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.

Can anyone actually define "hull" and "decorative element" as it applies to 40k rules?

Not specifically. But it is the nature of the beast when writing a rulebook for vehicles of all shapes and sizes.

Distilled into a rough definition, hull is the actual shadow of the vehicle. The actual dimensions and shape the vehicle takes. The "decorative elements" include things for vanities sake, with the key exception of weapons.

Wow, I could've saved myself a lot of typing by just posting that definition of prow earlier.

Guess that was a slamdunk. I didnt even realise how well it answered the OP.

DO SHOCKPROWS COUNT AS PART OF THE HULL?

Q-Now, I've never used shockprows before and I was considering them because I grow tired of random Haemonculi trinkets that don't do anything (stupid Casket of Fail) Anyhow, the shockprow is almost a full inch longer than the normal piece on a raider, this can be most beneficial in game, as every inch can make a difference in getting that crucial charge or even helping to multicharge more than one target with your wyches. So, before I put this on the table and start acting a fool I would like to clarify any stupidity I may stumble into. What do you think? Is the Shock Prow a usable piece of the hull? Or, and upgrade like a dozer blade that no longer counts as part of the hull?

A- prow (prou) n.
1. Nautical The forward part of a ship's hull; the bow.
2. A projecting forward part, such as the front end of a ski.

Three pages to get to this.

The silence is deafening.

I hate to ruin your party, but the Reinforced Ram on the trukk is an essential part of the model, too. If you leave it off, it is very obvious that some part of the model is missing, still the BRB itself even contains a picture of a measurement ignoring the ram(pg. 3).

I'd also like to point out two things:
- hanging around the forum longer than your opposite does not make you right
- dictionary quotes violate the tenets of YMDC

Nights - you clearly didnt read or comprehend, because I showed how your argument (that if you doint add the prow it does not "complete" the model, and is therefore hull) is not a sufficient argument. I used a clear example of a gun to show how this argument was wrong. You have still to provide another one.

BTW - dictionary definitions a) arent allowed and b) dont work in 40k, as skimmers dont have hulls, they probably have a fuselage. Meaning you cant ever disembark from your vehicle.

Sorry to ruin your celebrations with rules.

Here's the denial I was looking for.

Nice tactic though...wait until Nights goes offline to disagree with him.

.........

So, what do we have here? A "prow" is by definition the forward part of a vehicles hull. Yet you still deny that it IS part of the hull but offer NO REASON WHATSOEVER BESIDES YOUR OPINION to support your claim. Yet you continue to argue.

THIS is what bad debate is made of boys and girls. When people are offered solid evidence, and their reply is to shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, violently shake their head, and repeat "NONONONONO!"

Please, I implore you, don't go down that path.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:BTW - dictionary definitions dont work in 40k, as skimmers dont have hulls, they probably have a fuselage. Meaning you cant ever disembark from your vehicle.

This is not using the dictionary as a rule. We're defining a portion of a vehicle. To wit....a prow. By definition it is part of a hull. Vehicles in 40k have hulls. The logical conclusion when you combine the two is that the Shock PROW is part of the hull. Especially when you consider that a raider model is incomplete if you fail to attach any prow, shock or otherwise, to the model. This bit is a 'must have' portion of the model. Your conclusion is (no offense meant) completely lacking any logical track of thinking.

Sorry to ruin your celebrations with rules.

Don't be sorry, you didnt.

The only thing you should be apologising for (if anything) is for continuing this discussion needlessly when you've obviously been proven wrong.

I've done it before in YMTC. Been proven wrong and come back stating, "Wow, guess I was wrong." Your inability to finally admit you might have been mistaken is quite frankly mind boggling at this point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nights - you clearly didnt read or comprehend, because I showed how your argument (that if you doint add the prow it does not "complete" the model, and is therefore hull) is not a sufficient argument. I used a clear example of a gun to show how this argument was wrong. You have still to provide another one.

BTW - dictionary definitions a) arent allowed and b) dont work in 40k, as skimmers dont have hulls, they probably have a fuselage. Meaning you cant ever disembark from your vehicle.

Sorry to ruin your celebrations with rules.

I understand that you disagree, yet through all of this arguing you still can't answer the very first question i ask you - "Why exactly does the prow NOT count as the hull, what exact text are you using to justify your opinion?

You keep using this blunt example of a gun being essential. The barrels of guns are specifically mentioned to not count as hull. The rule debate here is whether the prow counts as the hull. i've provide multiple examples through the actual building of the model to the innate definition of a prow. You have provided none.

Never having encountered one in real life, so only going off photos from around the net, I have to say it just looks decorative.

I know that isn't really basis for this but it doesn't look like a vital part of the hull, so I am tempted to not count it as hull.

I apply that logic to the other vague hot spots about hull, namely vendettas and valkyries; some people claim that the wings are not hull, but they are clearly vital parts of the structure of the hull, so I play them as hull.

-cgmckenzie

Right, if you've seem one first hand it is extremely obvious that the prow is a continuation of the "spine" of the raider. That might not sound like an answer but it really is the truth.

cgmckenzie wrote:Never having encountered one in real life, so only going off photos from around the net, I have to say it just looks decorative.

I know that isn't really basis for this but it doesn't look like a vital part of the hull, so I am tempted to not count it as hull.

I apply that logic to the other vague hot spots about hull, namely vendettas and valkyries; some people claim that the wings are not hull, but they are clearly vital parts of the structure of the hull, so I play them as hull.

-cgmckenzie

If a boat doesn't have a prow it will sink................

Deadshane1 wrote:Here's the denial I was looking for.

Nice tactic though...wait until Nights goes offline to disagree with him.

Wow, conspiracy theory abounds. The other possibility is that I was doing something else and only came back to the thread then. The status of the person I was responding to is irrelevant.

Deadshane1 wrote:So, what do we have here? A "prow" is by definition the forward part of a vehicles hull.

Ships hull. Is a skimmer a ship? Does it sail in water? Do you now see the reason why that definition is of no use whatsoever?

Deadshane1 wrote: Yet you still deny that it IS part of the hull but offer NO REASON WHATSOEVER BESIDES YOUR OPINION to support your claim. Yet you continue to argue.

1) I showed how the argument that it is an "essential" part of the model, without which it is incomplete, is NOT a sufficient condition for it being hull. The fact you keep ignoring that FACT is telling.

2) The shock prow is, by definition, decorative. It is added to the model as a points upgrade. Meaning it cannot be essential to the hull. I've tried this 3 or 4 times now, but getting through to you seems tricky.

Deadshane1 wrote:THIS is what bad debate is made of boys and girls. When people are offered solid evidence, and their reply is to shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, violently shake their head, and repeat "NONONONONO!"

You ignored, repeatedly, proof that your argument was flawed. Your response is to insult people. Calm down.

Deadshane1 wrote:Please, I implore you, don't go down that path.

Sorry, youve already been there. Im not going to follow you.

This is not using the dictionary as a rule. We're defining a portion of a vehicle.

No, defining the portion of a ship. Is a skimmer a ship? Id love for you to say it is.

Again, do you see now why the definition is a bad idea, and is agaisnt the tenets of YMDC?

Deadshane1 wrote: To wit....a prow. By definition it is part of a hull.

....of a ship. I love how you keep "forgetting", conveniently, the part that entirely undermines your point. Entirely. 100%.

Deadshane1 wrote: Vehicles in 40k have hulls. The logical conclusion when you combine the two is that the Shock PROW is part of the hull. Especially when you consider that a raider model is incomplete if you fail to attach any prow, shock or otherwise, to the model.

I'm sure we've been down the "it MUST be hull if the model is incomplete without it!!!!!!!" argument before? Oh yes, we have. And i've shown you that that argument is not suffcient. Or in other, simpler words - it is irrelevant to the status of something being hull.

Deadshane1 wrote:This bit is a 'must have' portion of the model. Your conclusion is (no offense meant) completely lacking any logical track of thinking.

Your conclusion is, no offence, ignoring the counter example in the hope that repeated application of a flawed, baseless argument will result in concession. Oops.

Deadshane1 wrote:The only thing you should be apologising for (if anything) is for continuing this discussion needlessly when you've obviously been proven wrong.

I've done it before in YMTC. Been proven wrong and come back stating, "Wow, guess I was wrong." Your inability to finally admit you might have been mistaken is quite frankly mind boggling at this point.

Please, come back and admit it, once youve ACTUALLY read and comprehended the flaws in your argumnet. Im not holding my breath.

I don't see how you can say that it is in any way defined as decorative. There is a standard prow, and a shock prow piece for the model. The shock prow has a distinct bit from the standard prows. The instructions for the model direct you to assemble it with either option in place. It's never clearly defined one way or the other. For either side to say it is cut and dry is misleading and incorrect. It's not defined conclusively one way or the other.

The point was that, claiming it is "essential" to the way the vehicle is built and is therefore "hull", is not a good argument - there are plenty of essential pieces to models that arent ever hull. So claiming it is clearly hull by using a bad definition (skimmers arent ships) and a bad argument is not convincing.

Having taken a few more looks at detailed photos, I am confident to say the prow, shock or otherwise, isn't hull. The hull is the part of the raider that looks like a boat, with the prow sticking out on an arm, much akin to dozer blades or deff rollas.

-cgmckenzie

@cgmckenzie

You're saying that either prow does not count as hull? Now, I know there must be a metric sh#t ton of DE players out there who will disagree with you being they've been used to draw LoS so many times, or even used to draw ranges. By what you're saying, I could just flat out not put a prow on and hit the tables with shorter vehicles, making them much easier to hide. That's modeling for advantage, and is frowned upon. Further, you must realize by now, not including a prow on your DE skimmer is like not putting the side pieces a normal vehicle, making them substantially thinner. Again, modeling for advantage, and it doesnt work, because the vehicle is incomplete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prows are part of the vehicles outline, and I would count them as hull.

You dont not put it on - as it doesnt count as hull it doesnt count for measuring to you (drawing LOS, range, etc) either, but you take the rough with the smooth - you cant disembark by measuring to it either.

Again, this isnt about the vehicle being "Complete" or not - a leman russ isnt "complete" without the hull mounted gun, however that doesnt mean its hull.

So the question is whether that front pyramidal piece counts as hull, yes?

Yessir.

This picture actually illustrates my point very well; it is attached, yes, but by a thin arm, not directly attached to the rest of the hull. It looks more akin to a dozer blade than to the rest of the hull because of that.

This is particularly easy because it is shaped like a boat. If you were to take a drill to the 'skin' of the boat(like where that one model is hanging off of it), water would come in and it would sink. Drill a hole in the prow here, and it does not look as if water is coming in.

Again, this isn't perfect but is how I am seeing this. It simply looks like it isn't hull. Vital to the operation of the vehicle, I am sure, but not hull.

-cgmckenzie

Nos seems to find it impossible that a Wych would disembark the raider by doing a somersault off of the tip if the prow. (as her disembarkation)

Something I would say 100% of actual Dark Eldar players would disagree with.

Prows have been actually defined as PART of a ships hull by dictionary definition earlier in this threadl, and as you can see the model above would be incomplete w/o the prow bit.



Nos maintains that the raider is a skimmer and not a "ship" per se. A ridiculous arguement when you consider that a dingy has a prow and is not a ship or as Wikipedia states; ""Prow" may also refer to a pointed, projecting front part of other travelling objects, such as a racing skates, airplanes, or chariots.

So what have we established? Prows are a portion of a ships hull. (as defined in the dictionary). Also, "ships" whatever that describes, are not the only vehicles that might have a "prow". Based on these arguements, I feel this is sufficient to say that a Raider's Prow is a proper "prow" and is indeed part of it's Hull. Furthermore, the actual model (as you can see above) would be incomplete w/o a prow 'bit'.

There is no reason whatsoever (besides possible wishful thinking) to beleive that the prow bit of a raider is "decorative". We in the Prow-Hull-Yes camp have done everything really neccessary to enforce our point. Yet Nos has yet to explain why he beleives that the prow is decorative and not part of the hull. He has provided no text within the rules, no evidence whatsoever.

Deadshane - sigh

So, despite knowing the dictionary quotes are verboten, and this one in particular is inapplicable as well, a skimmer isnt a ship, you're still persisting and have apparently made this personal, despite a number of others disagreeing with you?

You have provided no rules. None. Absolutely nil. You STILL state that it would be "incomplete" without the prow piece as if that is even a relevant arguemnt - it isnt! Its been proven already that that argument is useless in determining hull status, yet still you cling to it, as if it were a life raft.

It isnt.

It isnt a piece of hull. Look at the pic. If you blunted that "prow" (whcih is more like an underwater ram than a prow, btw, in profile and position) would the SKIMMER be ok? Yes, as its hull would be intact. As in, the bit that is clearly meant to hold actual wytches.

You have yet to provide a single rules reference. Nothing.

Don't use dictionary definitions for 40K. It isn't a valid source for rules interpretation. Don't use the argument 'the model isn't complete without it, so it is hull' because that is simply false; a LRBT isn't complete without the cannon but the cannon isn't hull.

The prow on that picture you provided doesn't look anything like the one in the picture 3 posts up. The shock prow looks as if it were attached to the hull of the raider, and the picture you put to illustrate the shape of a prow reinforces that idea; the shape of the bow of the ship is much more similar to the shape of the raider behind the shock prow.

-cgmckenzie

One last little thing. If you know anything about a ships structure, it's obvious to you that a Rostrum (or bow ram) when placed on ships is indeed part of the main body structure (or hull) of a ship.

Otherwise....the bit simply breaks off. It is part of the ship, a peice of the hull.

Nos thinks that's decorative, for reasons only known to himself....b/c he wont share with us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No dictionary definitions.

Ok, what is a gun in 40k then?

What is a tank?

What is armour?

What is a Weapon?

What is a Bike?

What is Artillery?

What is a pistol?

What is a Bow?

Shane, stop quoting real life! This is a fantasy game in the far future represented with bits of plastic and metal. No correlation to the real world.

Nos and I think it is decorative because it looks decorative with the way the model is designed and when compared to other objects on models that have been declared to be decorative. It is far more similar to a dozer blade/deff rolla/siege shield than to any thing else, including hull of other skimmers.

-cgmckenzie

I was explaining that it isnt really a prow in shape or position, and *looks* like a ram. Not that it is (as this isnt even attached to / part of the spine like a real ram would be. ) Again, a failure on your part to actually read and understand. Im shocked, really I am. Or are you going to go back to claiming i've never built a raider, since the rest of your arguments have been debunked as irrelevant and useless?

ALso, for the last time - I have explained, TWICE now, why it is decorative. Your failure to comprehend this isnt really my problem, but in simple language:

1) Shock prow is optional, and added to the vehicle. Decorative.

2) The actual shape and positioning is not suggestive of a hull piece, as if you removed the cross section the hull would be intact and X-tight, where X is some fluid. It looks exactly as decorative as a dozer blade. You know, those really decorative bits explicitly mentioned in the rules?

Seriously DS - compare the two pics, one with the actual prow of a ship, one with the "prow" on the Raider. Notice anything STUNNINGLY different about the two?

Love the list of items at the end. Artillery is a defined unit type - youre aware of that, right? I glossed over the rest of your ranting

I'd like to point out that dozer blades, rams and prows are not decorative, and neither are gun barrels. Still, none of them count as hull per RAW.

I really had to laugh at the "you waited for him to go to sleep" argument. Two words: time zones.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was explaining that it isnt really a prow in shape or position, and *looks* like a ram. Not that it is (as this isnt even attached to / part of the spine like a real ram would be. )

and on what page of what book did you come to that conclusion? Or is it just your opinion?

And all these things are defined in the book when they are mentioned the first time.

All weapons are defined as weapons because they have a stat line, including guns.

A tank has a specific indicator saying it is a tank, otherwise it is merely a vehicle. Pg 68 BGB

Armour is defined by armour facing and has several handy diagrams. Pg 60

A bike has its own definition and a little indicator on the stat line of the vehicle. Pg 53

Artillery is defined in the BRB under the 'artillery' section. Pg 55

Pistols are defined in the types of weapon section. Pg 29

"Bow" isn't defined because the vehicles here are not boats, so they don't have a bow. 'Bow' is not defined because nobody uses archery or if they do, it has its own definition in its own codex.

-cgmckenzie

jmurph wrote:
So the question is whether that front pyramidal piece counts as hull, yes?

Just wanted to point out, that this is NOT a SHOCK PROW.

That is a "normal prow". It should not confer any in game benefit.


The RAVAGER kit includes a Larger prow. (same shape, but longer, wider and bigger lumps)
this larger piece is the "Official" Shock Prow.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440236a&prodId=prod900155a

The First Picture has a "prow" While the Second has a "Shock Prow"


Not sure how this affects the rules debate here, but just wanted to point that out.