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.

From the BRB, on Walkers:

When firing at a Walker, work out which of its Armour Values to use as you would for any other vehicle, based on the position of its body compared to the model firing at it.

From the BRB, on Vehicles:

To see what facing a shot is coming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).

The diagram shows us a good old Predator whose guns have been ignored for the sake of drawing a rectangle.

If we do the same with an Imperial Knight, we get this:




Is this correct ?

Looks about right.

For simplicity you can assume 90* on all facings for most 40K vehicles.

It is the usual take on things and i have yet to meet a Dark Eldar player who follows the Rule you posted to do Arcs and a picture of those rather than a Predator would be surprising for a lot of players.

So, back to the Imperial knight: The best method is to place a Codex, or A4 paper corner on the central spot. That's your front/rear arc and is usually big enough to measure from

 BlackTalos wrote:
For simplicity you can assume 90* on all facings for most 40K vehicles.

It is the usual take on things and i have yet to meet a Dark Eldar player who follows the Rule you posted to do Arcs and a picture of those rather than a Predator would be surprising for a lot of players.

So, back to the Imperial knight: The best method is to place a Codex, or A4 paper corner on the central spot. That's your front/rear arc and is usually big enough to measure from

That sounds like a house rule to me.
I don't think I can count on it being enforced in tournaments and all that.

morgoth wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
For simplicity you can assume 90* on all facings for most 40K vehicles.

It is the usual take on things and i have yet to meet a Dark Eldar player who follows the Rule you posted to do Arcs and a picture of those rather than a Predator would be surprising for a lot of players.

So, back to the Imperial knight: The best method is to place a Codex, or A4 paper corner on the central spot. That's your front/rear arc and is usually big enough to measure from

That sounds like a house rule to me.
I don't think I can count on it being enforced in tournaments and all that.

Your arbitrary lines are also a house rule, as the Knight does not have any defined corners.

The rules get even more screwed up with the Necron flyers...

So taking 90* "always" is fast, reliable, and probably accepted in Tournaments but i cannot say i attend many...

Can anyone here say whether they've face DE with non-90* Facings? (or other vehicles with no corners)

 DeathReaper wrote:

Your arbitrary lines are also a house rule, as the Knight does not have any defined corners.

The rules get even more screwed up with the Necron flyers...

My lines are not arbitrary, they follow the BRB word for word.

"draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle" Is the Rule.

The picture of the Predator below shows the lines going through the corners:



Where are points A B C and D in your Picture?

Morgoth,
Oval bases do not have corners, nor do Vehicles which are designed around an oval instead of a square, so you drew a box around the Model and measured from those corners instead....
Where in the Rules does it state to do that?

morgoth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Your arbitrary lines are also a house rule, as the Knight does not have any defined corners.

The rules get even more screwed up with the Necron flyers...

My lines are not arbitrary, they follow the BRB word for word.

Except it appears that your lines should go behind the smoke stacks.

You have made a generic diagram that fits 90% of the situations.

Alright, so instead of taking a reasonable interpretation of the picture in the BRB, you advocate "feth it, let's say 90º everywhere" ?

At least my interpretation respects the meaning of the BRB, whereas blanket 90º does not.

That being said, since no corners can be determined, do you suggest that RAW there is no way to determine facing ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Except it appears that your lines should go behind the smoke stacks.

You have made a generic diagram that fits 90% of the situations.

Could you elaborate ? what you wrote does not make any sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All in all, I think it's very clear: there are three options:

1. Follow the BRB into the abyss: some models don't have corners, therefore they have no facings and every facing is in a quantum state of front/rear/side, roll a D6 to figure out which state was observed when the shot impacted.

2. Follow the BRB example and extend it to models that don't have corners, as I did here.

3. Ignore the BRB entirely and say every model that has no corners is square, because whatever who cares anyway.


I think I'll just pick 2 every time, feel free to disagree.

morgoth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Your arbitrary lines are also a house rule, as the Knight does not have any defined corners.

The rules get even more screwed up with the Necron flyers...

My lines are not arbitrary, they follow the BRB word for word.

The above contradicts your post below. (The underlined)

morgoth wrote:
That being said, since no corners can be determined, do you suggest that RAW there is no way to determine facing ?

So yes, your lines are arbitrary as "no corners can be determined"

And yes, there is no real way to determine facing on a vehicle without corners.

So the players will have to work it out themselves.

 DeathReaper wrote:

And yes, there is no real way to determine facing on a vehicle without corners.

So the players will have to work it out themselves.

Then we can move to step 2: is there any reasonable reason my approach should not be adopted as a standard ?

morgoth wrote:
is there any reasonable reason my approach should not be adopted as a standard ?

Because every player will have a bit of a different Interpretation on the facing of a non cornered vehicle.

especially with a model like this:

Morgoth,
Very much against your version being a 'universal Rule' that all players have to accept without question. Simply put: you are not the Author and do not have permission to ever request something like that. There is so much more I could say on even making such a request, but I will be polite and leave it off this board entirely. This I will state though; if anyone out there ever believes my words on this board should ever be considered higher then anything written in the book, or anyone else's opinion, please leave this board and never read anything I ever post again.

The Authors have Written a Rule in their book that is not really discussed often here, that two opponents will have the final say in how the Rule is resolved, and that is the only support I will give for 'Broken Rules.'

 DeathReaper wrote:

morgoth wrote:
is there any reasonable reason my approach should not be adopted as a standard ?

Because every player will have a bit of a different Interpretation on the facing of a non cornered vehicle.

especially with a model like this:

It's easy. There's a sqare bounding box and the front matches the front of the model.

I don't see how anyone could be confused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Morgoth,
Very much against your version being a 'universal Rule' that all players have to accept without question. Simply put: you are not the Author and do not have permission to ever request something like that. There is so much more I could say on even making such a request, but I will be polite and leave it off this board entirely. This I will state though; if anyone out there ever believes my words on this board should ever be considered higher then anything written in the book, or anyone else's opinion, please leave this board and never read anything I ever post again.

The Authors have Written a Rule in their book that is not really discussed often here, that two opponents will have the final say in how the Rule is resolved, and that is the only support I will give for 'Broken Rules.'

Ok, so you're very much against a solution to the problem.

I'm asking if there's any reasonable objection to picking the logical approach. Not my approach, just the logical one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either way, this is YMDC. The conclusion is that RAW, no facing can be determined on non-rectangular models.

My bad, I was looking for solutions in the wrong place again.

morgoth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

morgoth wrote:
is there any reasonable reason my approach should not be adopted as a standard ?

Because every player will have a bit of a different Interpretation on the facing of a non cornered vehicle.

especially with a model like this:

It's easy. There's a sqare bounding box and the front matches the front of the model.

I don't see how anyone could be confused.

Because the model (Not the bounding box) is not square and has no corners.

Do you have rules that say to use the "bounding box" if the model is circular?

I would love to see that citation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

morgoth wrote:
is there any reasonable reason my approach should not be adopted as a standard ?

Because every player will have a bit of a different Interpretation on the facing of a non cornered vehicle.

especially with a model like this:

It's easy. There's a sqare bounding box and the front matches the front of the model.

I don't see how anyone could be confused.

Because the model (Not the bounding box) is not square and has no corners.

Do you have rules that say to use the "bounding box" if the model is circular?

I would love to see that citation.

And I would love to see you offer an exceptable alternative, if the proposed method doesn't work for you. Its easy to punch holes in ither people's solutions, especially when you don't provide a solution of your own.

SJ

jeffersonian000, considering there is no RAW solution, it makes sense that I do not have a solution of my own.

How would I play it is one thing, but I have no RAW solution, because there is no RAW solution.

Morgoth,
Your mistake is an unwillingness to accept that your personal solution is just a House Rule.
As proven by your refusal to flag it as such, requests that we all agree that you are correct and accusations that we are 'part of the problem' should we point out there is no Rule Support.

As there is no RaW on this, as DeathReaper says, I suggested using a 90* House Rule.

Only because everyone has a codex, and holding it on top of your vehicles is ever so simple.

Morgoth, here is an example of what Fragile & Deathreaper suggested:

You will notice how i "Chose" Corners A B C and D.
A) your picture did not do so.
B) There is no way of doing this for the Picture DeathReaper posted (Necron Flyers)

My solution works in every case, for every vehicle, respects the intent of the rule (i.e. taking the vehicle shape into account), is fair and complies with how video games treat facings and armor values.

I'm fine with that.

morgoth wrote:
My solution works in every case, for every vehicle, respects the intent of the rule (i.e. taking the vehicle shape into account), is fair and complies with how video games treat facings and armor values.

I'm fine with that.

But your solution is still a house rule and not RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But your solution is still a house rule and not RAW.

RAW don't work for vehicles that don't have corners. So... yeah, you have to houserule it to make the game function.

 DeathReaper wrote:

morgoth wrote:
My solution works in every case, for every vehicle, respects the intent of the rule (i.e. taking the vehicle shape into account), is fair and complies with how video games treat facings and armor values.

I'm fine with that.

But your solution is still a house rule and not RAW.

So its an illegal model and cant be used in games? No KNIGHT for you!

 DeathReaper wrote:

morgoth wrote:
My solution works in every case, for every vehicle, respects the intent of the rule (i.e. taking the vehicle shape into account), is fair and complies with how video games treat facings and armor values.

I'm fine with that.

But your solution is still a house rule and not RAW.

And unless you can offer a better house rule or a usable RAW interpretation, I'll consider my solution as both RAI and the best there is.

Thanks for your contribution though.

 DeathReaper wrote:

morgoth wrote:
is there any reasonable reason my approach should not be adopted as a standard ?

Because every player will have a bit of a different Interpretation on the facing of a non cornered vehicle.

especially with a model like this:

I don't see the issue there. You ignore wings, which seems to be the majority of the model. With that information, are you still unsure where to draw the lines?

@Morgoth: Your ruling is fine. Ignore the people giving you a hard time.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

morgoth wrote:
is there any reasonable reason my approach should not be adopted as a standard ?

Because every player will have a bit of a different Interpretation on the facing of a non cornered vehicle.

especially with a model like this:

I don't see the issue there. You ignore wings, which seems to be the majority of the model. With that information, are you still unsure where to draw the lines?

@Morgoth: Your ruling is fine. Ignore the people giving you a hard time.

Why do you ignore wings?

Because the book says to?

No it doesn't. You ignore wings on monstrous creatures not flyers.