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 do use the prow as it is a part of the hull. I also let my opponent charge to that point or let him use that to see if he is in range.
There is nothing saying I can't move the sail, one of my opponents plays CSM and moves the defiler arms to more scenic poses, and we agreed that they don't count for anything just the body.
I fail to see where the sail is hull the hull of the ship is clearly defined...although now I wonder about that boarding plank if that counts or not. I can move my raiders sail if I wish (none of my opponents have stopped me or said anything infact I will tilt it as well to make for a more stylized pose. Nowhere does it say that you cannot do it game wise...now I cannot model a raider to be smaller or shorter than it is as THAT woulding modeling for advantage.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/379404.page

Similar discussion, at least regarding the Shock Prow/Aethersails

Alkasyn wrote:

Kharrak wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:How about I put an aethersail? Does it stop counting as hull ?

Actually, this interests me. If a player equips Aethersails, do those sails (and the mast) count as visual representation for that upgrade? As such, would that mean, being an upgrade, it doesn't count as hull?

Edit: Oh, hold on, the upgade is "Enhanced Aether Sails", suggesting that the normal craft come with the sails regardless, and that the Aether Sails upgrade is just a different TYPE of Aether Sail. Nevermind then.

Still curious to see how this discussion flows in regards to Sails/Masts counting as hull, though.

The shock prow is a different type of prow, yet people wouldn't count it for the purposes of disembarking. Same for aethersails and enhanced aethersails at least.

You missed the barn. Shock Prows are dozer blades/reinforced rams and thus ignored. Vehicle upgrades in general are not ignored. This was already explained.

Alkasyn wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/379404.page

Similar discussion, at least regarding the Shock Prow/Aethersails

Agreed

I believe all this talk belongs elsewhere as the OP asked about the side gunners, to which I still say no they are not hull and thus cannot be targeted.

DE Sails are as much a part of the model as Storm Raven and Valk wings. So, it is a funky shaped, Xenos vehicle that doesn't fit into the box shape of standard SM vehicles. Deal with it.

Alkasyn wrote:
No Dark Eldar player would agree with this.

It's a good thing that we consult the rules, and not Dark Eldar players, for rules-related issues.

How would you feel about an IG player running his Vendetta or Valkyrie without wings? How about a BA player running a Storm Raven without wings? Same thing.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:
No Dark Eldar player would agree with this.

It's a good thing that we consult the rules, and not Dark Eldar players, for rules-related issues.

How would you feel about an IG player running his Vendetta or Valkyrie without wings? How about a BA player running a Storm Raven without wings? Same thing.

Wow really? Just because I play Dark Eldar doesn't mean I don't know the rules. A sail is not a wing. A wing is attached immoveable part of the HULL of the craft. (exception granted for the flaps) The sail is not hull, that litterally makes no sense if you told a sailboat captain that he had a hole in his hull he would never think of looking at the sail.

Akroma06 wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:
No Dark Eldar player would agree with this.

It's a good thing that we consult the rules, and not Dark Eldar players, for rules-related issues.

How would you feel about an IG player running his Vendetta or Valkyrie without wings? How about a BA player running a Storm Raven without wings? Same thing.

Wow really? Just because I play Dark Eldar doesn't mean I don't know the rules. A sail is not a wing. A wing is attached immoveable part of the HULL of the craft. (exception granted for the flaps) The sail is not hull, that litterally makes no sense if you told a sailboat captain that he had a hole in his hull he would never think of looking at the sail.

Bad illustration, since a SAIL Boat, needs its SAIL to be functional...just saying. You just made our point for us. Thank you.
By your own illustration, and thereby admission, the sail on a DE vehicle is not decorative, as it is required for the vehicles movement. Neither is it a gun barrel, banner, or ram. By the rules, since it does not fit into these catagories as purely decorative, that leaves us with but one option... it is part of the hull, and thus it is targetable.

Oh, and btw, you never answered the point about an IG, BA, or GK player not attaching the wings on his bird. It is the same logic as yours. "I don't need it, no matter how the model was inteded to be built".

Alerian wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:
No Dark Eldar player would agree with this.

It's a good thing that we consult the rules, and not Dark Eldar players, for rules-related issues.

How would you feel about an IG player running his Vendetta or Valkyrie without wings? How about a BA player running a Storm Raven without wings? Same thing.

Wow really? Just because I play Dark Eldar doesn't mean I don't know the rules. A sail is not a wing. A wing is attached immoveable part of the HULL of the craft. (exception granted for the flaps) The sail is not hull, that litterally makes no sense if you told a sailboat captain that he had a hole in his hull he would never think of looking at the sail.

Bad illustration, since a SAIL Boat, needs its SAIL to be functional...just saying. You just made our point for us. Thank you.
By your own illustration, and thereby admission, the sail on a DE vehicle is not decorative, as it is required for the vehicles movement. Neither is it a gun barrel, banner, or ram. By the rules, since it does not fit into these catagories as purely decorative, that leaves us with but one option... it is part of the hull, and thus it is targetable.

Oh, and btw, you never answered the point about an IG, BA, or GK player not attaching the wings on his bird. It is the same logic as yours. "I don't need it, no matter how the model was inteded to be built".

No because a sail boad can have an engine, a Raider has engines. The sail makes it go faster. How is it not decorative? If it was an upgrade yeah it is representing it. I did answer it. Right where it is bold. That is hull. Go and ask someone if they think a sail is apart of the hull, just say it out loud, it just doesn't sound right or seem right. The BRB gives guns, banners, etc as an example! I would not play someone who said that the ram didn't count as hull yet my sail does.

Alerian wrote:


Oh, and btw, you never answered the point about an IG, BA, or GK player not attaching the wings on his bird.

Akroma06 wrote:
A wing is attached immoveable part of the HULL of the craft. (exception granted for the flaps)

You should look for a game that allows you to change the rules to whatever you like then.

The rules explicitly tell you that a shock prow(not the regular prow!) is not hull. Everything else is unless it fits one of the exceptions. I don't know why the shock prow, the dozer blade or the reinforced ram are not considered hull, but they are, even though all three are probably a more critical part than a lot of other, shootable stuff on the vehicles they are attached to. I could point to a dozen bits on a battlewagon sticking out which make no sense being hull. However, they are, because the rules say so. No way around it, unless you change the rules in agreement with your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alkasyn wrote:

Alerian wrote:


Oh, and btw, you never answered the point about an IG, BA, or GK player not attaching the wings on his bird.

Akroma06 wrote:
A wing is attached immoveable part of the HULL of the craft. (exception granted for the flaps)

So, how about wheels?

Alkasyn wrote:

Alerian wrote:


Oh, and btw, you never answered the point about an IG, BA, or GK player not attaching the wings on his bird.

Akroma06 wrote:
A wing is attached immoveable part of the HULL of the craft. (exception granted for the flaps)

No, that doesn't answer it. If the IG/BA/GK player never attched the wing, and mounted his weapons elsewhere, then that arguement is moot. Also, the wings do not need to be glued in , and are quite removable.
Also, by his logic, Vendettas has 2 engines on top of its hull that provide movement, the wings "just help it go faster". Of course this a flawed arguement, as is his argunemt about the sails, since they are indeed one in the same.

Again, there is no sound arguement as to why the wings of a Vendetta/Raven are required for movement, and are thus considered hull by game terms, and yet the sails of the DE should not be held to the same standard.

See, by real life definitions, wings are not considered to be part of the hull of the plane, they are in fact wings, not hull. By definition, they are two seperate things.

However, in game terms, wings are considered hull because they have a function, and in keeping with the same interpretaion of the rules, the DE sails would be considered hull, as well.

RB, Shooting at Vehicles (page 60) first sentence. "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring ... gun barrels, antennas, decorative banners ... )."

That side gun assembly is not decorative. It functions as ... "Hmm, well, only my side Dark Lance can see your rhino, so okay, only one die."

It is not much like a turret? Do we allow LRs to be targeted if the enemy's LoS reaches the side sponsons?

I suppose that'd be the crux of the argument.

@mercer:
I'd say, 'Yes' to letting an enemy shoot at the ravager, even if it only had LoS to the side gunner's canopy/body ... but not the gun barrel. It'd be a 3+ Cover Save for the Ravager though.

I don't really care if people want to continue this argument, but it is off topic. Brothererekose brought it back. So for the last time side gunner is not hull it is a gun. (fell into one of the catageories didn't it!)

Alkasyn wrote:

Alerian wrote:


Oh, and btw, you never answered the point about an IG, BA, or GK player not attaching the wings on his bird.

Akroma06 wrote:
A wing is attached immoveable part of the HULL of the craft. (exception granted for the flaps)

I disagree. My Vendettas' wings are quite removable.

Are there any pictures in the DE codex of Ravagers or Raiders without sails? Nope...it's not any more optional than the treads on a tank or the wings on a Vendetta.

Akroma06 wrote:I don't really care if people want to continue this argument, but it is off topic. Brothererekose brought it back. So for the last time side gunner is not hull it is a gun. (fell into one of the catageories didn't it!)

Yes, it is a gun, and not merely a "gun barrel".
It is an entire gun, plus it's mounting. Mountings are not lincluded in the list of untargetable, niether is the body of the gun. Only the barrel itself is untargetable.
If you claim that it has no mounting, then the DE player can never fire it, because LOS for firing starts from the "weapon's mounting", then traces a line along its barrel (p 58), obviously declaring that they are 2 distinct things.
There is nothing stating that a gun's mounting is ignored for targeting the vehicle, only that its barrel is.

Ok an on topic argument...
Yes but it is still apart of the gun. The gun is not apart of the hull the Ravager has the same hull profile as the Raider...the exact same as a Rhino has to a predator .(even with sponsons)

Akroma06 wrote: ... So for the last time side gunner is not hull it is a gun. (fell into one of the catageories didn't it!)

No, Akroma 06, it doesn't. The "gunner" and "gun barrel" are too different things, particularly so, for the ruling, in that most 40k tanks don't have a "gunner", but they do have "gun barrels". A "gun barrel" is what cannot be targeted, not '"gunner".

"Gun barrel" is the disallowed term. I hate to get into nit-picky grammar and semantics, but you are blending terms together.

A "turret" can be targeted. What is a "turret"? The thingy is what the gun is mounted on. And on a Ravager ... the side gun is mounted on some gracefully arched Eldar styled sway bars. There's a protective shield that the gun pokes through.

IMHO, all of that is "turret".

Alerian wrote:Yes, it is a gun, and not merely a "gun barrel".
It is an entire gun, plus it's mounting. Mountings are not lincluded in the list of untargetable, niether is the body of the gun. Only the barrel itself is untargetable.
If you claim that it has no mounting, then the DE player can never fire it, because LOS for firing starts from the "weapon's mounting", then traces a line along its barrel (p 58), obviously declaring that they are 2 distinct things.
There is nothing stating that a gun's mounting is ignored for targeting the vehicle, only that its barrel is.

Right Alerian. There is ... armored shielding for the gunner, his chair, it's frame. All that.

Ok, never seen so much stupid arguments in one thread.

Do like big boys, make agreement before game to have no discussion, in tournaments ask judge to make this ruling before the game.

Simple and no moronic remarks about sails needed for a space sailboat, jeezes

The gunners are neither hull nor a turret. The crew would not count as hull.

Valek wrote:Ok, never seen so much stupid arguments in one thread.

Do like big boys, make agreement before game to have no discussion, in tournaments ask judge to make this ruling before the game.

Simple and no moronic remarks about sails needed for a space sailboat, jeezes

yea and my spaceplane doesnt need wings either QQ

Do the gunners count as anything? I don't have the codex on me atm, are they treated as the sponsons? I mean a Ravager has 3x Dark Lances iirc been a while, are all 3 guns on the vehicle or does it use the gunners to represent any?

Night's Blood wrote:The gunners are neither hull nor a turret. The crew would not count as hull.

The gun must have a mounting, or it cannot fire. Page 58 of the BRB dictates this, as it states to draw LOS from the mounting down the barrel.
We are then told that gun barrels cannot be counted when drawing LOS to a vehicle.

This leads to the following conclusions:
1. All guns on vehicles have mounts.
2. Gun mounts are not prohibited from being targeted, only the barrel itself is.
3. If we can see where the gun is mounted, then we can draw LOS to fire.

I see a lot of people arguing that you cannot shoot at guns. This is false. You simply cannot shoot at gun barrels. There is more to a gun than just a barrel, and GW did actually take the time to give clarity on this rule:
Of all the parts of a gun, only the barrel is ignored for drawing LOS to a vehicle. It's mounting, whatever form it is in, is a perfectly legal target.

Therefore, when you draw LOS, and ignore the guy in the chair, you can still draw LOS to the chair in which he is seated, as that is the mount for the weapon, and thus is part of the hull.

Alerian wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:The gunners are neither hull nor a turret. The crew would not count as hull.

The gun must have a mounting, or it cannot fire. ... kerrr SNIP! ... the chair in which he is seated, as that is the mount for the weapon, and thus is part of the hull.

+1! Well put.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:I do find it silly that wings don't count, considering that wings of a vehicle do.

A creature with wings can fold them up. A plane can't.

Valek wrote:Ok, never seen so much stupid arguments in one thread.

Do like big boys, make agreement before game to have no discussion, in tournaments ask judge to make this ruling before the game.

Simple and no moronic remarks about sails needed for a space sailboat, jeezes

Do you want me to quote your very own codex to you? The dark eldar codex explicitly says that sails are essential for your "space sailboats". If anything is "stupid" and "moronic" on this threads it's this post. If you have to resort to insults because you are out of arguments, you are automatically wrong.

Alerian wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:The gunners are neither hull nor a turret. The crew would not count as hull.

The gun must have a mounting, or it cannot fire. Page 58 of the BRB dictates this, as it states to draw LOS from the mounting down the barrel.
We are then told that gun barrels cannot be counted when drawing LOS to a vehicle.

This leads to the following conclusions:
1. All guns on vehicles have mounts.
2. Gun mounts are not prohibited from being targeted, only the barrel itself is.
3. If we can see where the gun is mounted, then we can draw LOS to fire.

I see a lot of people arguing that you cannot shoot at guns. This is false. You simply cannot shoot at gun barrels. There is more to a gun than just a barrel, and GW did actually take the time to give clarity on this rule:
Of all the parts of a gun, only the barrel is ignored for drawing LOS to a vehicle. It's mounting, whatever form it is in, is a perfectly legal target.

Therefore, when you draw LOS, and ignore the guy in the chair, you can still draw LOS to the chair in which he is seated, as that is the mount for the weapon, and thus is part of the hull.

A Leman Russ' side sponsons are not considered hull. Using your logic they would be, which is wrong. The same applies to the DE ravager, its just in a more "dark eldary" way.

I maintain that the weapon mounts of dark eldar vehicles are not hull.

Akroma06 wrote:
Wow really? Just because I play Dark Eldar doesn't mean I don't know the rules. A sail is not a wing. A wing is attached immoveable part of the HULL of the craft. (exception granted for the flaps) The sail is not hull, that litterally makes no sense if you told a sailboat captain that he had a hole in his hull he would never think of looking at the sail.

Actually the reference was not to which army you play determining your understanding of the rules, but rather the clear bias of interpretation.

You say that no wings on aircraft move while in flight? You might want to check out F14, B1A/B1B, GR4.

A sail boat even with an engine is not a sailboat with out a sail; its a power boat. The sails on the Ravager are clearly fluffed as being required for the vehicle to navigate the warp. Oh, you said it just increases speed? Well the F14's wings sweep back to increase stability at high speeds, and that's a WING moving.

As for the Vendetta model, I could easily model hinges in several places of the wing and then count it as being able to move. But then that'd be modeling for advantage.


You also stated that vehicles are allowed to be altered DURING game, referencing Turrets. A fun fact, at NO place in the IG codex are weapons specified as turrets; so you could actually argue with much greater success on Tanks not turning turrets because the rules do not give them access to this rule. However that would be lame and no one would want to play you.




To the topic at hand; I would have to agree with the assessments that the mounts for the dark lances can be targeted, whether or not crew is modeled. Much the same way anyone could target my FW Hydra's even if the entire hull is in cover; because the turrets are so damned high that if you see any part of the gun, including the barrel you are almost guaranteed to see the turret. The rule for the barrel I think was more intended for the sake that if you have a Russ at the corner of a solid building, and only its barrel stuck out and you saw nothing else that you couldn't shoot what can't shoot back.

It's the same as sponsons counting as hull; which is odd til you think about it. Sponsons hold ammo, which is open to the crew inside, as well as engines and such. A round gets through, sets off the munitions in the sponsons and detonates an internal explosion that knocks the thing out of combat. Fluff could be made for knocking the Ravager down as well; round hits decking/mount startles or incapacitates gunner who allows the weapon to tip and fire into the deck. Skywalker did it.

Night's Blood wrote:A Leman Russ' side sponsons are not considered hull.

How do you figure that? Gun barrels are not hull but the rest of the gun, the mount and the frame of the sponson have no such exemption.

From what i understand the sponson itself is not considered hull because it is an addition to the hull itself. A Leman Russ can be purchased without the sponsons, but adding them does not increase the profile of the hull, but simply adds a weapon mount to the side.

This understanding comes from a ruling at last Ard' Boyz.

Night's Blood wrote:From what i understand the sponson itself is not considered hull because it is an addition to the hull itself. A Leman Russ can be purchased without the sponsons, but adding them does not increase the profile of the hull, but simply adds a weapon mount to the side.

This understanding comes from a ruling at last Ard' Boyz.

if Sponsons did not count as hull, then on the side profile, they would add cover to the hull; seeing as if they do not count you can not hit it, and can not see through it of course for LoS.

Sponsons are considered hull, because they are weapon mounts you pay points to have bolted into place. ((pts being determined by weapon choice as well)).