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.

Happyjew wrote:Posters have tried to use dictionary definitions to prove that the prow is/is not part of the hull. Regardless of what a dictionary states, if the item in question is not a dozer blade, gun turret, decorative item, etc, it is hull.

So how is a regular sail (not enhanced) not decorative. The raider is held up by the anti-grav ribbing on the bottom and has both manuevering engines and regular engines on the back for movement forward. So what purpose could the sail have on the raiders/ravagers?

Its Decorative and is solely to support the Pirate raider theme of the army. If one says we can measure line of sight to that, then I guess people who put regimental banners on their Leman russes are in for some bad news.

Darth - decorative means that something has no function. The obverse of that is something that HAS function is not decorative.

The aethersails are described in the fluff as having a purpose in the operations of the Raider. They tell of this, in my opinion, because we have no real-life example to base anything on. As far as I know, there is no real-life anti-grav sailboats descending from on high to sow terror and mayhem. So, we are left with their fluff descriptions to determine what is functional and what is decorative. And they tell us it's a functional part of the Raider, so we must treat it as such.

I do understand that according to the rules it is a bit unclear. So, I would discuss it with my opponent beforehand. But, in my opinion, it is a functional part of the vehicle so we must treat it as part of the hull for all gaming purposes.

There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull. Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

Best course, as mentioned, is discuss it with your oppent. Personally I believe sails are not part of the hull (aether sails or otherwise). Saying that the sails are part of the hull only if their aether sails (and not targeting 'normal' sails) I wouldn't accept. It's all sails or no sails, and I'd push for no sails.

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull. Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

Best course, as mentioned, is discuss it with your oppent. Personally I believe sails are not part of the hull (aether sails or otherwise). Saying that the sails are part of the hull only if their aether sails (and not targeting 'normal' sails) I wouldn't accept. It's all sails or no sails, and I'd push for no sails.

But they would still block LOS, correct?

time wizard wrote:But they would still block LOS, correct?

Again I suggest discussing that with your oppent at the same time. Personally no, I would say they wouldn't block LOS, in the same way that wings and banners don't (even functional ones).

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull.

They don't count because we are specifically told to ignore them by the rules.

grendel083 wrote:Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

The only way sails can not be considered hull, is if its in the list I quoted above. Which means you believe it's a decorative element. Correct? In the Raiders fluff the aethersails are described as a functional part of the vehicle, so must be considered hull.

grendel083 wrote:

time wizard wrote:But they would still block LOS, correct?

Again I suggest discussing that with your oppent at the same time. Personally no, I would say they wouldn't block LOS, in the same way that wings and banners don't (even functional ones).

Actually even banners and wings etc. block LoS to things behind the unit with the banner or wings etc..

The rules only tell you to ignore banners, wings, etc. for checking LoS to the model with said item.

my last post in this thread since it seems to be going in circles.

once again, defining sails as decorative is subjective. its interpretation that they fall under the "etc" part of the rule, that includes poles, flags and spikey bits. small insignificant extras.

the amount of visibile surface area, plus the fluff leads me to argue that they are indeed targetable, but will also block los and provide cover for stuff behind.

however my argument remains... its all or none. you cant have some sails counting and others not. an aethersail is an aethersail. if its got extra power or something else making it work better, whatever. its still a sail. its like buying a gold plated fork. yea the gold plated looks nicer, and costs more, but in the end its still a fork, and does the same job as a fork.

personally i could care less if sails count or dont. i just cant stand double standards, as mentioned above. either they all count or they dont. plain and simple.

ToBeWilly wrote:It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

The only way sails can not be considered hull, is if its in the list I quoted above. Which means you believe it's a decorative element. Correct? In the Raiders fluff the aethersails are described as a functional part of the vehicle, so must be considered hull.

Page 56 is measuring distances, page 60 Shooting at Vehicles is the rule you want.

"...gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles etc"

It's not an exhaustive list, they didn't include everything. I'd say sails are defiantly in the "etc".

Edit: totally agree with DarthSpader on the 'all or nothing' point'.

Actually, if you're going to bring fluff into it, then you should know that throughout the entire codex, the only mention of the sails being used at all is under the Enhanced Aethersails entry. With the exception to this being when vehicles come out of a webway portal, which is illegal in the game. All throughout the rest of the fluff, the codex only mentions the sleek design of the vehicles and it's engines. nothing about sails. They are decorative.

Just throwing that out there.

Starless Night wrote:Actually, if you're going to bring fluff into it, then you should know that throughout the entire codex, the only mention of the sails being used at all is under the Enhanced Aethersails entry.

They are actually also mentioned on page 44, third paragraph, the page on raiders.

Not that it contributes anything to the rule debate though.

yeah that's what I mean by the exception. And you're right because it only says that they are used when coming out of webway portals which in the game they cannot do.

ToBeWilly wrote:

grendel083 wrote:There are many functional parts of vehichles that don't count as part of the hull.

They don't count because we are specifically told to ignore them by the rules.

grendel083 wrote:Just because it has an in game function doesn't mean it's targetable.

It is, if it's not "...gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements", BRB, page 56.

The only way sails can not be considered hull, is if its in the list I quoted above. Which means you believe it's a decorative element. Correct? In the Raiders fluff the aethersails are described as a functional part of the vehicle, so must be considered hull.

Aethersails are a functioning (within the game universe) part of the vehicle, as much as tailflaps on a vendetta. Whether they serve a purely steering function, or in some way contribute to propulsion (as the upgrade Enhanced Aethersails seems to indicate) isn't 100% clear, but they're definitely a functional part, not decorative like a banner or trivial like an aerial.

The core rule paraphrased above exempts only gun barrels and decorative bits. Later dozer blades are also exempted. Everything else is "hull" for the purposes of the 5th edition rules. I see nothing there to in any way indicate that a sail would not be hull for rules purposes. It's no more decorative than the rudder or prow, and within the game universe seems more important to the vehicle's functions than the prow, certainly.

Mannahnin wrote:The core rule paraphrased above exempts only gun barrels and decorative bits. Later dozer blades are also exempted. Everything else is "hull" for the purposes of the 5th edition rules. I see nothing there to in any way indicate that a sail would not be hull for rules purposes. It's no more decorative than the rudder or prow, and within the game universe seems more important to the vehicle's functions than the prow, certainly.

The rule paraphrased above is misleading as it's for measuring distances, not shooting at vehichles. The correct rule on page 60 does not exclude gun barrels and decorative bits only.

I'm sorry I just don't hold to the belief that anything not decorative or a barrel is Hull. Keeping bits of wargear like grabbing claws and sails close to the hull (less they be targeted) makes for poor looking models. Let them fly high without punishing their battlefield performance! Be proud of your model and don't let someone blow up your battlewagon because the boarding plank was visible around the building.

The boarding plank is functional, it's wargear, and I would say you can't target it and point you at the correct rule on page 60 where it says "gun barrels, antennas, banners, etc."

Therein lies the problem with the "etc." catchall. It is entirely too subjective.

To some, a boarding plank falls under the "etc" but to another the same boarding plank is part of the hull.

It just adds to some of the things that must be discussed pre-game because there is nothing definitive from GW about what the "etc." covers.

Look at the diagram on page 3 of the main rulebook.

It shows range being measured to a Trukk's hull ignoring the ram on the model. At the time that rulebook was written, the current Ork codex was in print, which has the reinforced ram being an upgrade to the vehicle.

So clearly by the rulebook what is considered a decorative element seems to include pieces of wargear.

The key here IMHO (and has been stated on numerous occasions already) is that you just nee to play it consistently. If a ram/sail, etc is considered part of the hull, then it is considered part of the hull respects.

I personally play that my Deff Rolla is decorative on my Battlewagon, so I ignore it for all game purposes. I would also personally feel the same way about the sail on a Dark Eldar vehicle. Given that it is open-topped, passengers firing from inside the vehicle can draw line of sight from any point on the hull. The idea that line of sight could be drawn from the top of a sail is just ridiculous to me, which is personally why I do not think it can be considered part of the hull. It is a decorative element that could be modeled in any way you want and it should not affect how the vehicle actually plays in the game.

Starless Night wrote:yeah that's what I mean by the exception. And you're right because it only says that they are used when coming out of webway portals which in the game they cannot do.

they can make portals big enough to transport fleets, but these are too big to be put into the game and we can just assume that there's a 30 metre wide portal somewhere behined your deployment zone where they emit thier... aether stuff.

yakface wrote:Given that it is open-topped, passengers firing from inside the vehicle can draw line of sight from any point on the hull. The idea that line of sight could be drawn from the top of a sail is just ridiculous to me, which is personally why I do not think it can be considered part of the hull. It is a decorative element that could be modeled in any way you want and it should not affect how the vehicle actually plays in the game.

well, shooting from the sail might be hard for Orks but I don't think the Dark Eldar would have as much trouble doing so.

And then, to open a can of worms, what if you don't put a sail on your raider? Modeling for advantage?
Or put the sail from your raider on a Venom?

4oursword wrote:And then, to open a can of worms, what if you don't put a sail on your raider? Modeling for advantage?
Or put the sail from your raider on a Venom?

Two Possibilities:

1) If it counts as hull it is modeling for advantage because that way your vehicle has less targetable area.

2) If it doesn't you are only depriving yourself of cover saves so I wouldn't class it as "Modelling for Advantage", it's more like "Modelling for the Opponents Advantage"

Some good points, above.

Excluding bits of wargear and add-ons which are optional to the kit (like boarding planks, grabbin' claws, and dark eldar chains & hooks) makes sense, particularly in light of the dozer blade exception and what Yak pointed out about the measuring diagram & the ram.

There's been a longstanding debate about the deffrolla, and I think most folks see that it works either way, as long as you're consistent. If you count it as hull the orks gain a bit of pivoting distance, but also suffer a longer side arc. Most folks I see ignore the deffrolla.

I'm not convinced that the sail falls into this same category, but I can see how allowing people people to target the tip of it, and passengers to draw LOS from the tip of it, may harm suspension of disbelief. I could see both players agreeing to ignore the sails.

ever try hang gliding with a hole in the sail? what about trying to navigate your sail boat, with a busted up mast/sail? - they are totally "functional"

I concur, but I also see Yak's (and Time Wizard's) point about how counting the sail as hull also leads to somewhat silly things like the troops inside being able to trace LOS from the tippy-top of the sail, and troops being able to disembark from said tippy-top of the sail to the upper floors of buildings.

I think I'm more and more on board with Time Wizard's apprach, from page 1.

Time Wizard wrote:I also play Dark Eldar. And I play that the sails are indeed part of the model. I also play that the prow is also part of the model.

I discuss both of these facts with my opponent before the match and if they have a problem with it I just adjust my strategy.

Each configuration has its plusses and minuses.

The sail is hull so it can be targetted. The sail is hull so I can disembark within 2" of the top of the sail, gaining top floors of most of the ruins I play with.

The prow is part of the hull so I can disembark within 2" of it. The prow is part of the hull so the enemy's weapons can measure range to it.

One thing I insist on is if the sail is part of the hull, then the prow is too.

And conversly if the prow is not part of the hull, then neither is the sail.

I think this is a fair compromise.

early sea-faring pirates did actually mov around via the sails, to maintain rigging, act as lookouts, and otherwise perform some dutys. not so sure about swinging off from it to board other ships, (as i think launch points occured on deck) but utilizing the sail and getting on it did occur, and even on todays larger sail running ships, people need and do get up there to secure riggings and perform other duties. so not entirley unfeasable.

if you want to justify drawing firing LOS from the top of the sail, then "there is a lookout up there pointing out targets" model one of the crew hanging off the top of the sail (not hard)if you really need to, and bingo your done.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes - a deff rolla certainly should be hull.

Darth - the point you are making lacks substance in rules, whereas I am applying them exactly. The rules excludes decorative items. In game the sails have zero function. They are decorative. They are not obviously hull, as would normally be meant by "hull", and so cannot be shot at.

I've always counted the Deff Rolla as hull for embark disembark, and Los shooting purposes.
this is always discussed pre-game and no opponent has ever had an issue wih it, even at 'Ard Boyz.

One of these days, I'll add some bits over the Deff Rolla, but not extending beyond it, to clearly show how da boyz could shoot and disembark front the front of the vehicle.

Think about it, if the Deff Rolla wasn't the front, the Ork player would severely disadvantage himself by taking since it would reduce his or her open-top shooting and dis/embarking advantage. Hell of a trade off for something that might ram something else at some point.

PipeAlley wrote:
One of these days, I'll add some bits over the Deff Rolla, but not extending beyond it, to clearly show how da boyz could shoot and disembark front the front of the vehicle.

I would reckon the orks would have no problem jumping off the moving deffrolla just for kicks!

But again the point is to discuss any model issues with your opponent beforehand.

DarthSpader wrote:early sea-faring pirates did actually mov around via the sails, to maintain rigging, act as lookouts, and otherwise perform some dutys. not so sure about swinging off from it to board other ships, (as i think launch points occured on deck) but utilizing the sail and getting on it did occur, and even on todays larger sail running ships, people need and do get up there to secure riggings and perform other duties. so not entirley unfeasable.

Not just pirates, but of course the crew on every tall ship. Yes, of course, but the real-world sails you're talking about are vastly larger, with literally thousands of feet of of ropes and rigging, which are what they actually climbed. They didn't go up the mainsheet itself. They went up the rigging.

DarthSpader wrote:if you want to justify drawing firing LOS from the top of the sail, then "there is a lookout up there pointing out targets" model one of the crew hanging off the top of the sail (not hard)if you really need to, and bingo your done.

You COULD rationalize it this way, to represent all ten passengers drawing LOS from one guy perched on a rather narrow little point with no crow's nest, crosstrees, or yard arm. But I think that's the option which more people will squint at and go "what?"

Not to mention how difficult it would be to maintain balance taking in account the speed of the raider.

Let's not get too far into fluff; you can fluff-rationalize anything (like with superhuman Eldar dexterity and balance).