percent verifiable in all situations for a judge to rule on.

Since we're talking about rules here, and not simple practicality, using the 90 degree arcs for non-conforming vehicles effectively changes the argument from "How do we assign sides?" to "Is this vehicle too round or not?" unless you apply the 90 degree arcs to all vehicles, including the moving lego bricks.

Personally in the specific case of the Falcon/Serpent, I'd use the blue option. Not because of the box, but because it touches the main part of the hull (corners of the engine mount) I feel makes most sense being the intersection rear vs side. It's easier to see this on a Falcon where you don't get the rear compartment addon.
In fact, imaginary box would most likely be the best option in most cases since it will never be arbitrary. Protrutions? You have to deal with them for line of sight and cover issues anyway.

**Hoodwink**

Maybe I'm weird but I like to put notches at 90 degree angles on the skimmer base. Then if it's arbitrary, you just measure from the shooter to the base, which is pretty much dead center. Equal chance to hit front, sides, or rear no matter what vehicle you have.

**Aelyn**

Here's another interpretation (because we didn't have enough already...)

What if the "corners" we're meant to use for the vehicles are the points furthest total left & forward and so forth?

Using that interpretation, we would get this shape:

(I was quite surprised to see how much larger the Wave Serpent's front arc is compared to the rear arc, but that's inevitable using this method when the front is wider than the rear)

**Gwar!**

That's no ~~moon~~ Falcon, that's a ~~space station~~ Wave Serpant.

**Aelyn**

Gwar! wrote:That's no ~~moon~~ Falcon, that's a ~~space station~~ Wave Serpant.

Nyeh. Fixed.

**NeoMaul**

I wouldn't mind seeing diagrams for people's interpretation of the valkyrie armour facings. Just to see how people have been playing.

Ultimately it just simply sucks that GW didn't specify any rules for non-rectangular vehicles. They gave us help in understanding the most simple of all vehicle shapes (a rectangle) as if we needed it.

I don't expect that they will bother to make this clearer either. Unless they get harassed by heaps of these questions by email. Then maybe they might elaborate in the next edition of 40k.

**Gwar!**

NeoMaul wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing diagrams for people's interpretation of the valkyrie armour facings. Just to see how people have been playing.

Like so.

**camboyaz**

I uselly play corner to corner, but i like Gwars way better!