4+ or 3+ Cover from this?

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.

**calypso2ts**

At least you replaced this ridiculous statement...

IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though

with this one...

IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor.

This would be great other than the fact this rule actually says "Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle's side armour (representing its top armor)." (pp60) Which is not a blanket statement that the top is the same as the side, it just says barrage weapons hit the side. Does the turret have a rule that states it counts as the side armor as well? Please show me what page that is on.

IdentifyZero wrote:
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.

Funny, I see two of them made up in the post above - first the turret having not facing and then the turret counting as the side. Look at the diagram, it is a 2-d plane and the vehicle even has a turret as part of the front facing in the picture!

IdentifyZero wrote:
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.

Okay so I guess we are conceding the idea of a 3+ save completely now and moving onto another topic. We agree then, if you can see the turret then you can fire at that armor facing with a 4+ save.

Now onto our new topic, see the manticore thread I linked before, if you can only see the gun barrel itself, then there are no cover saves because your opponent cannot draw LoS to the vehicle. I do not think I ever stated otherwise.

**augustus5**

IdentifyZero wrote:

The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor. In this case, they are taking a shot at a part of the vehicle they can technically not see and is more then 50% obscured.

Top of the vehicle counts as side armor? So how do you shoot at the top of a vehicle exactly? You claim that others are making up rules but this one takes the cake. Check and Mate? Hardly. Go back to the drawing board. If you take a look at lunarman's diagram, he shows exactly how a 3+ save is given to a vehicle. It's when the facing of the vehicle that the firer is in is completely obscured but the firer can see a part of the vehicle outside of his facing.

So if I am in the front facing of a Razorback, and it is almost completely covered by a Predator so that all I can see is the turret above the Predator, no matter how little of the turret I can see, the Razorback only get a 4+ save.

**Bishop99**

calypso2ts wrote:At least you replaced this ridiculous statement...

IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though

with this one...

IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor.

This would be great other than the fact this rule actually says "Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle's side armour (representing its top armor)." (pp60) Which is not a blanket statement that the top is the same as the side, it just says barrage weapons hit the side. Does the turret have a rule that states it counts as the side armor as well? Please show me what page that is on.

IdentifyZero wrote:
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.

Funny, I see two of them made up in the post above - first the turret having not facing and then the turret counting as the side. Look at the diagram, it is a 2-d plane and the vehicle even has a turret as part of the front facing in the picture!

IdentifyZero wrote:
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.

Okay so I guess we are conceding the idea of a 3+ save completely now and moving onto another topic. We agree then, if you can see the turret then you can fire at that armor facing with a 4+ save.

Now onto our new topic, see the manticore thread I linked before, if you can only see the gun barrel itself, then there are no cover saves because your opponent cannot draw LoS to the vehicle. I do not think I ever stated otherwise.

we are not concedeing the 3+ cause in the this case the shooter is in the forward arch and if you go buy the diagram that shows the achs on the vehical a razorback turrent in in the back firing arch so the shooter cannot see anything in the arch he is in but can see somting of another arch making it a 3+ save

**augustus5**

Bishop99 wrote:
calypso2ts wrote:At least you replaced this ridiculous statement...

IdentifyZero wrote:
It isn't specified as a specific facing though

with this one...

IdentifyZero wrote:
The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor.

This would be great other than the fact this rule actually says "Hits from barrage weapons, however, always hit the vehicle's side armour (representing its top armor)." (pp60) Which is not a blanket statement that the top is the same as the side, it just says barrage weapons hit the side. Does the turret have a rule that states it counts as the side armor as well? Please show me what page that is on.

IdentifyZero wrote:
There are no rules being made up, read the entire section on vehicles, cover, look at the diagram.

Funny, I see two of them made up in the post above - first the turret having not facing and then the turret counting as the side. Look at the diagram, it is a 2-d plane and the vehicle even has a turret as part of the front facing in the picture!

IdentifyZero wrote:
Also, have any of you re-created this diagram yourself? There is barely visibility to a razorback turret behind a predator turret, in fact, I could only see the top of the gun barrels on the turret and according to the BRB, gun barrels are not good enough.

Okay so I guess we are conceding the idea of a 3+ save completely now and moving onto another topic. We agree then, if you can see the turret then you can fire at that armor facing with a 4+ save.

Now onto our new topic, see the manticore thread I linked before, if you can only see the gun barrel itself, then there are no cover saves because your opponent cannot draw LoS to the vehicle. I do not think I ever stated otherwise.

we are not concedeing the 3+ cause in the this case the shooter is in the forward arch and if you go buy the diagram that shows the achs on the vehical a razorback turrent in in the back firing arch so the shooter cannot see anything in the arch he is in but can see somting of another arch making it a 3+ save

This just keeps getting deeper and deeper. So by your understanding, the turret of a razorback is always considered rear armor, no matter from what angle you shoot at it, since it appears on the back of the vehicle? Is this really what you are trying to propose?

The lines in the diagram on page 60 of the BGB are drawn to show what facing the firer is in. If the firer is standing in the front arc and can see any of the front facing (and the turret has a front facing just as it has a side and rear facing dependent upon where the firer is standing, not dependent upon how the turret is turned) but the model is over 50% concealed then it gets a 4+ cover save.

In order to get the 3+ the firer would have to be standing in one facing and the model be completely obscured from that angle, but the firer can still see part of another facing that he is not standing in. Again, reference lunarman's diagram in this thread as an example of how a 3+ vehicle save works.

**syypher**

augustus5 wrote:
IdentifyZero wrote:

The turret, like the top of the vehicle counts as side armor. In this case, they are taking a shot at a part of the vehicle they can technically not see and is more then 50% obscured.

Top of the vehicle counts as side armor? So how do you shoot at the top of a vehicle exactly? You claim that others are making up rules but this one takes the cake. Check and Mate? Hardly. Go back to the drawing board. If you take a look at lunarman's diagram, he shows exactly how a 3+ save is given to a vehicle. It's when the facing of the vehicle that the firer is in is completely obscured but the firer can see a part of the vehicle outside of his facing.

So if I am in the front facing of a Razorback, and it is almost completely covered by a Predator so that all I can see is the turret above the Predator, no matter how little of the turret I can see, the Razorback only get a 4+ save.

We are not conceding this yet. I put the models on the table again and you CAN see part of the turret. Yes most of it you can see the barrels which don't count but you can see a part of the turret over the Predator so...

Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?

See the reason I don't get it is because I dont see anywhere that it says or even implies that the turret will be determined facing whatever direction the firer is facing. Here are the specific rulings backing up why I am still confused. Please understand I am not disagreeing with anyone just not seeing anything clear cut and dry that will allow me to be comfortable explaining this to the people at my LFGS as well. I appreciate all the time and effort you guys are putting into trying to resolve this. I also believe the word "facing," "quadrant," "sector," and like words are getting mixed up between people debating back and forth.

On p.60 it says "Armour Values for individual vehicles also vary depending on which facing the vehicle the shot comes from - its front, sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram."
-This helps explain what a facing of a vehicle is. Clearly in the diagram the vehicle has 4 FACINGS. A Facing = front, side, rear. Each facing can be seen as having its section called a "quadrant." The entire "triangle" section of the picture for the front armor facing can be considered the front armor "quadrant."

On p.62 it says "..but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they can may take the shot against the facing they can see" (this is in the 3+ save section)
-Ok the above page was for clarification that we are on the same page. Now this is where it gets confusing. If you look at my situation (re-created it below) you will see that the RB is directly behind the Predator. Purposely done so you cannot see the hull and the enemy shooting can only see the turret on top. In my situation I gave everyone can agree that yes you can still fire at the razorback, correct? Yes.

So based on the above quoted ruling it says if they can still see another facing of the target vehicle they can take the shot. Correct? Yes. So in order for the turret to count as being able to be shot at then that mean it should have some type of facing based on the rule above? Correct? Not necessarily. Because of the below...

On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.

Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?

You can't simply say you firing from the front "quadrant" thus you are firing at the front "facing" and you give it a 4+ cover save. Why? Because the 3+ cover save rule on p.62 bypasses this. It allows you to now fire at other "facings" even if your in the same "quadrant." (Allowing a 3+ cover save ofcourse) So we can all agree the enemy firer is in the front "quadrant" based on my situation I am putting forward. Now...the question is which facing is a turret considered when determining which save to use?

That is the best way I can explain my predicament. Please read it thoroughly. Thanks again for all your guys help and patience.

E (enemy Dreadnought)

P (Predator)
R (Razorback)

**Bishop99**

The lines in the diagram on page 60 of the BGB are drawn to show what facing the firer is in. If the firer is standing in the front arc and can see any of the front facing (and the turret has a front facing just as it has a side and rear facing dependent upon where the firer is standing) but the model is over 50% concealed then it gets a 4+ cover save.

In order to get the 3+ the firer would have to be standing in one facing and the model be completely obscured from that angle, but the firer can still see part of another facing that he is not standing in. Again, reference lunarman's diagram in this thread as an example of how a 3+ vehicle save works.

**olympia**

As others have said, in the case described in the OP the target would receive a 4+ cover save.

**Jidmah**

augustus5 wrote:This just keeps getting deeper and deeper. So by your understanding, the turret of a razorback is always considered rear armor, no matter from what angle you shoot at it, since it appears on the back of the vehicle? Is this really what you are trying to propose?

Yes, that's what the rules say.

The lines in the diagram on page 60 of the BGB are drawn to show what facing the firer is in.

That's what you say. The diagram says "Vehicle armour facing" though.

If the firer is standing in the front arc and can see any of the front facing (and the turret has a front facing just as it has a side and rear facing dependent upon where the firer is standing, not dependent upon how the turret is turned)

If there is a rule actually giving facings to turrets, please quote it, I don't see one.

but the model is over 50% concealed then it gets a 4+ cover save.

In order to get the 3+ the firer would have to be standing in one facing and the model be completely obscured from that angle, but the firer can still see part of another facing that he is not standing in. Again, reference lunarman's diagram in this thread as an example of how a 3+ vehicle save works.

No one is arguing this point.

**Bishop99**

olympia wrote:As others have said, in the case described in the OP the target would receive a 4+ cover save.

we are trying to prove that that infact is incorrect because the front cant be seen

**syypher**

Reposted because I don't think anyone saw this while they were trying to post to each other..

I put the models on the table again and you CAN see part of the turret. Yes most of it you can see the barrels which don't count but you can see a part of the turret over the Predator so...

Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?

See the reason I don't get it is because I dont see anywhere that it says or even implies that the turret will be determined facing whatever direction the firer is facing. Here are the specific rulings backing up why I am still confused. Please understand I am not disagreeing with anyone just not seeing anything clear cut and dry that will allow me to be comfortable explaining this to the people at my LFGS as well. I appreciate all the time and effort you guys are putting into trying to resolve this. I also believe the word "facing," "quadrant," "sector," and like words are getting mixed up between people debating back and forth.

On p.60 it says "Armour Values for individual vehicles also vary depending on which facing the vehicle the shot comes from - its front, sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram."
-This helps explain what a facing of a vehicle is. Clearly in the diagram the vehicle has 4 FACINGS. A Facing = front, side, rear. Each facing can be seen as having its section called a "quadrant." The entire "triangle" section of the picture for the front armor facing can be considered the front armor "quadrant."

On p.62 it says "..but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they can may take the shot against the facing they can see" (this is in the 3+ save section)
-Ok the above page was for clarification that we are on the same page. Now this is where it gets confusing. If you look at my situation (re-created it below) you will see that the RB is directly behind the Predator. Purposely done so you cannot see the hull and the enemy shooting can only see the turret on top. In my situation I gave everyone can agree that yes you can still fire at the razorback, correct? Yes.

So based on the above quoted ruling it says if they can still see another facing of the target vehicle they can take the shot. Correct? Yes. So in order for the turret to count as being able to be shot at then that mean it should have some type of facing based on the rule above? Correct? Not necessarily. Because of the below...

On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.

Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?

You can't simply say you firing from the front "quadrant" thus you are firing at the front "facing" and you give it a 4+ cover save. Why? Because the 3+ cover save rule on p.62 bypasses this. It allows you to now fire at other "facings" even if your in the same "quadrant." (Allowing a 3+ cover save ofcourse) So we can all agree the enemy firer is in the front "quadrant" based on my situation I am putting forward. Now...the question is which facing is a turret considered when determining which save to use?

That is the best way I can explain my predicament. Please read it thoroughly. Thanks again for all your guys help and patience.

E (enemy Dreadnought)

P (Predator)
R (Razorback)

**Bishop99**

syypher wrote:Reposted because I don't think anyone saw this while they were trying to post to each other..

I put the models on the table again and you CAN see part of the turret. Yes most of it you can see the barrels which don't count but you can see a part of the turret over the Predator so...

Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?

See the reason I don't get it is because I dont see anywhere that it says or even implies that the turret will be determined facing whatever direction the firer is facing. Here are the specific rulings backing up why I am still confused. Please understand I am not disagreeing with anyone just not seeing anything clear cut and dry that will allow me to be comfortable explaining this to the people at my LFGS as well. I appreciate all the time and effort you guys are putting into trying to resolve this. I also believe the word "facing," "quadrant," "sector," and like words are getting mixed up between people debating back and forth.

On p.60 it says "Armour Values for individual vehicles also vary depending on which facing the vehicle the shot comes from - its front, sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram."
-This helps explain what a facing of a vehicle is. Clearly in the diagram the vehicle has 4 FACINGS. A Facing = front, side, rear. Each facing can be seen as having its section called a "quadrant." The entire "triangle" section of the picture for the front armor facing can be considered the front armor "quadrant."

On p.62 it says "..but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they can may take the shot against the facing they can see" (this is in the 3+ save section)
-Ok the above page was for clarification that we are on the same page. Now this is where it gets confusing. If you look at my situation (re-created it below) you will see that the RB is directly behind the Predator. Purposely done so you cannot see the hull and the enemy shooting can only see the turret on top. In my situation I gave everyone can agree that yes you can still fire at the razorback, correct? Yes.

So based on the above quoted ruling it says if they can still see another facing of the target vehicle they can take the shot. Correct? Yes. So in order for the turret to count as being able to be shot at then that mean it should have some type of facing based on the rule above? Correct? Not necessarily. Because of the below...

On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.

Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?

You can't simply say you firing from the front "quadrant" thus you are firing at the front "facing" and you give it a 4+ cover save. Why? Because the 3+ cover save rule on p.62 bypasses this. It allows you to now fire at other "facings" even if your in the same "quadrant." (Allowing a 3+ cover save ofcourse) So we can all agree the enemy firer is in the front "quadrant" based on my situation I am putting forward. Now...the question is which facing is a turret considered when determining which save to use?

That is the best way I can explain my predicament. Please read it thoroughly. Thanks again for all your guys help and patience.

E (enemy Dreadnought)

P (Predator)
R (Razorback)

on a razorback i would say the turrent is on the back arch/facing even though you can see it from the front
its not like a preditor where the turrent is in the middle and therefore in all of the faciings/ archs

**augustus5**

syypher wrote:

Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?

I'm not counting the turret as any facing. Your diagram shows the firer clearly in the front arc. He can see the turret. The turret is part of the vehicle. There is no way the dread is in the side arc because you drew it directly in front of the predator and razorback. It couldn't see the side of the vehicle at all unless the vehicle were turned at a slight angle. So how is the dread not looking at the front of the vehicle?

syypher wrote:Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?

People have given their answer and reasons behind it over and over agian in this thread. If you fail to understand their reasoning or choose not to accept it that's your perogative. You even answered your own question in your response as to why you are confused. You wrote:

syypher wrote:On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.

You don't need to consider the turret as having a facing. You simply then determine the facing of the firer. This isn't rocket science.

**Bishop99**

augustus5 wrote:
syypher wrote:

Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?

I'm not counting the turret as any facing. Your diagram shows the firer clearly in the front arc. He can see the turret. The turret is part of the vehicle. There is no way the dread is in the side arc because you drew it directly in front of the predator and razorback. It couldn't see the side of the vehicle at all unless the vehicle were turned at a slight angle. So how is the dread not looking at the front of the vehicle?

syypher wrote:Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?

People have given their answer and reasons behind it over and over agian in this thread. If you fail to understand their reasoning or choose not to accept it that's your perogative. You even answered your own question in your response as to why you are confused. You wrote:

syypher wrote:On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.

You don't need to consider the turret as having a facing. You simply then determine the facing of the firer. This isn't rocket science.

why are not trying to figure out if the shoot is valid but if its a 4+ or 3+ the issue is whcih arch does the turrent fall in becaue its arch idetermines the save the shooter is in the forward arch but (in my opinion) the shooter can not see anything in the forward arch he can however see the turrent which is in the back arch of the vehicle which makes it a 3+ cover save

**syypher**

augustus5 wrote:
syypher wrote:

Which again brings me to my question I have and is still not clearly answered. Why are you counting the razorback turret as the front facing? Just because you are in the front section of the vehicle?

I'm not counting the turret as any facing. Your diagram shows the firer clearly in the front arc. He can see the turret. The turret is part of the vehicle. There is no way the dread is in the side arc because you drew it directly in front of the predator and razorback. It couldn't see the side of the vehicle at all unless the vehicle were turned at a slight angle. So how is the dread not looking at the front of the vehicle?

syypher wrote:Thus leads to the same question: What would you give the vehicle if you can only see the turret? 3+ cover save? 4+ cover save? You can fire at the vehicle based on the last quote I posted, but what facing would you consider it? Does it have a facing? What facing would you give it? Why?

People have given their answer and reasons behind it over and over agian in this thread. If you fail to understand their reasoning or choose not to accept it that's your perogative. You even answered your own question in your response as to why you are confused. You wrote:

syypher wrote:On p.60 it says "When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret..."
-So this means the enemy gets to fire at the vehicle just because it can see the turret. Thus you don't need to consider the turret as having a facing to be shot at.

You don't need to consider the turret as having a facing. You simply then determine the facing of the firer. This isn't rocket science.

Are you picking and choosing parts of my explanation as to why I'm still confused to make yourself feel like I'm disagreeing? It's not that I do not choose to accept anything. Are you serious? Did you even read any of my posts? I have been neutral this entire time. Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone since my answer hasn't clear cut been answered yet?.

Answering my own question? I like how you cut that part out of what I said and do not take into account what I said directly before that...that section you so conveniently cut out was simply the reason I was confused because it contradicts my previous sentences.

I don't need to consider the turret as having a facing? Once again, did you read the rules I brought out and even quoted so people would get a more clear vision of what I am confused about? They seem to contradict or not clarify with each other. Where does it say I only need to determine the facing of the firer? If that was right then there would be NO such thing as the 3+ cover save. Why? Because for a 3+ cover save it's not just "simply then determine the facing of the firer." You need to determine the quadrant the firer is standing in, then look at the facing of the vehicle he can see.

Please read my post throughly. If you did you wouldn't be saying what you just put because that in no way answers my question. Thanks for trying though. (not sarcastic, appreciate your time but you really need to read what I wrote.)

Bishop is on the right track. It's not as simple as you are putting it out Augustus.

**BoyMac**

I made a quick drawing… what would you do in this situation?

**Bishop99**

Im really interested in this cause im bringing 8 raxors to ard boys

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks boymac thats an awesome example

**syypher**

Ya thats pretty much what I'm doing. Thanks Boymac. Firer in front, vehicle in front, firer can see nothing but turret. >_<

**nosferatu1001**

4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.

**augustus5**

In BoyMac's drawing the entire shooting unit is in the razorback's front arc. They can see the turret over the top of the rhino. If they shoot the razorback gets a 4+ save.

The point drawn in the center of the razorback isn't there to divide the razorback up into 4 distinct pieces. It is there to draw a straight line from the center, through the corner of the vehicle, and beyond to determine the firing arc of those wishing to target the vehicle.

**BoyMac**

nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.

But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).

**nosferatu1001**

The sponson isnt in the rear Arc, it can be seen from the front.

**Bishop99**

nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.

but if you look at the diagram the shooter cannot see the facing they are in they can only see somthing inn the back facing as the above diagram shows

**syypher**

nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.

With that logic the turret has a facing then. Your saying the enemy can see the turrets front facing correct? Because clearly the hull portion of the vehicle is completely hidding. So if the turret was turned to the side to shoot something and the enemy is now looking at the side of the turret, it would be a 3+ based on what you said since the facing is not the side that the enemy sees yet they are in the front quadrant of the vehicle?

Or are you generalizing that "they are in the front" so it has to be "front facing." Because my last post and the 3+ save section on p.62 suggests otherwise and there are more factors to determine than where the firer is standing.

**augustus5**

BoyMac wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.

But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).

There is no possibility of seeing the rear of the vehicle when you're standing in the front arc, unless you can transcend time and space.

**Bishop99**

augustus5 wrote:In BoyMac's drawing the entire shooting unit is in the razorback's front arc. They can see the turret over the top of the rhino. If they shoot the razorback gets a 4+ save.

The point drawn in the center of the razorback isn't there to divide the razorback up into 4 distinct pieces. It is there to draw a straight line from the center, through the corner of the vehicle, and beyond to determine the firing arc of those wishing to target the vehicle.

but the chart that He got from is to determine what armour value to us not to determine los so buy that logic the shooters can not see anything that is in the front armour value of the tank and there for gets a 3+ cover and i would say that if the cover save is failed the shot would be against the back armour value

**nosferatu1001**

Syppher - no, I am saying:

You are in the front facing
You can see the turret, which is hull

You can see the front facing.

4+ cover, as has been said in this thread a number of time.s....

**BoyMac**

augustus5 wrote:
BoyMac wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.

But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).

There is no possibility of seeing the rear of the vehicle when you're standing in the front arc, unless you can transcend time and space.

So, following the same logic you can't see the side if you are in the front arc? I don't think so. The turret in that example is clearly in the rear arc.

In case this argument comes up, the Razorback turret may not be exactly how I drew it - i used it as an example.

**Bishop99**

nosferatu1001 wrote:The sponson isnt in the rear Arc, it can be seen from the front.

how is that so its clearly in the rear of the vehicle if i could see a side sponson from the front does that mean its in the front arch

**nosferatu1001**

Bishop - seriously, ARC, not Arch.

Boymac - that is not the same logic, at all.

**Bishop99**

augustus5 wrote:
BoyMac wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:4+ cover; you are in the front facing of the tank, and you can see the facing you are in.

But in my diagram the sponson is in the back… you are in the front arc but only see the back (as strange as it sounds).

There is no possibility of seeing the rear of the vehicle when you're standing in the front arc, unless you can transcend time and space.

so if im looking at a car from the front but can only see the spoiler on the trunk because of an intervining object im still lookling at the front of the car how is the if i pulled out a gun and shot it in the spoiler would you say i shoot it in the front arc of the car even though thats where i shoot from