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.

If you look at the diagram on page 60 of the rule book (Shooting at vehicle section), you'll see that there's an "x" centered on the tank to demonstrate LOS of the front, side and rear armour.

My opponent insisted that we do this "x" exercise to determine if my model can see the "rear" of his wave serpent. If you look at the wave serpent, it's not rectangularish like a land raiders/rihnos.

I had a model that I can actually see the wave serpent's rear door clearly (TLOS), but if we did the "x" exercise like the diagram on page 60, and based on that diagram... I could only shoot at the side armour.

How would you do this? And is doing the "x" exercise a valid "rule" that we must use?

Thanks.

whembly wrote:If you look at the diagram on page 60 of the rule book (Shooting at vehicle section), you'll see that there's an "x" centered on the tank to demonstrate LOS of the front, side and rear armour.

My opponent insisted that we do this "x" exercise to determine if my model can see the "rear" of his wave serpent. If you look at the wave serpent, it's not rectangularish like a land raiders/rihnos.

I had a model that I can actually see the wave serpent's rear door clearly (TLOS), but if we did the "x" exercise like the diagram on page 60, and based on that diagram... I could only shoot at the side armour.

How would you do this? And is doing the "x" exercise a valid "rule" that we must use?

Thanks.

The rules don't cover how to deal with non-rectangular vehicles.

That being said, it's pretty clear what the rear arch of the wave serpant is.

Gwar! wrote:

That being said, it's pretty clear what the rear arch of the wave serpant is.

According to all eldar players, it's that 1cm when you look from the weird angle where you can see Eldrad in the shower.

Seriously, the waveserpent has a ridicolously small rear armour field because of the shape. Against good players, you won't get in their rear (at least if you follow the RAW here - which every eldar player I've ever played do)

Gwar! wrote:

whembly wrote:If you look at the diagram on page 60 of the rule book (Shooting at vehicle section), you'll see that there's an "x" centered on the tank to demonstrate LOS of the front, side and rear armour.

My opponent insisted that we do this "x" exercise to determine if my model can see the "rear" of his wave serpent. If you look at the wave serpent, it's not rectangularish like a land raiders/rihnos.

I had a model that I can actually see the wave serpent's rear door clearly (TLOS), but if we did the "x" exercise like the diagram on page 60, and based on that diagram... I could only shoot at the side armour.

How would you do this? And is doing the "x" exercise a valid "rule" that we must use?

Thanks.

The rules don't cover how to deal with non-rectangular vehicles.

That being said, it's pretty clear what the rear arch of the wave serpant is.

LOL... so... if you can see the rear doors, then the model is shooting at the rear?? Anyway, it didn't impact the game since my looters wiffed.

There is an example in the BRB that says if you cannot see the arc you are in, and if you can see another part of the vehicle you can shoot at that part, but you would give your oppenent a 3+ cover save. I just thought that this might be relevant so I through it out there.

There was a thread a while back about this, determining the rear arc of non rectangular vehicles is a real pain. There were several interpretations of how to do it, all of which produce slightly different arcs. The Serpent is still far longer than it is wide though, so does have a small rear (and front but that makes no difference) arc. Because finding the center of the Serpent is a nightmare my prefered method is the 'invisible box' technique. Basically extrapolate out a box surrounding the Serpent and then draw a line from one corner to another to show you are arcs.

If you can actually see the rear Door, you are allowed to take a shot at the rear armor. The X thing is for finding the arcs, but doesnt explicitly become some sort of invisible force field that prevents you from shooting the door. Your Warriors are smart enough to take a shot back there. Remember though, that only a model who can see the back door can take shots at it. everything else would need to shoot the side armor.

As for what counts for a rear armor on Eldar Vehicles, I would say the back door and the back of the engine.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:If you can actually see the rear Door, you are allowed to take a shot at the rear armor. The X thing is for finding the arcs, but doesnt explicitly become some sort of invisible force field that prevents you from shooting the door. .

This is incorrect.

The 'x' thing is the method used for determining which arc the firing model is in. As per the first paragraph of the 'Vehicle Facing and Armour Values' section on page 60 of the rulebook, the armour value that applies to a given shot relies entirely on which arc the shot comes from.

The rules don't allow you to shoot at an arc other than the one the model is actually facing unless you can't see that facing.


As pointed out by others, though, exactly how the facings are determined for non-rectangular vehicles is a matter of some debate as the rules aren't particularly clear on it. Personally, I go with the 'draw a box around the outside of the hull and bisect the corners' approach.

Surely a more reasonable approach is to simply draw a rectangle, then draw lines away at a 135 degree angle? I mean, that is not hard. It is what I do.

(And I say that as an Eldar player, so I would benefit from using the bisecting corners approach.)

Fifty wrote:Surely a more reasonable approach is to simply draw a rectangle, then draw lines away at a 135 degree angle?

Ignoring for a moment the difficulty of eye-balling a 135 degree angle... Can you explain this a little? Draw a rectangle where?

It was one of my WS and we did discuss this for some time. I think this was the first time Whembly had seen the rule book X diagram on page 60 for targeting vehicles. I think that we tend to get all wrapped around TLOS with a “if I can see it I can shoot it” mentality that we assume this with vehicles as well. Whereas I assume the rules are there to represent that the more extreme the angle the more likely the shot will glance with no damage. We did end up drawing a rectangle 7 ¾ inches by 4 inches and draw an x to determine what sides could be targeted. That empty WS with weapon destroyed went on to tank shock two more units (both ran off table) and ram a truck (wrecked it) before the end of the game.

insaniak wrote:

Fifty wrote:Surely a more reasonable approach is to simply draw a rectangle, then draw lines away at a 135 degree angle?

Ignoring for a moment the difficulty of eye-balling a 135 degree angle... Can you explain this a little? Draw a rectangle where?

I believe he mean like so:



The Fire Prism's turret is a bit large compared to what you'll find on a Falcon, but the Wave Serpent's rear compartment is not too dissimilar in size or shape when you've got a bird perspective.

Thats way larger than the actual rear arc ....

kill dem stunties wrote:Thats way larger than the actual rear arc ....

Why? That diagram looks completely reasonable to me.

As an eldar player, I would agree with what was drawn. That is the same as saying the flat area defined by the engines and rear door is the rear. Not just the rear door.

Homer

Homer S wrote:As an eldar player, I would agree with what was drawn. That is the same as saying the flat area defined by the engines and rear door is the rear. Not just the rear door.

Homer

That's what I was thinking, too.

This is why I support diagrams in codices.
Got a non-box shaped vehicle? No problem.
A simple image, lookig down at it. with an "X" across the vehicle indicating where each side is would fix it all. No more wondering.

Who am I kidding, though? That'll never happen.


Eric

Mahtamori wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Fifty wrote:Surely a more reasonable approach is to simply draw a rectangle, then draw lines away at a 135 degree angle?

Ignoring for a moment the difficulty of eye-balling a 135 degree angle... Can you explain this a little? Draw a rectangle where?

I believe he mean like so:



The Fire Prism's turret is a bit large compared to what you'll find on a Falcon, but the Wave Serpent's rear compartment is not too dissimilar in size or shape when you've got a bird perspective.

No, that is not what I meant. Draw a rectangle like that, yes, but don't join the opposite corners.

Just halve the interior of a 90deg angle. That is 45deg. Extend that line outwards, 135deg. Easy.

Mahtamori wrote:I believe he mean like so:

No, that's what I said I do.

Fifty wrote:No, that is not what I meant. Draw a rectangle like that, yes, but don't join the opposite corners.

Just halve the interior of a 90deg angle. That is 45deg. Extend that line outwards, 135deg. Easy.

Ok... but why?

insaniak wrote:

Fifty wrote:No, that is not what I meant. Draw a rectangle like that, yes, but don't join the opposite corners.

Just halve the interior of a 90deg angle. That is 45deg. Extend that line outwards, 135deg. Easy.

Ok... but why?

Is he trying to say use 90 degree arcs?

ETA, like this:

That's a fairly common way of doing it also. (especially since 3rd edition used to do exactly that).

Here are the pictures from the other thread:


Crafty Elfdar players have been trying to enforce the 'corner to corner' interpretation. I think Imaginary box is 'fairer' in the current vacuum of clear rules.

I wouldn't mind 90 Degrees with a template provided by GW but that is a different discussion.

nkelsch wrote:I wouldn't mind 90 Degrees with a template provided by GW but that is a different discussion.

As it happens, my templates include 90 degree arcs for exactly this purpose!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Crafty Elfdar players have been trying to enforce the 'corner to corner' interpretation. I think Imaginary box is 'fairer' in the current vacuum of clear rules.

Corner to corner as shown there is not on at all. At the very least the engines should be included in the rear arc.

I'd say either "Gwar Example" or "Imaginary Box" would be the most fair, and there isn't a huge difference between their end results. It all depends on where you think the "center" of the tank is.

And, I still don't understand what Fifty is trying to describe. What does "draw lines away at a 135 degree angle" mean? Does it mean the angles defining the side arcs are 135 degrees? So, the angles defining the front and rear arcs are each 45 degrees? That seems a bit narrow.

Corner-to-corner is pretty funny...the lines don't even meet at the middle. I'd say it's a close call between the first and third example. I'd go with third because it looks simplest to measure.

If we get to vote: Imaginary Box for me.

Homer

I second the Imaginary Box

nkelsch wrote:Here are the pictures from the other thread:


Crafty Elfdar players have been trying to enforce the 'corner to corner' interpretation. I think Imaginary box is 'fairer' in the current vacuum of clear rules.

I wouldn't mind 90 Degrees with a template provided by GW but that is a different discussion.

Just a question, I am assuming this is really meant regarding the Energy Field of the Wave Serpent? Can someone quote the full rule from the Codex?

And...

Illumini wrote:
Against good players, you won't get in their rear

I have been trying to keep 40K players out of my rear for ages...I really lol'ed at this.

40k players take it in the rear arc....

AHem. Yes, its to do with the energy field AND the fact it is only AV10 at the back.