Imperial Knight Ion Shield Facing

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.

**rigeld2**

SRSFACE wrote:
Because the book says to?

No, it doesn't. You could be polite enough to quote the rule you're talking about.

**SRSFACE**

For the purpose of drawing line of sight? Pretty sure it says to always ignore extraneous things like wings and weapons.

**rigeld2**

SRSFACE wrote:
For the purpose of drawing line of sight? Pretty sure it says to always ignore extraneous things like wings and weapons.

a) Line of sight isn't the same as armor facing.
b) That's for non vehicles. Vehicles you draw LoS to the hull, and wings of vehicles are explicitly treated as hull.

**DeathReaper**

morgoth wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
morgoth wrote:
My solution works in every case, for every vehicle, respects the intent of the rule (i.e. taking the vehicle shape into account), is fair and complies with how video games treat facings and armor values.

I'm fine with that.

But your solution is still a house rule and not RAW.

And unless you can offer a better house rule or a usable RAW interpretation, I'll consider my solution as both RAI and the best there is.

Thanks for your contribution though.

There is no RAW interpretation that works, that is all I was pointing out.

Your interpretation is not RAI as RAI is unknowable unless you are the designer of the game itself.

As for the best there is, maybe, but it is something that will need to be discussed with each opponent.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
So its an illegal model and cant be used in games? No KNIGHT for you!

Why? What makes it an illegal model?

**SRSFACE**

rigeld2 wrote:
wings of vehicles are explicitly treated as hull.

Where's it say that explicitly? I'll go doucle check it when I get home.

Anyway, line of sight is what requires you to determine armor facing. Their rules are intertwined.

**rigeld2**

SRSFACE wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
wings of vehicles are explicitly treated as hull.
Where's it say that explicitly? I'll go doucle check it when I get home.

Anyway, line of sight is what requires you to determine armor facing. Their rules are intertwined.

As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.

Are wings decorative? (No.)

Spoiler:

Could you elaborate on where the LoS rules are referenced in that rule?

**SRSFACE**

Dozer blades aren't decorative either, as there are rules for using them. Their exception is that they are explicitly stated.

It specifically says "to and from their hull." Wings are not part of a hull.

And Line of Sight is how you determine what you're shooting at to begin with, so it's tied up to anything saying "shots." There's no need to determine vehicle facing if you're not shooting at something, is there?

**rigeld2**

SRSFACE wrote:
Dozer blades aren't decorative either, as there are rules for using them. Their exception is that they are explicitly stated.

It specifically says "to and from their hull." Wings are not part of a hull.

Sorry, forgot to copy the other section.

When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.). Note that, unlike for other models, a vehicle’s wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.

And Line of Sight is how you determine what you're shooting at to begin with, so it's tied up to anything saying "shots." There's no need to determine vehicle facing if you're not shooting at something, is there?

Determines what you're shooting at, but it's a different thing entirely to determine which arc you're hitting.

**SRSFACE**

That's a pretty important notation there.

And with the LOS thing, I think you're getting hung up on me saying that's simply how you determine what you're facing at to see if you can hit it. It's a pretty pedantic thing to argue here.

**rigeld2**

SRSFACE wrote:
That's a pretty important notation there.

Like I said - sorry

Honestly wasn't trying to trap you or anything...

And with the LOS thing, I think you're getting hung up on me saying that's simply how you determine what you're facing at to see if you can hit it. It's a pretty pedantic thing to argue here.

Except it's not. LoS and facing are two completely different concepts. Saying they're intertwined when the rules don't reference each other at all is simply wrong - it's not pedantic.

**morgoth**

The book doesn't say to ignore wings.

The book says: for the purpose of LoS, ignore wings, long guns and other superstructures.

*for the purpose of LoS*

Not for vehicle facing.

**Oberron**

What about the triarch stalker for necrons? it's front legs can move pretty far out on one and super short on the other.