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.

For shooting, assaulting, and los purposes is the prow of the dark eldar raider a decorative element?
I keep getting in fights with another player about this because every time i can see his damn paper planes through a building or if I'm in melta range he says that the prow isn't part of the vehicle ans that it is a decorative element so i therefore am not in melta range and cant shoot at him.
What's the call on this?
Also he says the sail is not a part of the vehicle but rather a decorative element.

A. Where is the "Decorative Element" ruling?
B. Is this bs regardless?

page 16 in the BRB states how LOS is used against models.

page 56 for dealing with vehicles and LOS.

In short, if all you can see the special upgrade on the front of the raider or the sails, you can't see it.

However you simply measure from the hull, and the easiest way to do this is by looking at the model and figuring out what's a wargear upgrade and whats not. Whatever isn't wargear or decorative, you consider hull.

michaelcycle wrote:A. Where is the "Decorative Element" ruling?

Page 16, second column, middle of the second paragraph:

Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner, or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body). In these cases, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc.

And then, on page 56 which deals with vehicles, under VEHICLES & MEASUREING DISTANCES:

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

As for the Raider itself, that's exactly how I've been playing it. You measure to the hull of the vehicle, and the sail and shock prow are not the hull. One is a decorative item, and the other is wargear (or a decorative item if he didn't buy the upgrade).

B. Is this bs regardless?

Absolutely not, because the rules say that's what you do. Its best to discuss these things before the game just to be clear.

I also don't see how shooting a sail of an anti-grav skimmer would have any effect.

Judging by this logic i would assume if i covered my vehicles entirely with exception of gun barrels with a camo netting then you could not be able to see my hull as you could only draw los to the decorative element?

The tail of the vendetta/valkyrie as well as wings are then, as it were, a decorative element and therefore one could move on to the board 6" and still fire all it's weapons?

And how is the prow, un-upgraded, a decorative item? What then happens with players who do not use any of the new raider models but rather the old ones? Is the entire front of the vehicle not considered the hull as it is one piece where as the new model is 2 pieces?

On the old models, The prow was the little extra pice that stuck out the front from under it. It would stick out an extra inch or so from the front, but was still considered a decorative element.

Also, in terms of the Valkyrie/Vendetta, The wings and tail are part of the hull, as it is a vehicle, or at least that is how we play it here, but then we also play that to assault it or disembark from it, and to make it easier on everyone, that you have to touch the base for it.

IMHO, the camonetting part wouldn't work because: 1) You can see through camo netting, so I can still draw LOS to your vehicle, and 2) if you wanted to play that line with the camo netting, I would say that you couldn't see anything of mine because you couldn't see through the camo netting.

I have been playing DE for a long time, and I know that both myself and my opponents count the Prow, but thats just to both of our benefits, becuase I get the extra disembark range and they get that extra inch of range to my vehicle. But in the end, it all comes down to your local games and how you and your opponent decide to play it. A friendly suggestion would be to determine it before the game starts, and possibly even make a house rule out of it.

michaelcycle wrote:Judging by this logic i would assume if i covered my vehicles entirely with exception of gun barrels with a camo netting then you could not be able to see my hull as you could only draw los to the decorative element?

The tail of the vendetta/valkyrie as well as wings are then, as it were, a decorative element and therefore one could move on to the board 6" and still fire all it's weapons?

And how is the prow, un-upgraded, a decorative item? What then happens with players who do not use any of the new raider models but rather the old ones? Is the entire front of the vehicle not considered the hull as it is one piece where as the new model is 2 pieces?

So, I give you the quote from the rules, which are only there to provide people who have modeled things spectacularly or are using a model with superfluous pieces, and you counter with that?

That quote I gave is one of the more friendly-oriented rules in the book. It all depends on how you are your opponents play, and there's nothing official that describes the hull for each vehicle in the game. I told you how I play things here, which is that the sail doesn't count, and neither does the prow piece. Usually, I (and many people I play with) reach our conclusions based on what we can take away from the vehicle and have it still function. For the Raider, the Shock Prow and Sail do not form a part of the hull by our reasoning. Since I go sideways with my vehicles a lot, it doesn't really hurt any of us, but I can understand why others would have a problem with it. Depending on the player, we might not count wings/tails on Valkyries, because they don't house the main power sources of the vehicles. Without a clear definition of what "hull" means for GW (we can look in encyclopedias for descriptions), there's no way of really understanding what to do in these situations, other than what you, your opponent, and your TO (if any) decide. If it's a "friendly" game (with all of the "fights" and "bs" that apparently occurs) then find a third party to judge (which you did here, with Dakka), and when that third party takes the other person's side, don't try to find another, and another, and another. At that point you're just shopping around trying to find one person who will rule that way, so you can always point to them.

If this is the way you want to abuse what is really just a guideline and not a hard rule, then why not go all the way and put your vehicles in shoeboxes? Think of it as an extra armor upgrade.

somerandomdude wrote:If this is the way you want to abuse what is really just a guideline and not a hard rule, then why not go all the way and put your vehicles in shoeboxes? Think of it as an extra armor upgrade.

Friggin Awesome idea!!!! Im going to put a piece of plasticard on the front prow of my Raiders and say that they block LOS!!!! (j/k btw, but loved the response!!)

Galado said: If this is the way you want to abuse what is really just a guideline and not a hard rule, then why not go all the way and put your vehicles in shoeboxes? Think of it as an extra armor upgrade.


Friggin Awesome idea!!!! Im going to put a piece of plasticard on the front prow of my Raiders and say that they block LOS!!!! (j/k btw, but loved the response!!)

+1 I agree that somerandomdude does have a point that if decorative item do not count as part of the hull but then don't block vehicle line of site I'm gonna put a giant box around my Land Raider and call it decorative item so you can never ever shoot my land raider.

But seriously, I think this is one of those issues where GW is very vague (huh we don't see that often do we *sarcasm). In this case I think it needs to be discussed with both players before hand, or if during a tournament, the TO needs to make a ruling on whether or not parts of the Ravager/Raider/Venon count as decorative icons or not. If it's a friendly game and you both can't decide on a ruling then dice off on it!

I think at this point the ruling concensus is as follows: 1. Talk to your opponent about it before hand if either of you are playing Dark Eldar or an army that has vehicles that have decorative items (that get in the way IE: DE). 2. During a tournament make sure the TO makes a ruling.

juraigamer wrote:In short, if all you can see the special upgrade on the front of the raider or the sails, you can't see it.

However you simply measure from the hull, and the easiest way to do this is by looking at the model and figuring out what's a wargear upgrade and whats not. Whatever isn't wargear or decorative, you consider hull.

I disagree that the sail is a decorative element. You can purchase an "enhanced aethersail" - so the regular aethersail is a standard component. Part of the vehicles propulsion systems is not a "decorative element".

The little ramming prow probably is a decorative element, dozer blades are given as an example of a decorative element in the BRB.

It is however in no way "hull" the sails are there as an element.

For the Dark Eldar, the most personal argument is this; If forever people were going to insist on shooting at the 'pointy bits' on the tips of our 'banners of spikes' if you will (remember DE is all anti-grav, no areodynamics, just stableness and stabbieness (spelliing? =\ ). Then. Now - people are going to insist on shooting at our pretty sail as well, we don't have to tack it on either!!!

It's just silly, as Scott-S6 says. Dozerblades are listed as a distinct decorative element in the BRB, what is their purpose? Why to increase potential movement! A regular aethersail is a standard component, sure is, shooting at that isn't down (and surely a sail of any kind is there to aid the "propulsion system"), so why would should shooting the the 'fancy sail', which is just there in increase potential movement, be more allowed? It would be equivilent to agreeeing (per the BRB) that turrets can not be shot at, but suddenly an upgraded turret is fair game.

For Orks, another of my specialised races, what about the 'Rolla - it is an enhanced dozer blade - I know no-one would try to shoot my plow (which is optional, glued on etc) but suddenly the 'Rolla is a target? Why? Because it costs more than my other decorative elements???

Orks and a De have a contrast too, Ork Trukks can take Ram fo 5pts, I personally, internet or otherwise, have heard of the spikes being shot at. So why shouldn't a De 'shock ram' be fair game? It adds D3to the ram, a Ramm counts front armour as 12 and allows a ram?

Checking before hand is best, a player at my club disembarks his troops 2" from the prow of his vehicle so i would obviously count that as hull. The sail probably isn't a candidate for shooting, thats opinion mind.

As long as it is played consistently, it shouldn't matter too much. As arkapello points out- if he measures from the prow for disembark, its fair game to shoot. If you can't shoot it because it's not hull, you can't then claim it as hull for disembark. The sail seems more decorative than wings, which are integral to the hull, and closer to a banner. Of course, GW never defines any of this, so it's all pretty much by consent or roll off.

Galador wrote:IMHO, the camonetting part wouldn't work because: 1) You can see through camo netting, so I can still draw LOS to your vehicle, and 2) if you wanted to play that line with the camo netting, I would say that you couldn't see anything of mine because you couldn't see through the camo netting.

Just to be pedantic, the camo netting "would" work, because you measure LoS to the hull, but LoS from the gun barrels.

Who said GW proof reads their rules

Cheers

Andrew

It would also leave you without an opponent, but with a bad reputation faster that you can say; "But the guys on the Interwebz says it is OK!".

AndrewC wrote:

Galador wrote:IMHO, the camonetting part wouldn't work because: 1) You can see through camo netting, so I can still draw LOS to your vehicle, and 2) if you wanted to play that line with the camo netting, I would say that you couldn't see anything of mine because you couldn't see through the camo netting.

Just to be pedantic, the camo netting "would" work, because you measure LoS to the hull, but LoS from the gun barrels.

Who said GW proof reads their rules

Cheers

Andrew

I know LOS is measured from the barrel, but I would say that you get a negative to BS cause you can't see through your own netting on the gunners vision slit lol