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.

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

3+ cover.

Question: A (guard) player in my area stated you can't draw LOS to wargear, and that weapons, turrets and other such things aren't considered hull. Is this a load of bull or real, as it might be relevant.

Extra example: Shooting a dread, you can only see the rear of one arm, can't see dread or can?

turrent count as a part of the hull it says so on pg 60 however smoke launchers search lights and the like do not count

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.

There is if you are higher than the target vehicle, because GW defines the rear of the vehicle as a quadrant which extends over the roof, halfway to the front.



Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.

This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.

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

How is this taking 4 pages to understand?

It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.

The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.

So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...

FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?

It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.

The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.

So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...

and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.

Bishop99 wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?

It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.

The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.

So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...

and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.

...and you're wrong.

augustus5 wrote:

Bishop99 wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?

It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.

The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.

So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...

and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.

...and you're wrong.

care to explain or am i just wrong caue you say so

You determine what side of the vehicle you are shooting at by which one you are facing, as per the diagram in the rulebook.

If I'm shooting another razorback with a razorback head on, front facing front, yet can only see the rear of the enemy razorback due to obscurement, I'm still hitting front armor but my opponent now has a 3+ save. Shots don't curve, they move straight.

augustus5 wrote:

Bishop99 wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?

It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.

The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.

So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...

and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.

...and you're wrong.

How? Explain how a turret in the rear arc is not in the rear arc.

Because you are seeing it from the front arc....

Its not difficult.

What? By that logic you don't get a 3+ cover save from not seeing the arc you are in like the example given in the rulebook. The rules state that if you are shooting at the front arc for example and only see the side then you use the side armour value and the vehicle is granted a 3+ save. This is the same with the front and rear arcs.

Edit: Here is what the rulebook says word for word.

It may rarely happen that he firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side, or rear), but they can still see a facing of the target vehicle. In this case they can take a shot against the facing they can see, but to represent an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because you are seeing it from the front arc....

Its not difficult.

i would refer you to my car example

Bishop99 wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

Bishop99 wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?

It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.

The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.

So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...

and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.

...and you're wrong.

care to explain or am i just wrong caue you say so

Read my older posts. They explain my point pretty clearly.

How? Explain how a turret in the rear arc is not in the rear arc.

The turret is not in any arc. The diagram on page 60 is for determining the arc that the firer is in.

augustus5 wrote:

Bishop99 wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

Bishop99 wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:How is this taking 4 pages to understand?

It is either 4+ cover or no shot available.

The 3+ cover specifically covers you shooting at a facing you are not in. The Turret doesn't have its own specific facing and no associated armour value so you can't shoot at the Turret facing as only front, rear and side have armour values.

So can we shoot at the turret? Page 60 says yes we can...

and im saying since the turrent in is located in the area of the back armour value that where you ar shooting which is not the one you are facing.

...and you're wrong.

care to explain or am i just wrong caue you say so

Read my older posts. They explain my point pretty clearly.

How? Explain how a turret in the rear arc is not in the rear arc.

The turret is not in any arc. The diagram on page 60 is for determining the arc that the firer is in.

Yeah, say the firer is in the front arc. They don't see anything in the front arc for whatever reason. What they can see is part of the rear arc. You then use the rules on page 62 about what happens when you don't see the arc you are in but you see another arc.

If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear of a razorback (Since it does not have any clear windows). Unless you are playing on a board with a lot of mirrors.

Get down at a models eye level, and look at the front facing of the Razorback, anything that is facing front is the front facing. This includes the turret as noted on Page 60. Same goes for the side and rear facings.

What? Then what are the arcs for then? They separate the different sides of the vehicle. If anything that is facing the front counts as being in the front arc as you say then that means side sponsons and stuff are front armour too?

DeathReaper wrote:If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear of a razorback (Since it does not have any clear windows). Unless you are playing on a board with a lot of mirrors.

Get down at a models eye level, and look at the front facing of the Razorback, anything that is facing front is the front facing. This includes the turret as noted on Page 60. Same goes for the side and rear facings.

Kilkrazy wrote:


Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.

This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.

BoyMac wrote:What? Then what are the arcs for then? They separate the different sides of the vehicle. If anything that is facing the front counts as being in the front arc as you say then that means side sponsons and stuff are front armour too?

The arcs do not separate the vehicle at all. In fact, the only reason why the lines are drawn through the vehicle from corner to corner is to establish the angle of the firer's facing. Look at the picture on page 60 and try to ignore the lines drawn over the vehicle and just look at the lines radiating out from the corners.

augustus5 wrote:

BoyMac wrote:What? Then what are the arcs for then? They separate the different sides of the vehicle. If anything that is facing the front counts as being in the front arc as you say then that means side sponsons and stuff are front armour too?

The arcs do not separate the vehicle at all. In fact, the only reason why the lines are drawn through the vehicle from corner to corner is to establish the angle of the firer's facing. Look at the picture on page 60 and try to ignore the lines drawn over the vehicle and just look at the lines radiating out from the corners.

Incorrect those lines also establish the AV of where you are shooting and since he can not see anything in the front AV its a 3+ cover save

okay I guess this discussion changed again, now the claim is the turret is in the back of the vehicle, so it must be the rear facing? I would be so pumped to play it this way and get loads of AV 10 rear armor shots if it wasn't ridiculous.

I don't even know where to begin...augustus is partially correct, there is no precedent to state features appearing in on top of the vehicle belong to the front, rear or side arcs.

It is patently ridiculous to assume you get to fire at the rear armor with a 3+ save.

calypso2ts wrote:okay I guess this discussion changed again, now the claim is the turret is in the back of the vehicle, so it must be the rear facing? I would be so pumped to play it this way and get loads of AV 10 rear armor shots if it wasn't ridiculous.

I don't even know where to begin...augustus is partially correct, there is no precedent to state features appearing in on top of the vehicle belong to the front, rear or side arcs.

It is patently ridiculous to assume you get to fire at the rear armor with a 3+ save.

not saying you get the rear armour value. what we are saying is that sense its in the rear of the tank and its the only thing you can see you are shooting at another arc of the tank and thats the qualifier for the 3+ save

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear of a razorback (Since it does not have any clear windows). Unless you are playing on a board with a lot of mirrors.

Get down at a models eye level, and look at the front facing of the Razorback, anything that is facing front is the front facing. This includes the turret as noted on Page 60. Same goes for the side and rear facings.

Kilkrazy wrote:


Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.

This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.

I was referring to the rear facing.

If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear facing of a razorback.

In the diagram above the top arrow can not see the rear facing of the vehicle.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.

This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.

This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.

Imagine the wall is higher, so as to obscure the front half of the hull. You could still see the back half. The wall could be a Predator.

This is definitely possible considering the presence of hills and other elevations on the table.

DeathReaper wrote:

I was referring to the rear facing.

If you are in the front arc, you can not possibly see the rear facing of a razorback.

In the diagram above the top arrow can not see the rear facing of the vehicle.

Another quick drawing for you.

augustus5 wrote:

BoyMac wrote:What? Then what are the arcs for then? They separate the different sides of the vehicle. If anything that is facing the front counts as being in the front arc as you say then that means side sponsons and stuff are front armour too?

The arcs do not separate the vehicle at all. In fact, the only reason why the lines are drawn through the vehicle from corner to corner is to establish the angle of the firer's facing. Look at the picture on page 60 and try to ignore the lines drawn over the vehicle and just look at the lines radiating out from the corners.

No. Stop making up rules. The book clearly states otherwise. This thread has gone from question to stupid.

See the above image. For those whom it doesn't make sense, please go to sleep and after you wake up tomorrow try reading all this again.

4+.

Unless the "turret" is hidden away also it is not possible to get a 3+.

CageUF wrote:4+.

Unless the "turret" is hidden away also it is not possible to get a 3+.

it is possible to get a three plus if the facing your in s completle obscured but you can still see another facing

CageUF wrote:4+.

Unless the "turret" is hidden away also it is not possible to get a 3+.

Please don't reply unless you have read the points we have tried to make...and the rulebook...you can get a 3+. Goto pg 62 in the rulebook.

Anyways I'm still confused. Everyone is stating one thing or another. Saying this and that. No one is quoting anything concrete from the rulebook that can sway my question to a for sure to one side or the other. Everyone says a pg or quotes something and then I point out another page or something in the rulebook that contradicts it. (Goto page 3 of this topic to read my post) Then everyone goes about explaining the same thing.

I highly doubt like a lot of people are saying that whatever you see when you get down to the models level from the front is the "front" of the vehicle. Obviously this is not true as if the front quadrant is obscured completely and you see only the side but you are in the front quadrant you get the coveted 3+ cover save. So no, just being in front of the vehicle does not designate "what you see" as the front quadrant. It's not that simple. The picture on p60 shows what the quadrants of a vehicle are divided into.

I'm done with repeating myself, and I'm sure everyone here who is trying to get their point across is too. I have no sided with any side and remained neutral trying to understand both sides. I agree and disagree with both sides with a few things. BOTH sides seem right up to a point, then they seem wrong because of something else in the rulebook. (Like I said before read my long post on page 3 of this topic if you want to see what I mean. I don't want to repeat the entire thing)

I have come to the conclusion there is no concrete 100% answer to this in the rulebook. If you think there is and that I am wrong, then read what I said on p3 of this thread, quote me in the rulebook where you can answer my question without obscuring words or any "grey areas" that can be interpreted otherwise. There is nothing I have read from either side, or any page quoted from the rulebook or any other similar thread linked here that has pushed me into being confident in this ruling to the fullest. I guess I will just interpret it with my opponent at the beginning of the game and see what they think, and resolve to roll-offs if we can't decide.

How is there no concrete answer in the rulebook? Page 60 tells you what part of the tank is what. Front is front, side is side and rear is rear. It is based on sections of the tank, not what direction parts sticking out are facing...