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.

Ok I just had a strange situation in a game I played last night.

While deepstriking I landed on a grating type bridge, Directly below me was my opponents Predator.

My unit landed on said bridge right above the center of his vehicle.

I shot him with the plasma pistol from my librarian and a few meltaguns in the unit, but we could not figure out what AV to use

We ended up using random roll 1-2 front, 3-4 side, and 5-6 back, it didn't matter much because I had meltaguns, but could have made a huge difference if I just had plasma pistols.

How would you guys have played this?

Well, ordnance barrage shots are described as always hitting side armor to represent hitting on the top, so I'd use side armor.

agreed, if ordonance hits top and gets side I don't see why you wouldn't get it

Technically, only a handful of particular instances can target top or bottom armour, this is not a facing available to normal units.

You use the facing that each model is in (you couldn't have had more than one right on the centre). Remember that the vehicle is cut into four triangles each of which includes one side and a slice of the top - see the diagram on P60

However, for a friendly game, using side armour to represent top makes sense.

I'd play it as side, same facing that ordnance hits.

I'd play it like it says on page 60--it doesn't matter how far above or below the vehicle that the firing it is, each firing model is going to be in one or the other of the actually defined armor facings.

As poorly written as the barrage rules are, and the multiple barrage rules in particular, that's not a section of the rulebook I'd want to use for basing new house rules.

I agree with Solkan: The rules tell you to use the facing for each model in the unit; only one can be 'dead center'.

This being said your situation was fairly unique, and I'd have been more than willing to play it as side armour.

Yea, It was really tough to tell what facing my marines were in. Most of them were straddling the line of two different facings.

Thank You for the input guys.

It's probably actually advantageous to the Deep Striking player to go with the facing quadrant they're standing in, rather than just going with the side armor. Sure, you might wind up with a model in the front quadrant sometimes, but they're most likely to wind up in the side quadrants anyway---same as the suggestion. As importantly, I would think in most circumstances you can get at least a couple critical guys into the vulnerable rear quadrant by carefully constructing the Deep Strike ring(s), going out of that side of the Drop Pod, and so on.

I have no problem with that at all and think either style is a reasonable way to play, simply pointing out a tactical consequence.

One important followup question though is whether or not the vehicle would get the 3+ cover save for the models shooting at a face they arguably perhaps can't actually see.

One thing to note though - I believe you ought to have been deep striking onto the ground, not onto the bridge.

There's no specific rules for bridges but the rules for ruins require you to deepstrike onto the ground floor.

So, really, it should probably have been a mishap.

Scott-S6 wrote:One thing to note though - I believe you ought to have been deep striking onto the ground, not onto the bridge.

There's no specific rules for bridges but the rules for ruins require you to deepstrike onto the ground floor.

So, really, it should probably have been a mishap.

Well it was an Intact bridge, not a ruined one, so that didn't really apply.

I was on the ground level of the bridge, below the bridge was difficult terrain (a river)

it was an interesting and fairly unique situation to say the least.

So how was there a vehicle directly under the bridge if there was a river there? Was it a Chimera or something?

DeathReaper wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:One thing to note though - I believe you ought to have been deep striking onto the ground, not onto the bridge.

There's no specific rules for bridges but the rules for ruins require you to deepstrike onto the ground floor.

So, really, it should probably have been a mishap.

Well it was an Intact bridge, not a ruined one, so that didn't really apply.

The ruins rules are the only guidance we have for situations with multi-levels.

AFAIK Top = Side, Bottom = Rear

Phototoxin wrote:Bottom = Rear

he he he

I'd play side armor, or just do what you did and roll off for it. Depends on my opponent, most of mine seem to be pretty fair about this kind of stuff, but some are not.

Scott-S6 wrote:The ruins rules are the only guidance we have for situations with multi-levels.

Yea, but we figured I would land on whatever surface was solid enough to support my jump packers.

we thought it a bit off that they crashed through the metal grating of the bridge to land on the ground level.

ChrisWWII wrote:So how was there a vehicle directly under the bridge if there was a river there? Was it a Chimera or something?

what are vehicles not allowed in difficult terrain features for some reason? he made his test.

It was a chaos predator that was parked there.

Scott-S6 wrote:The ruins rules are the only guidance we have for situations with multi-levels.

For the quoted reason we always play as Deepstrike occuring under bridges (or the bottom of level any structure actually) as well.

For pods we tend to assume an angled decent, for teleport it is irrelevent.

Ahh, so you were playing the river as difficult terrain. Nevermind then, I misread and thought you said impassable.

Ordnance hits the side facing the firer.

It's only BARRAGE that hits 'top' armour and counts it as 'side'.

@ChrisWWII: Who in their right minds plays rivers as impassable?

chromedog wrote:

@ChrisWWII: Who in their right minds plays rivers as impassable?

It really makes bridges focal points, we've done this before for fun with 2 assaulty armies ... but would never do it with 1 assaulty and 1 shooty

chromedog wrote:
@ChrisWWII: Who in their right minds plays rivers as impassable?

It depends on how deep the river. I'd say that most rivers count as impassible IRL. That's why the military runs around with portable bridges.

If it was a big enough river, then heck yes it'd be impassable. It seems this one was more a creek, or stream than a full on river so was only difficult, but if it was a full on river? I'd make it impassable no problem...not really that unprecedented or weird.

ChrisWWII wrote:If it was a big enough river, then heck yes it'd be impassable. It seems this one was more a creek, or stream than a full on river so was only difficult, but if it was a full on river? I'd make it impassable no problem...not really that unprecedented or weird.

Agreed.

Or even say it's a large river and the battle is taking place over a key strategic location: say a large ford. I like having a little background to explain why my Eldar are throwing away their near extinct population.

What page and section is it on that ordinance barrage hit side armour? I have looked everywhere and could not find it.

P60.

First bullet point after "Template and blast weapons against vehicles"