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.

Yet raiders also have engines...just sayin
The last thread got locked for this. We disagreed then and we are going to disagree now. Done.

As to the OP if the russ itself is physically blocked so that with TLOS you can only see 50% of the vehicle then it gets a cover save. This is normally a 4+ for intervining units and standard terrain. If the terrain gives a higher or lower cover then that cover is given to the LRBT but only if it is again 50% out of TLOS.

Akroma06 wrote:Yet raiders also have engines...just sayin
The last thread got locked for this. We disagreed then and we are going to disagree now. Done.

As to the OP if the russ itself is physically blocked so that with TLOS you can only see 50% of the vehicle then it gets a cover save. This is normally a 4+ for intervining units and standard terrain. If the terrain gives a higher or lower cover then that cover is given to the LRBT but only if it is again 50% out of TLOS.

Yet they have sails, which are part of the hull beings they're not purely decorative.

Didn't realize the sail/hull thing was a can of worms. Sorry! Back on topic and my question..... Can one scream for a 3+ cover save on vehicles for being heavilly obscured?

Bla_Ze wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:An Aethersail would be hull, as it is not a decorative item. The books gives exceptions to what is hull, anything not on that list is hull by definition.

How about no?
"it must be able to see its hull or turret(ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.
BRB page 60 "Shooting at vehicles"

Since you mention definition, try looking up hull, anywhere.

I have done, in the BRB. You see that quote you posted? That defines "hull" as being everything you dont ignore. Is an aethersail A "decorative item"? No, because it alters the speed at which the vehicle moves. Making it hull

That is the only definition that counts, as well.

So, how about "yes", unles you can provide actual rules otherwise.

DarthSpader wrote:Didn't realize the sail/hull thing was a can of worms. Sorry! Back on topic and my question..... Can one scream for a 3+ cover save on vehicles for being heavilly obscured?

No not for heavily obscured, only if they cant see the facing of the vehicle they are shooting at

...but can see another facing. You then fire against THAT facing, with a 3+ cover save

nosferatu1001 wrote:...but can see another facing. You then fire against THAT facing, with a 3+ cover save

thanks, I ran out of breath

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Yet raiders also have engines...just sayin
The last thread got locked for this. We disagreed then and we are going to disagree now. Done.

As to the OP if the russ itself is physically blocked so that with TLOS you can only see 50% of the vehicle then it gets a cover save. This is normally a 4+ for intervining units and standard terrain. If the terrain gives a higher or lower cover then that cover is given to the LRBT but only if it is again 50% out of TLOS.

Yet they have sails, which are part of the hull beings they're not purely decorative.

Being functional or not have no bearing if its a part of the hull. The rule simply states "decorative banner poles" i have no idea why you are mixing it up with sails.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I have done, in the BRB. You see that quote you posted? That defines "hull" as being everything you dont ignore. Is an aethersail A "decorative item"? No, because it alters the speed at which the vehicle moves. Making it hull

That is the only definition that counts, as well.

So, how about "yes", unles you can provide actual rules otherwise.

Again with the "decorative item" thing, it has no bearing on this discussion.
Im pretty sure you noticed the "ETC." i.e there could be other things to ignore depending on the situation/vehicle. The rulebook doesnt even define Hull, it just says to ignore some elements.

The sails don't fit into any of those categories, seeing as how they are not decorative, banners, weapons, or anything else specifically labelled as 'not-hull'. Since it is not identified as 'not-hull' it is hull.

-cgmckenzie

Please read the rules.
It doesnt say these things are not hull, only to "ignore" them. So that argument doesnt work.

Fine. It's not in the list of ignored parts, so you don't ignore it.

-cgmckenzie

If you're not going to be serious about then there is no point discussing.

You see that quote you posted? That defines "hull" as being everything you dont ignore. Is an aethersail A "decorative item"? No, because it alters the speed at which the vehicle moves. Making it hull. That is the only definition that counts, as well. So, how about "yes", unles you can provide actual rules otherwise.
-nosferatu1001

There's also this language from p. 56 to consider:

"for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)." BGB p. 56

First, this list, and the one you referred to, are clearly not exhaustive.

Second, Dozer blades are functional, and they're on this list of non-hull items to ignore.

Accordingly, I don't agree with the contention that anything "functional" is hull.

There's also this language from the "line of sight" rules on p. 16:

"These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, buns, majestic wings, etc." BGB p. 16

This seems to be a pretty clear indication of GW's intent regarding TLOS.

Then again, there's the precedent set by the IG FAQ which makes the vendetta's wings hull. And they're nothing if not majestic.

Ultimately, I wouldn't count an aether sail as hull, because there's no clear definition of hull, and so I turn to evidence of intent for guidance, and I would argue that GW's intent is clearly to NOT penalize models for having big, cool, sticky-outy bits (that being the technical term). But I think there's a strong argument the other way, too.

-GK

DarthSpader wrote:Didn't realize the sail/hull thing was a can of worms. Sorry! Back on topic and my question..... Can one scream for a 3+ cover save on vehicles for being heavilly obscured?

They are making up rules.

0% to 49% - No Cover save
50% to 99% - Cover Save
100% - No Shot/No LOS

The only time you can get a 3+ is :
*if you decide the type of terrain pre-game was classified as 3+ or 5+. Other than that, all cover is 4+.
*If you cannot see the facing of the arc you are in at all and you can see a different arc, then you get a + to your cover.

Being 99% vs 51% doesn't increase your save... You only get a difference if there is some light bushes or fortified terrain blocking.

ok makes sense. now on to the dumb question.... if im shooting at tank A, and im in his side arc, but cant see it, how can i see his front or rear arcs and still shoot from the same gun? wouldnt that just place me in his front / rear arcs? the only time i could find of anything like this applying was when shooting down at a vehicles roof.

and not to start off the argument or further fuel the fire, (i met my quota for that earlier...) ive always played the sails on ravagers/raiders as being targetable, simply because they are something of a critical part of the model itself, and dont really strike me as decorative. to me, decorative is the spikey pole you put on the back...maybe the keel blade, gunner/drivers, etc. on a simaler note, i think the term "magestic wings" is meant to mean jump infantry like swooping hawks or other JI conversions. (where its clear the wings could fold down and NOT be flared out all purty like. a valks wings dont have that ability, and would so count as hull. from what ive read, the term "functional" is never really used, just "non decorative"

but i dont really want to start or continue a argument thats already been done and locked. so thanks for the answer to my question, and once again sorry for hijacking the thread

DarthSpader wrote:ok makes sense. now on to the dumb question.... if im shooting at tank A, and im in his side arc, but cant see it, how can i see his front or rear arcs and still shoot from the same gun? wouldnt that just place me in his front / rear arcs? the only time i could find of anything like this applying was when shooting down at a vehicles roof.

and not to start off the argument or further fuel the fire, (i met my quota for that earlier...) ive always played the sails on ravagers/raiders as being targetable, simply because they are something of a critical part of the model itself, and dont really strike me as decorative. to me, decorative is the spikey pole you put on the back...maybe the keel blade, gunner/drivers, etc. on a simaler note, i think the term "magestic wings" is meant to mean jump infantry like swooping hawks or other JI conversions. (where its clear the wings could fold down and NOT be flared out all purty like. a valks wings dont have that ability, and would so count as hull. from what ive read, the term "functional" is never really used, just "non decorative"

but i dont really want to start or continue a argument thats already been done and locked. so thanks for the answer to my question, and once again sorry for hijacking the thread

To your question say you're angled at a Chimera, after doing the angle measuring to determine your arc, you're found to be on the side arc, however there is a wall in the way conveniently placed so you can only see his front arc.

Ah. So it's one of those borderline facing situations. Gotcha.

It doesn't have to be borderline. If the tank is side on to an obstacle, it's very possible for your model to be clearly in its side arc but only be able to see the front or rear facing.