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.

Considering people playing 40k tend to be incredibly anal about rules (when the rules aren't in their favor, anyway. ), and the rules on BRB pg. 73 on vehicle facing -- where you determine facing by drawing imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle -- are fine and dandy for most clean, rectangular, IoM vehicles but aren't so great, otherwise, I figured I'd get some opinions.

First up, because it's my current bane, is the Dark Eldar Venom (image taken from this thread over at Warseer, because it's an excellent paint job, and the first top-down pic I could find.)

Also, forgive me... this is a super quick mockup, so it's not symmetrical.

Which of these two images do you feel best represents the vehicle facing of the Dark Eldar Venom?

A: B:

Image A was drawn from my best interpritation of the corners, where B is the literal corners.

The different options seem pretty at this scale, but at 48" from a quad gun, that small difference is going to expand to something much larger. On a smaller scale, this could effect whether the vehicle is simply in cover, or fully obscured. (And, yes, I know a Venom is 10 all around, but the model-less Voidraven Bomber has 11s everywhere but it's backside, and maybe it just happens to be built like a giant Venom.)

The one on the left. Find the centre spot of the vehicle and draw your lines out through the corners of the vehicle. In fairness this is pretty simple with a Rhino but is slightly harder with the Venom as you have shown. Common sense should prevail, failing that dice for it and discuss the vehicles you use frequently with your opponent (if a regular gaming buddy obviously)

The rules don't actually tell you that the lines need to go through the centre of the vehicle though. It's the logical assumption (IMHO) but it appears to be missing RAW.

I'll be honest, I don't think my gaming group has been doing this correctly, we've just been going pretty much off four 90 degree arcs (maybe from playing too much BFG)

So, another option is to draw an imaginary rectangle around the vehicle and then draw your lines through THOSE corners.

Or, find the center and draw out 90 degrees, give or take.

The "90 degree arc" is a very common misconception. Depending on how wide the front of the vehicle is, it could be considerably less than that (I'm looking at you, Battle wagons!)

The Venom shape doesn't fit nicely into the normal rules. The following is essentially how we've defined it. You'll notice that the front and rear arcs are slightly less than 90 while the side arcs are slightly more.



If we look at your original ones:
Image on the left:
1. Front is way too small.
2. the sides are too large

Image on the right:
1. Front is almost non-existent
2. Rear almost takes up everything.
3. The only way to hit the sides is if you can see that small area up front.

I do think Matney X's image is close enough to mine that I'd go either way.

The lines don't need to be symmetrical at all, nothing states they do. The example in the book is only that way because they used a simple vehicle. If you follow the guidelines in the book you'll figure out your answer.

"To see what facing a shot is coming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle." Pg. 73

Nothing in the rule says to draw lines from the center of the vehicle, nor that lines need be any Degree measurement.

Clively's picture is very wrong because it counts side facings in the front armor arc. Whether the AV value is the same between them is besides the point (I honestly don't know, don't play with or against DE).

 Kevin949 wrote:
The lines don't need to be symmetrical at all, nothing states they do. The example in the book is only that way because they used a simple vehicle. If you follow the guidelines in the book you'll figure out your answer.

"To see what facing a shot is coming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle." Pg. 73

Nothing in the rule says to draw lines from the center of the vehicle, nor that lines need be any Degree measurement.

Clively's picture is very wrong because it counts side facings in the front armor arc. Whether the AV value is the same between them is besides the point (I honestly don't know, don't play with or against DE).

That doesn't answer the question, though. Look at the shape of the Venom... where are the "corners of the vehicle?"

The three pictures I've posted are 1) imagined corners 2) actual corners 3) assume everything fits in a box and use THOSE corners.

Clively's picture is similar to my 3rd one, and it seems to be the house-ruled favorite... but, like you said, it's "very wrong."

clively wrote:
The Venom shape doesn't fit nicely into the normal rules. The following is essentially how we've defined it. You'll notice that the front and rear arcs are slightly less than 90 while the side arcs are slightly more.



If we look at your original ones:
Image on the left:
1. Front is way too small.
2. the sides are too large

Image on the right:
1. Front is almost non-existent
2. Rear almost takes up everything.
3. The only way to hit the sides is if you can see that small area up front.

I do think Matney X's image is close enough to mine that I'd go either way.

Now this is exactly how I play it, RAW or not I dont know but I think this is the fairest way

Matney X wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
The lines don't need to be symmetrical at all, nothing states they do. The example in the book is only that way because they used a simple vehicle. If you follow the guidelines in the book you'll figure out your answer.

"To see what facing a shot is coming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle." Pg. 73

Nothing in the rule says to draw lines from the center of the vehicle, nor that lines need be any Degree measurement.

Clively's picture is very wrong because it counts side facings in the front armor arc. Whether the AV value is the same between them is besides the point (I honestly don't know, don't play with or against DE).

That doesn't answer the question, though. Look at the shape of the Venom... where are the "corners of the vehicle?"

The three pictures I've posted are 1) imagined corners 2) actual corners 3) assume everything fits in a box and use THOSE corners.

Clively's picture is similar to my 3rd one, and it seems to be the house-ruled favorite... but, like you said, it's "very wrong."

The front prongs are the two farthest forward corners.

About midway through back wings would be the rear corners.

The first picture the OP posted is the most correct one, however the lines should be angles slightly more for more rear arc.

Matney X wrote:
So, another option is to draw an imaginary rectangle around the vehicle and then draw your lines through THOSE corners.

Or, find the center and draw out 90 degrees, give or take.

This one. All the others favor the front armor just a bit too much. Remember, this is supposed to be a slightly abstracted system to make play faster, not to be bogged down in arguments...

The third one is how I play it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Matney X wrote:
So, another option is to draw an imaginary rectangle around the vehicle and then draw your lines through THOSE corners.

Or, find the center and draw out 90 degrees, give or take.

This one. All the others favor the front armor just a bit too much. Remember, this is supposed to be a slightly abstracted system to make play faster, not to be bogged down in arguments...

Having a very small front arc is not a "favor". That just means you have less chance of getting use of your higher AV (if there is one) and it's much harder to gain the "Extreme angle" bonus against that vehicle.

After reading the first five posts I was reminded why my group treats vehicles like how we treat a regular squad of men/aliens.

I'm not looking for rule validity here but take this post as just a suggestion for your model and gameplay.

In the shooting phase the vehicle/flyer (if there is not a turret for the weapon) simply pivots in place to reflect aiming of the primary weapon (much like how a man/alien turns around and shoots their weapon or a turreted weapon). This pivoting is not counted as movement and is treated like a regular shooting phase. Note that turreted vehicles (ie Predator) do not follow this pivoting idea.

Getting more complex, say the vehicle is a Vindicator armed with side sponsons. During the movement phase the vehicle remains still. During the shooting phase the vehicle pivots its big cannon at a target and fires. Then the player wants to shoot with the side sponsons. The vehicle can only fire at the initial target so we see if any of the side sponsons has a line of sight to the target (without pivoting). If one or both does then they are resolved as normal (note, a side sponson without a line of sight on the initial target cannot shoot).

We determine the degree and angle of the weapon by taking a laser from the base of the weapon and swinging it according to how the weapon is mounted (customized mounts are counted as if they were generic unless it was Apocalypse).

If it helps you resolve those questionable moments on the table or with particular aspects then more power to you. Again, this is not a post of rule validity but as a suggestion. My group has never had an issue in using this.

This isn't about a vehicle shooting - it's about being shot.
You giving a massive advantage to vehicles when they shoot has nothing tondo with figuring out armor arcs.

Looking at the vehicle I think you should be going something along the lines of 45-60 degrees of a front arc and the rest split evenly between the rest.

Matney X and clively.
Try applying those even 90 degree splits to a long ork wartruck, the one with very good front armour. You're extending that armour along a large portion of the side arcs.

I'm not arguing in favor of anything (I'm also the OP, if you hadn't noticed), I'm just curious what you all do.

Liturgies: I wasn't trying to extrapolate it out to another vehicle. Just the venom. The problem with the venom is the curved and flared shape of the front. If you get down and look at it head on there is a fair amount of that front cockpit piece that can be considered the "front". However looking at it from the side, those same areas can also be seen quite clearly. So we have to decide if the front is just that tiny little "fang" bit or, as I believe, it encompasses the cockpit at a roughly 90 degree arc.

With a box it's much harder to see the front when looking at it from the side; and length should certainlyone taken into account. So, with that in mind I think you have to take the models on a case by case basis.

clively wrote:
Liturgies: I wasn't trying to extrapolate it out to another vehicle. Just the venom. The problem with the venom is the curved and flared shape of the front. If you get down and look at it head on there is a fair amount of that front cockpit piece that can be considered the "front". However looking at it from the side, those same areas can also be seen quite clearly. So we have to decide if the front is just that tiny little "fang" bit or, as I believe, it encompasses the cockpit at a roughly 90 degree arc.

With a box it's much harder to see the front when looking at it from the side; and length should certainlyone taken into account. So, with that in mind I think you have to take the models on a case by case basis.

I agree it's case by case but once you figure out something that works it covers that chassis and should cover it's variants.

For the Venom, if we wanna get super picky, I think I figured out another way (but I wouldn't want to figure it out at the tabletop).

It's incredibly similar to the second image, where I went from point to point, but instead I drew a quadrilateral around the vehicle that encompasses the whole vehicle, then draw from corner to opposite corner.

At this point, the only weapons we're really worrying about whether they're within the scope of the front or side are things like the Icarus Lascannon, Hunter-Killer missiles, and the like. So, this was just an exercise in futility.



And, finally, for completion in the argument, here's Kevin949's suggestion (which makes a lot of sense, too).

I guess the question is: "which corner?"

The front two "fang" points *could* be considered a corner. However, due to the angles involved, the two points just behind the cockpit could be as well. Also, do the little wings count as part of the body or should those be ignored?



If you look at a venom head on, then I'd say the front corners are the little flange points set just behind the cockpit on the left and right.

RAW, your argument on the two fangs being corners is valid, though the diagram on the same page alludes to it being the front-most corners.

As for the tiny wings, the same page states "Note that, unlike for other models, a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are part of its hull." So, yeah, they count.

This is how I see the "box" rule being applied to a wartrukk (and I apologize for the gakky paint work):

That's if you don't count the tires as part of the hull.

That's if the tires are included as "hull".

I don't see how that would spread the front armour over too much of the side. The second one is a little more, but it still seems reasonable to me.

kaisshau wrote:
This is how I see the "box" rule being applied to a wartrukk (and I apologize for the gakky paint work):

That's if you don't count the tires as part of the hull.

That's if the tires are included as "hull".

I don't see how that would spread the front armour over too much of the side. The second one is a little more, but it still seems reasonable to me.

My point was that if you ignore the "corners" on a venom and just assume 90 degree arcs for the facings you end up with this vehicle(see link) and any rectangular vehicle with long sides getting an unfair advantage.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1090176

Also if you assume a box with sides 90 degrees to one another you also fall into the same trap. Some vehicles have narrow fronts and wide backs, why should you not follow those corners and just assume a regular rectangle instead of an irregular quadrilateral?

It's not really an unfair advantage to have a greater front face when it's the same armor all around. Really, it's more of an unfair advantage that all a Venom has to do is hide it's nose behind a lamp post and anyone firing against it will be firing against an obscured vehicle.

Somehow the following is now appropriate.

Matney X wrote:
So, another option is to draw an imaginary rectangle around the vehicle and then draw your lines through THOSE corners.

Or, find the center and draw out 90 degrees, give or take.

Spoiler:

It should be this.

 Kevin949 wrote:


The front prongs are the two farthest forward corners.

About midway through back wings would be the rear corners.

The first picture the OP posted is the most correct one, however the lines should be angles slightly more for more rear arc.

Citation needed. Where does it say "prongs are corners?" And also, if prongs ARE corners, why aren't the prongs that are about half-way down the corners?

Does anyone want to try this exercise for a wave serpent or Eldar Falcon?

 Grugknuckle wrote:

Matney X wrote:
So, another option is to draw an imaginary rectangle around the vehicle and then draw your lines through THOSE corners.

Or, find the center and draw out 90 degrees, give or take.

Spoiler:

It should be this.

 Kevin949 wrote:


The front prongs are the two farthest forward corners.

About midway through back wings would be the rear corners.

The first picture the OP posted is the most correct one, however the lines should be angles slightly more for more rear arc.

Citation needed. Where does it say "prongs are corners?" And also, if prongs ARE corners, why aren't the prongs that are about half-way down the corners?

Does anyone want to try this exercise for a wave serpent or Eldar Falcon?

If I get a moment or two, I'll attempt it.

First - someone asked what was part of the hull of the vehicle: easily put - if you can target it - it is part of the hull. So from what I understand - wheels are not part of a hull, but the wings are. If they were not - then a nightscythe (or whatever the necron flyers are called) would have almost no hull to shoot at it.

The hull of a vehicle can be targeted, shot at, draw distance to, and disembark from (in the case of emergency and open topped - if I remember my rules right). So if the big wings in the back ARE part of the hull, and from what I can tell - it is - then you can disembark and measure your distance from them.

As for firing arcs - weird shaped models are the worst. If you are shooting it straight on - the points behind the cockpit mark the front. If you are shooting from the side - the tiny flanges up front mark the front.....

In all honesty - the armor facings on some vehicles are HORRENDOUS. In all fairness, even though it is not RAW, I would base the armor based on POV....depending on the vehicle. As for the cover generated...that is a mess....

So I am going with somewhere inbetween for the arc...

 Amaraxis wrote:

As for firing arcs - weird shaped models are the worst. If you are shooting it straight on - the points behind the cockpit mark the front. If you are shooting from the side - the tiny flanges up front mark the front.....

Weirdly shaped vehicles are awful to measure, but they're incredibly common.

I feel like saying the points behind the cockpit mark the front, and therefor the end of the side, giving too much room to the front. What that would mean is if a Venom was tucked in behind a building, and you could see the ENTIRE COCKPIT, but nothing beyond the nubs, and you fire on the vehicle from the side, it not only gets cover, but it gets the +1 for being obscured, when you can see about half of what would be visible without the building in the way.

And. given the shape of the Venom, you're more often on the side of it than you are on the front or rear.

Take into consideration that we're not actually talking about what constitutes the side of the vehicle, but where your model is positioned (and therefor firing from) in regards to the "lines through the corners."