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.

Fisst, they would not give cover as it does not obscure 50%, second adding weapons does not increase the hull of the vehicle, it simply adds weapons.

Night's Blood wrote:Fisst, they would not give cover as it does not obscure 50%, second adding weapons does not increase the hull of the vehicle, it simply adds weapons.

I did not say the sponson itself would obscure 50%, but that it would ADD to the cover of anything between your guns and it. If it is not hull and not target-able because its a weapon then how could you draw 100% LoS on the side of a Russ hull? You loose a good 15-20% of hull; add a couple bodies there and it would be easy enough to get your 50% hull down.


Another angle is that if it does not count; then if a Russ with sponson is placed behind a building so that only the sponson stuck out, can you shoot at it? No because you can't target the barrel, and you're saying Sponson is not hull. But that sponson has LoS on you so it must be able to fire; but can't because anything that can be shot GENERALLY can shoot back ((mostly barred by range/arc of fire)).

Night's Blood wrote:This understanding comes from a ruling at last Ard' Boyz.

Can you post the document in question?

Or was it a ruling made on-site by a TO? If the later then it carries zero weight.

Sponsons are hull, as they are not on the list of stuff you are allowed to say isnt hull

Thank you nos!

Finally!

Besides, saying they increase target is not a legitimate counter-argument, as they also increase cover to other units.

If you don't like it, don't buy sponsons. It'll make EXACTLY the same difference either way.

Jidmah, Nos, (etc.) have it.

For the purposes of the 40k rules, you can shoot any part of a vehicle other than "gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, (etc.)". So really the only stuff excluded are...

a) Gun barrels
b) Antennae
c) Elements which serve a purely decorative function (like banners, or hanging chains from a DE or Chaos vehicle)

A sponson or exposed crew member or sail would certainly count as a legal targetable element, based on the rules we are given.

It was in fact a on sight ruling by a TO, however it is not as cut and dry as it is made up.

The logic in question is whether or not the additional sponsons count as hull, as the the hull is designed (before the addition) by the structure of the Leman Russ Battle tank.

I am not implying that one would not be able to target the members, that it clear.

I'm questioning whether, for example, if a blast template hit over the shoulder or the gunner, would you consider it hull? Or would you conclude that the structure of the hull is predetermined and the gunners are simply additional weapons?

Per the rules of 5th edition 40k, hull is defined as any part of the vehicle other than gun barrels, antennae, or decorative elements.

As a sponson is none of those things, it is definitely hull for the purposes of the 40k rules. Even though it is not hull in real-world terms, just as a wing or sail are not hull in the real world, but are within the structure of the 40k rules.

Night's Blood wrote:It was in fact a on sight ruling by a TO, however it is not as cut and dry as it is made up.

In that case it is entirely irrelevant.

Night's Blood wrote:I'm questioning whether, for example, if a blast template hit over the shoulder or the gunner, would you consider it hull? Or would you conclude that the structure of the hull is predetermined and the gunners are simply additional weapons?

Even if the gunner is "an additional weapon" - it's still hull. Gun barrels are excluded. The rest of the weapon is hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night's Blood wrote:The logic in question is whether or not the additional sponsons count as hull, as the the hull is designed (before the addition) by the structure of the Leman Russ Battle tank.

The rules say - whole model excluding certain bits. You're reading a whole bunch more into that than is there.

I'd still say that gunners are decorative, as many vehicles feature weapons which would optically require a gunner, but don't have one(basically anything mounted near a closed hatch). So, obviously gunners are not a required part of a model, and thus are decorative.

before Playing a new opponent i go over a list of potential arguments that might arise during play against my Dark Eldar, made from the many arguments that i have been involved with. the ravagers gun things being one, i simple ask my opponent do you mind them not being considered hull. 95% of the time they are fine with it and play like that.

imo they are not considered part of the hull. as in mist of battle a model would be aiming for the biggest part of the vehicle, not a small particular object on the vehicle. though i can see people argue that if it benefits them during game play. LOL like being just in range of a melta gun or another destructive weapon.

Jidmah wrote:I'd still say that gunners are decorative, as many vehicles feature weapons which would optically require a gunner, but don't have one(basically anything mounted near a closed hatch). So, obviously gunners are not a required part of a model, and thus are decorative.

I can see your point, regarding Storm Bolters near hatches and the like. However on those the firer at least has a place he could legimately be hiding. On the Ravager the crew model is exposed, and he evidently is necessary for the functioning of the weapon. I think he really should be a legal target. Applying the vehicle's AV and damage protocols seems to me reasonable enough protection.

The points are still that:

Gunners serve a function (technically)
They provide extra cover, equal to the amount of extra target area.

That's the point that i was trying to make, it is not as clear cut as it is made out to be.

It is easy to understand what qualifies for imperial vehicles, the problem arises with atypical vehicles with nonconforming shapes.

Night's Blood wrote:That's the point that i was trying to make, it is not as clear cut as it is made out to be.

It is easy to understand what qualifies for imperial vehicles, the problem arises with atypical vehicles with nonconforming shapes.

Gunners and Sails are entirely different cups of tea. Unless playing chaos, a gunner is not part of the vehicle. It is, however, part of the model and thus kind of a grey area. It's the same for deff rollas really, just telling your opponent that you don't consider them hull before the game will eliminate any rules issues.