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.

The setup:
A Manticore built as modeled (all 4 rockets attached to the cradle) is placed behind LoS blocking terrain, accepting the cover in exchange for indirect fire penalties.
The opponents Las-Back can "see" the top edge of the missile and a fin sticking above the terrain piece.
He shoots, hits, failed cover save, and stuns the Manticore every turn.
A judge is called over and its argued the shots should not be allowed since TLoS vehicle rules clearly state that while a turret is a viable target (if visible, cover saves apply) items such as Antenae, weapons, and other aesthetic bits don't count.
The judge ruled since the Manticore Launcher is NOT a turret, the rocket (weapon) counts a part of the vehicle itself.
INAT FAQ was in force, but the Manticore launcher issue is not covered in the NAT (or GW).
The rulling was the deciding factor in who won the game by keeping a heavy weapon out of action while Long Fang spam was free to shoot up everything else with impunity.

So...lets hash it out and get a rulling in an FAQ:
Are non-turret based weapons on a vehicle considered a part of the vehicle for TLoS purposes, or are they an aesthetic to be ignored?Note: The same situation would be applicable to HK missiles mounted on the hull and potentially a hatch mounted Storm Bolter (is the hatch piece considered a turret).

If it is ruled that if a rocket fin sticking above a terain piece does grant LoS for shooting, any thoughts on "modelling for advantage" by taking off the rockets and replace them with either 4 tiny IG HK missiles or a simple counter/dice on the launcher rack to keep track of weapons fired?

A rocket is not Hull or Turret.

you can only target a vehicles hull or turret.

anything else, like gun barrels, banners etc are ignored.

If a Lascannon barrel is to be ignored, so should a missile even though it is not in a proper barrel.

maybe build a barrel around it?

As for your "hatch mounted Storm Bolter" question of: "is the hatch piece considered a turret?" No, its not a turret, but it would be considered Hull, as hatches are a part of a vehicles hull.

While I'm in the "you can't shoot at fins" camp, I do think the last part of your post in which you ask for help modeling for advantage is a bit low. Modeling for advantage is specifically disallowed in most settings, and generally acknowledged as a scummy move.

Agree with the modelling for advantage feelings.
But I think it's even worse when a call is made that clearly (IMHO) goes against RAW.
If shooting at a fin is allowed then the fins get cut off.

you basically just spilled the whole can of worms about the problems with true line of sight. In the end it always causes arguments when someone breaks the gentlemen's rule of what counts as seeing a model and what doesn't. I have had similar situations where an opponent is like "I can see his sword sticking up" and get to shoot everything at it despite what the book says.

bagtagger wrote:you basically just spilled the whole can of worms about the problems with true line of sight. In the end it always causes arguments when someone breaks the gentlemen's rule of what counts as seeing a model and what doesn't. I have had similar situations where an opponent is like "I can see his sword sticking up" and get to shoot everything at it despite what the book says.

As you just said, there's nothing wrong with TLOS. It's people who cheat and don't follow what the rules say that give TLOS a bad name.

bagtagger wrote:you basically just spilled the whole can of worms about the problems with true line of sight. In the end it always causes arguments when someone breaks the gentlemen's rule of what counts as seeing a model and what doesn't. I have had similar situations where an opponent is like "I can see his sword sticking up" and get to shoot everything at it despite what the book says.

No breaking of TLOS a tall, just people cheating and not following the rules. That simple

It's for exactly this reason that you should keep an old metal dreadnought ensconced in a sturdy sock available at all times during GTs.
But seriously, the judge ruled incorrectly. RAW reading clearly supports your side of the argument. If it wasn't for this kind of garbage, TLOS wouldn't be a problem.

Just model it without any of the missiles. The missing ones are already in the air waiting to come down. Since they can't force you to make the missiles detachable to show they have already be shoot I would say they cant force you to Put them there in the first place. I would also say that the missiles are the same as barrels.

The way my group handles this is that the rockets are viable targets. If the rockets are the only thing they can see the vehicle gets a 3+ save. On the flip side if all the rockets are fired, and all you can see is the now empty launcher you don' t have target (granted you probably wouldn't care anymore)

We also use this ruling if only a turret is visible on a tank.

The rockets are hull by the rules, and are a legal target.

The rules define hull as everything that's not a "gun barrel" or purely decorative. The rockets are neither.

From a game rules perspective, weapons are legal targets; just not their barrels. So if you see the tip of a lascannon peeking out around something, that's not a target. But if the main body of a predator is hidden, but its sponson (and the base of the lascannon) is visible, you have a target.

From a "realism/verisimilitude" perspective, the rockets make up what, 30%, 40% of the vehicle's total mass? And if you shot them what do you think would happen? I can't see the reasoning behind considering them NOT a reasonable target.

So an HK missile or the Rhinos Storm Bolter sticking up are viable targets to shoot at?

I would classify the Rockets or a HK missile in the same vein as weapon barrels/Etc.

Since the brb P.60 says "ignoring the vehicles gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc)."

From a "realism/verisimilitude" perspective, the rockets make up what, 30%, 40% of the vehicle's total mass?
From the top. From the side or front it's more like 15-20 percent.

And if you shot them what do you think would happen?
Nothing. Modern military missiles and warheads are designed to remain stable (not explode) if they are hit by weapons fire, shrapnel, or in a fire.

I can't see the reasoning behind considering them NOT a reasonable target.
Because you don't target an HK missile on top of a Rhino hull. Or a Stubber on a Russ's turret. Or the space marine gunner ssticking out of a Land Raider hatch. Or a Storm Raven because you can see the attached dreadnoughts legs.

Realism never helps in a YMDC RAW debate, the game rules are there as an abstraction.

Concerning the OP's query about modelling for advantage, would you have a problem if I told you that your IG HK missiles are what you'll be shooting from the Manticore?

dkellyj wrote:So an HK missile or the Rhinos Storm Bolter sticking up are viable targets to shoot at?

Absolutely. Only the barrel is exempted as a target. Not the entire weapon.

djkellyk wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:From a "realism/verisimilitude" perspective, the rockets make up what, 30%, 40% of the vehicle's total mass?

From the top. From the side or front it's more like 15-20 percent.

I don't think so. If you're looking top-down it's more like 70 or 80%. If you're looking straight-on at least 20 or 30%. The point being that the rockets make up a substantial portion of a vehicle. It's not a tiny percentage like the barrel of an autocannon or a multilaser.

djkellyk wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:And if you shot them what do you think would happen?

Nothing. Modern military missiles and warheads are designed to remain stable (not explode) if they are hit by weapons fire, shrapnel, or in a fire.

I'm not saying they would necessarily explode, but not being able to at least destroy them seems absurd. As the game makes vehicle damage into simple abstractions, and as the rockets represent a substantial percentage of the vehicle, the rockets being a legal target area makes a great deal of sense to me.