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.

Just out of curiosity. How do you measure the facings on a Valkyrie? Where are the 'corners'? Are the wings included or not? Otherwise the front facing is miniscule. Not that it matters since it's 12/12/10 but it could be good to know.

berglin wrote:Just out of curiosity. How do you measure the facings on a Valkyrie? Where are the 'corners'? Are the wings included or not? Otherwise the front facing is miniscule. Not that it matters since it's 12/12/10 but it could be good to know.

It isn't defined, so you have to agree pre game.

If you have LoS to the side arc but are in the front arc you can still shoot the side. But because you are shooting at a different arc then the one you are in you are granting the target a cover save. I can't remember exactly what it is but it's right in the rulebook around the same area as fire arcs.

Gwar! wrote:

berglin wrote:Just out of curiosity. How do you measure the facings on a Valkyrie? Where are the 'corners'? Are the wings included or not? Otherwise the front facing is miniscule. Not that it matters since it's 12/12/10 but it could be good to know.

It isn't defined, so you have to agree pre game.

A lot of people go 90degree for each side on vehicles that aren't conveniently square/rectangular.

I honestly think no-one noticed that change when they were play-testing. Maybe it was an error by the illustrator?

KingCracker wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:That is why landraider/battlewagon conversions annoy the heck out of me, mega modeling for advantage.

Remember, if you are shooting at an arc, and cannot see that side of the vehicle, but you can see the vehicle sometimes, it gets a 3+ cover save...

Well not necessarily. Remember that for a LONG time, Orks didnt have a battlewagon model. So naturally the first thing that comes to mind is the LR. But since they now have BW, Id agree that people building them now, are trapped in that modeling for advantage thing. Because they cost the same dont they? So what reason are you building a LR/battlewagon now?

Um... dude, you play orks for flavor. It's not like they're the most competitive army on earth (they're not the worst, but they're not the best by any stretch). I'm currently converting a LR into a BW because I think it's a hell of a lot more flavorful for the orks to have at least a few converted vehicles from other models rather than 3-4 identical battlewagons.

Also, my roommate plays Space Wolves, I plopped a BW on top of his landraider, and it's damn near the same footprint if you don't count the deffrolla (I model my deffrollas up, to stop the 'assault 2", 'can you shoot the deffrolla,' 'firing arc' debates that inevitably arise).

I think you're basically whining about stupid crap. If you want modeling for advantage, have Tyranid MCs lying down or 'popping out of the earth' (so they're half their normal height) along with 'jumping gaunts.' That's modeling for advantage, using two similar sized models to give the orks flavor is just flavor.

ChrisCP wrote:Well if you are not counting the Rolla as hull... draw this box as per the rules



Or another way with the rolla in

The Yellow lines are accurate. You draw from one corner of the vehicle to the diagonally opposite. The red lines are going off into no-where, not the corner. The picture on p.60 shows no such box for you to draw those red lines with, that is completely fabricated.

yep. the sponson's and overhangs and grubbins of that sort are NOT counted when determining vehicle arc, much to my predators dismay.

rogueeyes wrote:If you have LoS to the side arc but are in the front arc you can still shoot the side. But because you are shooting at a different arc then the one you are in you are granting the target a cover save. I can't remember exactly what it is but it's right in the rulebook around the same area as fire arcs.

Wrong you can't choose what arc you fire into. Which ever arc you are in you must fire at. The only exception is if you can not see the arc you are in at all but can draw LoS to another arc.then you fire at that arc with a 3+ cover save.

You are not given permission to fire at any arc other than the one you are in, in any other circumstance. The arc you fire at is NEVER a choice, it is always determined by the situation.

QuietOrkmi wrote:Except that he will claim those diagonal parts as side armor... which is visible even from the front unless the model is within a 2"...

I almost want to eliminate those diagonal parts by filling them in with scrap, that way I am a box [] instead of a ∆.

Like I said They cannot be claimed as side armor because they are not Side armor; they are still front if you are in the front arc. Force him to read the rule book or not play.

If, after you go over the actual rules with him he still insists that they are side armor(making him fairly dense) Present the front portion of your Side to him. That way when he fires at your battle wagon and claims to be going for Side AV tell him the Diagonals are Front AV(Since it would have to work both ways, they certainly cannot be side, they are more front facing than side at that angle). I guarantee he will start playing by the rules after that situation.

ya, it is a sad disadvanage of the battlewagon, I wish we had a transport that could take a hit a little better, but sadly in normal 40k, there is none.

battlewagons are among the best transports in the game. I wish I had the option to take them as a marine player... cheap av14 front vehicles, even with a wide av12 side, would be an excellent transport option for my terminators. the only option right now for them is the over-expensive land raider.

True, but you have a pretty solid chance of getting your terminators from point A to B without your Vehicle going boom

battlewagons have a solid chance to do so as well.. av12 isn't terrible really, its still pretty durable. throw in the ability to take deffrollas, and your golden.

Lol so you really just like the deffrollas. Can't blame you there

i'd pay DOUBLE what you pay to have them on my land raiders

Honersstodnt wrote:i'd pay DOUBLE what you pay to have them on my land raiders

Are you kidding me? The one drawback of the AMAZING Deff Rolla upgrade is that ramming vehicles often leaves you in a position where rear armor can be hit - either through CC, or through shooting.

On a LAND RAIDER?!? If they gave that to Vanilla Space Marines, Guard would have stiff competition for #1.

RisingPhoenix wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:That is why landraider/battlewagon conversions annoy the heck out of me, mega modeling for advantage.

Remember, if you are shooting at an arc, and cannot see that side of the vehicle, but you can see the vehicle sometimes, it gets a 3+ cover save...

Well not necessarily. Remember that for a LONG time, Orks didnt have a battlewagon model. So naturally the first thing that comes to mind is the LR. But since they now have BW, Id agree that people building them now, are trapped in that modeling for advantage thing. Because they cost the same dont they? So what reason are you building a LR/battlewagon now?

Um... dude, you play orks for flavor. It's not like they're the most competitive army on earth (they're not the worst, but they're not the best by any stretch). I'm currently converting a LR into a BW because I think it's a hell of a lot more flavorful for the orks to have at least a few converted vehicles from other models rather than 3-4 identical battlewagons.

Also, my roommate plays Space Wolves, I plopped a BW on top of his landraider, and it's damn near the same footprint if you don't count the deffrolla (I model my deffrollas up, to stop the 'assault 2", 'can you shoot the deffrolla,' 'firing arc' debates that inevitably arise).

I think you're basically whining about stupid crap. If you want modeling for advantage, have Tyranid MCs lying down or 'popping out of the earth' (so they're half their normal height) along with 'jumping gaunts.' That's modeling for advantage, using two similar sized models to give the orks flavor is just flavor.

Hello there... "dude".

Is his land raider a battlewagon? Since there is big enough of a difference to constitute asshattery. Sure, flavorful, blah blah blah.

The battlewagon is an awesome model, converted land raiders... not so much. I've seen quite a few nice ones, like at this years 'ard boyz, wasn't modelling for advantage, it was for flavor. It can easily be abused though, and comes with advantages. Bottom line, it's MFA.

Thanks for calling the post "whining". Since, anyone who has a different view than you is a whiny fethwipe... right?

Had that feeling. Shoo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RisingPhoenix wrote:

Honersstodnt wrote:i'd pay DOUBLE what you pay to have them on my land raiders

Are you kidding me? The one drawback of the AMAZING Deff Rolla upgrade is that ramming vehicles often leaves you in a position where rear armor can be hit - either through CC, or through shooting.

On a LAND RAIDER?!? If they gave that to Vanilla Space Marines, Guard would have stiff competition for #1.

No no no! We wan't them on wave serpents.

I think the deff rolla is too good as is. Mostly since my transports don't hold anything important...

FlingitNow wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:If you have LoS to the side arc but are in the front arc you can still shoot the side. But because you are shooting at a different arc then the one you are in you are granting the target a cover save. I can't remember exactly what it is but it's right in the rulebook around the same area as fire arcs.

Wrong you can't choose what arc you fire into. Which ever arc you are in you must fire at. The only exception is if you can not see the arc you are in at all but can draw LoS to another arc.then you fire at that arc with a 3+ cover save.

You are not given permission to fire at any arc other than the one you are in, in any other circumstance. The arc you fire at is NEVER a choice, it is always determined by the situation.

I was wrong on this. However I did learn that you resolve shots separately if you are in different arcs.

ChrisCP wrote:Well if you are not counting the Rolla as hull... draw this box as per the rules

Except that's not actually as per the rules at all.

The rules simply tell us to draw lines from corner to corner. They don't tell us what method should be used where the vehicle isn't rectangular.

Your method of drawing a rectangle around the extremities of the vehicle and dividing that is certainly a workable interpretation... but it's no more valid as per the rules than the way he did it.

Dracos wrote:
The Yellow lines are accurate. You draw from one corner of the vehicle to the diagonally opposite. The red lines are going off into no-where, not the corner. The picture on p.60 shows no such box for you to draw those red lines with, that is completely fabricated.

If you want to try and define a 'corner' on a BW be my guest. It's acceptable to say however that there are actually many corner and it's up to the discretion of the players involved. That was the point of the diagram, he's playing against someone who wants to shoot side armour no matter which facing he's in, even with the entier front face is exposed and not grant him a 3+ cover save as per the rules.... So I wan different corners for his BW. It's not going to make any difference, as the guy is going to shoot the side armour even thou he's in the front arc etc.


@insaniak: If we have no valid way by the rules then a workable interpretation then a workable interpretation is the best we can do isn't it? How would you determine the front arcs of a not rectangular vehicle? Or do you play with the acrs as undefined as that's how the rules sit on the issue - other than that would be ridiculous - I imagine you find a workable interpretation of the rules and go on from there right?

ChrisCP wrote:@insaniak: If we have no valid way by the rules then a workable interpretation then a workable interpretation is the best we can do isn't it? How would you determine the front arcs of a not rectangular vehicle? Or do you play with the acrs as undefined as that's how the rules sit on the issue - other than that would be ridiculous - I imagine you find a workable interpretation of the rules and go on from there right?

Er... what?

I'm not contesting the fact that a workable interpretation helps the game to function.

What I was pointing out was simply that your way is not, as you claimed, how the rules say to do it.

The rules say to the corners right? So if we don't have a regular polygon from which to operate how do we implement the rules? As the rules are mute on the matter a workable interpretation is as good as we can do is it not?

ChrisCP wrote:

Dracos wrote:
The Yellow lines are accurate. You draw from one corner of the vehicle to the diagonally opposite. The red lines are going off into no-where, not the corner. The picture on p.60 shows no such box for you to draw those red lines with, that is completely fabricated.

If you want to try and define a 'corner' on a BW be my guest. It's acceptable to say however that there are actually many corner and it's up to the discretion of the players involved. That was the point of the diagram, he's playing against someone who wants to shoot side armour no matter which facing he's in

Sure thing, you need to define with your opponent which part you are calling the front corner when you are looking at arcs, no argument there. However, making the box as you propose does not follow the rule as the line is not drawn from one corner of the hull to another.

Just because its a bit hard to discern what the corner is does not make your method RAW. Making your own rules is fine, but that is most certainly not how the book tells you to do it.

"wanting to shoot side armour no matter which facing he's in" is incorrect, as the rules state that you fire at the arc you are in and there is no choice involved.

Dracos wrote:
"wanting to shoot side armour no matter which facing he's in" is incorrect, as the rules state that you fire at the arc you are in and there is no choice involved.

Yeah and I'm guessing you somehow mangled "against someone who wants to shoot side armour no matter which facing he's in," as my saying that that's A-O-K?

ChrisCP wrote:The rules say to the corners right? So if we don't have a regular polygon from which to operate how do we implement the rules? As the rules are mute on the matter a workable interpretation is as good as we can do is it not?

I'm not sure why you seem to think that I'm arguing against your interpretation being a sensible one. I'm not.

My sole point was that you had claimed it was what the rules said to do, when it's not. That's all there is to it.

insaniak wrote:

My sole point was that you had claimed it was what the rules said to do, when it's not. That's all there is to it.

Discussing rules in a rules forum? Stupid WAAC TFG powergamer.



To show what arc they're in, extend two measuring tapes on their sides, to show the arcs. Corner to corner, easy to do, not particularly open to interpretation. If the tape happens to land on the firing model, let him choose or dice off. If not, tell him which arc he's in.

Pika_power wrote:Corner to corner, easy to do, not particularly open to interpretation.

...unless the vehicle doesn't have obvious corners, which was what prompted the discussion in the first place.


In practice, there are several different ways to resolve it, including:
- Drawing an imaginary box around the vehicle's extremities and drawing the arcs corner to corner on the box
- Extending just the shorter side or sides out to give an imaginary 'corner'
- Judging as best you can what constitutes the 'corners' of whatever shape the vehicle happens to be
- Saying 'forget the corners' and just drawing lines out at 90 degree angles from the vehicle's centre point, 45 degrees off from the vehicle's centre line

I'm sure people have more.

Any or none of these could be correct, given the rather vague rules we are given. So just play it however you and your opponent decide is best.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Hello there... "dude".

Is his land raider a battlewagon? Since there is big enough of a difference to constitute asshattery. Sure, flavorful, blah blah blah.

The battlewagon is an awesome model, converted land raiders... not so much. I've seen quite a few nice ones, like at this years 'ard boyz, wasn't modelling for advantage, it was for flavor. It can easily be abused though, and comes with advantages. Bottom line, it's MFA.

Thanks for calling the post "whining". Since, anyone who has a different view than you is a whiny fethwipe... right?

Had that feeling. Shoo.

Oh right, whining, whatever was I thinking calling it that? I mean there's a whole 5 degree difference in arc or something. Which is obviously enough to make you spew profanity (if cleverly disguised), complain that people who do it are 'abusing the system,' complain that people who are doing it are asshats, and yell about abuse. No whining here.

I'll tell you what - if there's an argument over whether you can see side or front armor on the convert, I'll give side. I do that anyway.

Bottom line - it's a fun modeling project, I'm enjoying it, and I don't have any desire to have 4 identical battlewagons on the field. My 4th is probably going to be a built up Hammerhead, since that has front armor 13 and thus it makes sense a few welded armor plates and a can opener later, it's an open topped armored wagon.

If I wanted a field of identical vehicles, I'd play space marines.

FlingitNow wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:If you have LoS to the side arc but are in the front arc you can still shoot the side. But because you are shooting at a different arc then the one you are in you are granting the target a cover save. I can't remember exactly what it is but it's right in the rulebook around the same area as fire arcs.

Wrong you can't choose what arc you fire into. Which ever arc you are in you must fire at. The only exception is if you can not see the arc you are in at all but can draw LoS to another arc.then you fire at that arc with a 3+ cover save.

You are not given permission to fire at any arc other than the one you are in, in any other circumstance. The arc you fire at is NEVER a choice, it is always determined by the situation.

Page number please for further reference...

*Chances are I will be referencing this thread for page numbers so I do not need to search through the book during a game or tourney...

As for what my opponent, He will agree to anything that puts me to a disadvantage and never to anything that grants me an advantage unless RAW clearly supports such advantage...

QuietOrkmi wrote:Page number please for further reference...

*Chances are I will be referencing this thread for page numbers so I do not need to search through the book during a game or tourney...

The vehicle section isn't that big. Having a good read of it now would save time flicking during the game.

But for reference sake, pages 60 and 62.