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.

Last week, a guy shot up my whole boys mob because he could see, and I quote, "a foot", on one of my models. And again because he could see a sword sticking out the top.

I've had vehicles shot at, when all you could see is less than 2mm of hull. Or, for instance, on an Ork Trukk someone could see one of the random spikes sticking off the top, something that if it were shot clean off would have no effect, and so could shoot the trukk (it has a cover save though, but whoopty gak)

Is this legal? I'm kind of tired of playing on what amounts to a blank board.

The book does establish that you can't use decorative elements to establish LOS. (The spike isn't legal. The sword isn't legal.) Furthermore, you can only allocate wounds to models that you can see. Which means that while the mob of boyz that died WERE a legal target, only the boy who was actually PLAYING the hokey-pokey (with his left foot in!) would have been a legal target for the wounds.

If you can see any of a vehicle's hull, it indeed counts. (Even 2mm) Decorative gubbins do not count (wings, knives, antennae, etc) but if you can see even the smallest part of the model's actual body, then that model can be shot. Of course, if the model has 25% or more obscurement, you are entitled to a cover save, which is often cold comfort.

You'd think there would be a somewhat better cover save if only 1% of the vehicle is visible...

For vehicles, non essentials like spikes and dozer blades, do not count as part of the vehicles hull and cannot be shot at. Also, if only one, or even a group of infantry models are in LOS, then they are the only ones who can be killed by shooting. Also there is something in the rulebook about players not being penalized for their models' height etc. that i suppose would mean that he can't be shooting if all he sees is a sword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:
You'd think there would be a somewhat better cover save if only 1% of the vehicle is visible...

im pretty sure there is soething in the rules about that, bbut i dont have them on hand

 Largeblastmarker wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
You'd think there would be a somewhat better cover save if only 1% of the vehicle is visible...

im pretty sure there is soething in the rules about that, bbut i dont have them on hand

Only if they can't see any of the facing they're in.

Yeah there is no cover difference between 25% covered and 99% covered. But it is near impossible to establish the percentage of the facing you can't see.

At least it is better then %50 from last edition, way less los discussions now.

So 1% of the front sticking out is worse than having 74% of the side sticking out, if the enermy is in your front arc?

Welcome to warhammer 40k logic, fun isn't it?

Let me put forth something else with vehicle cover: My unit wants to fire at a vehicle in cover and it has the entire front covered, but only 50% of the side covered. Logic would dictate that my men would chose to shoot at the part they could see. Nope, they decide the best way to hit the tank would be if they took pot shots to see what will blast through the wall as well as the armor.

Oh well, you have to accept that rules to cover every situation would be vastly complex, take forever to read, be hard to completely understand even if you do not get turned off by the size of the book and lead to a lot of fights over little things like if something has 30% or 40% cover. We all just accept that some rules do have to be simplified to allow the game to actually flow without each turn boiling down to 'punch the opponent in the face and declare victory.' While this leads to a lot of rules not making sense, it at least we can all agree they don't make sense and move on with the game, without losing too much of blood.

There are strange situations in this game sometimes. For instance did you know you can take a side armor shot on a vehicle from the front arc if the conditions are correct?

Do explain that one into more depth for me, the broken logic is the reason why I am here!

 Dakkamite wrote:
So 1% of the front sticking out is worse than having 74% of the side sticking out, if the enemy is in your front arc?

By the rules, yes.

The rules have to have a certain amount of abstractness to make the game function at all. Bolters have a range of 24 inches, they are 100% deadly at this range, but a model that is 24.0000000001 inches away is completely safe from the bolter. This is an abstract concept to make the game playable in a short period of time.

Remember that the rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

JinxDragon wrote:
Do explain that one into more depth for me, the broken logic is the reason why I am here!

Pretty sure you have to be in the front arc, but have LOS to the front of the vehicle completely blocked. Then, if you can still see part of the vehicle, you can take a shot at it. I think that's how it works now...

 Jimsolo wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Do explain that one into more depth for me, the broken logic is the reason why I am here!

Pretty sure you have to be in the front arc, but have LOS to the front of the vehicle completely blocked. Then, if you can still see part of the vehicle, you can take a shot at it. I think that's how it works now...

This is because its possible to be situated in one arc, but only have LOS to a different arc. In which case the cover save is improved.

I see what I did wrong there, I misread which arc would be used in that exact situation. In fact, I over looked three little words which is all it takes to make a difference. This is a little more logical, as they should be shooting at the part of the tank they can see. Of course, you think they would train their anti-tank weapon wielding men to shoot at the weakest visible side all the time.

Thanks though, do like knowing when I am over looking something.

tgf wrote:
There are strange situations in this game sometimes. For instance did you know you can take a side armor shot on a vehicle from the front arc if the conditions are correct?

Except that rule makes sense

If you only have a shot at side that's next to the arc you're in then you're no longer shooting at the arc you're in. It's more TLoS.

JinxDragon wrote:
I see what I did wrong there, I misread which arc would be used in that exact situation. In fact, I over looked three little words which is all it takes to make a difference. This is a little more logical, as they should be shooting at the part of the tank they can see. Of course, you think they would train their anti-tank weapon wielding men to shoot at the weakest visible side all the time.

Thanks though, do like knowing when I am over looking something.

They do. Its always best to fire an AT weapon at armour as close to 90 degrees as possible to minimize the possilbility of the shot bouncing off.

Good point.