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.

cgmckenzie wrote:

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.

This is opinion and has no more bearing on the rules than my dictionary quotations. (at least dictionary quotations can provide a guide as to what something IS) Furthermore, it is an opinion that most every dark eldar player you meet will disagree with....it is their army after all.

Deadshane1 wrote:

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?

Well, you see that really handy picture showing what a real prow looks like? Thats a start.

Still waiting for your rules quote stating it is hull. We've shown you that your arguments are baseless, so all you have left is to either quote out of context (because apparently you have no response to anything else, or maybe its so you can claim, in two or three posts time, that i still havent said "why" its decorative?) or provide a rules quote, for the first time this thread.

Over to you.


Edit: you're still going on about dictionary quotes that prove you wrong? Ingenious. Pretending they say one thing when they say another.
.You are also assuming im not a DE player. Like you assumed Ive never put a raider together. Now, whats that quote about assuming....

They are part of the hull.

They arnt decoration, they serve a distict purpose. Banners dont serve a purpose, prows do. Its part of the vehicle.

If your in range of a dozerblade you can shoot it, it just has access points not in front.

You cannot shoot a dozerblade because it is not hull. It is specifically declared to not be hull by the BGB.

-cgmckenzie

O really

Smitty0305 wrote:They are part of the hull.

They arnt decoration, they serve a distict purpose. Banners dont serve a purpose, prows do. Its part of the vehicle.

If your in range of a dozerblade you can shoot it, it just has access points not in front.

ERm, you may want to check your rulebook. Dozer blades are specifically listed as not shootable at.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

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?

Well, you see that really handy picture showing what a real prow looks like? Thats a start.

Still waiting for your rules quote stating it is hull. We've shown you that your arguments are baseless, so all you have left is to either quote out of context (because apparently you have no response to anything else, or maybe its so you can claim, in two or three posts time, that i still havent said "why" its decorative?) or provide a rules quote, for the first time this thread.

Over to you.

.....and I'm still waiting on your rules quote to say it isnt.


So what you're saying is that you feel that it looks decorative. You site nothing but opinion.

I disagree. I feel that it is indeed part of the hull. Firstly, due to the model being totally incomplete w/o the prow 'bit'. Unlike a model that can have a dozerblade. Same as the front "wings" of a devilfish still count as hull. Why? B/c I have a rudimentary knowledge of ship building/anatomy, and I know what a "prow" is. Also....you've got tournament players across the country disagreeing with you.

But you play your way. I'll continue playing 40k.


EDIT

Oh, and b4 someone says a LR demolisher is incomplete w/o the Demolisher cannon. (which isnt hull either) I will state the obvious.

A cannon barrel is not an extension of the ship's hull. It is a gun barrel, obviously. The prow 'bit' has no referance in the rules whatsoever. It is simply part of the model. If you dont glue it on there is a big gaping hole in the front part of the hull waiting for you to connect the rest of it.

@DS

You are an idiot.

Why are you arguing this point here. It's pretty obvious how this is supposed to be played, I know you've been to tournament and we both know how it's played when people who "know" 40k are playing a game.

Everybody who plays 40k "for real" or "professionally" plays it the right way, the way you're explaining it.

Quite arguing with the obtuse.

Personal attacks like this are unacceptable on DakkaDakka. ~Manchu

Beerfart wrote:@DS

You are an idiot.

Why are you arguing this point here. It's pretty obvious how this is supposed to be played, I know you've been to tournament and we both know how it's played when people who "know" 40k are playing a game.

Everybody who plays 40k "for real" or "professionally" plays it the right way, the way you're explaining it.

Quite arguing with the obtuse.

@Beerfart

Just trying to teach the kids b4 they run into problems with peeps that play occasionally.

Useful contribution beerfart. Read the tenets recently?

Deadshane - and you have tournament players from a different country disagreeing with you.

And yes, yet again you fall back on the "it isnt complete without it so it must be hull!!!" non-argument. For the nth time: that argument is wrong.

Deadshane not getting it wrote:If you dont glue it on there is a big gaping hole in the front part of the hull waiting for you to connect the rest of it.

What, you mean the same as a hull mounted heavy bolter on a chimera chassis leaves a big gaping hole if you dont glue it on? Does that make it part of the hull now?

Can you not see that problems with that argument? Really?

The shock prow is most likely part of the hull if the original pokey bit it replaces is part of the hull. Pretty sure that bit is not a weapon or decorative

The pointed bit it replaces is NOT a vehicle upgrade and is part of th hull, completely unlike the dozer blade which is replacing nothing on the model and is a completely new add on piece to the vehicle. The shock prow is like less than a fifth of an inch in difference than the standard hull bit.

I really see no reason to argue over this, counting it as part of the hull has so many draw backs i see it as pointless to want it this way (guns are technicly further away as you can only start the hock prow 12" on and no more, bigger model to shoot at, you dont even get bonus disembarking as you started no more than 12" on anyway). If everone here is so worried about it at the start of the game say to your opponent im counting this as part of the hull if they disagree take it like a man and say ok thats fine.

blaktoof wrote:The shock prow is most likely part of the hull if the original pokey bit it replaces is part of the hull. Pretty sure that bit is not a weapon or decorative

The pointed bit it replaces is NOT a vehicle upgrade and is part of th hull, completely unlike the dozer blade which is replacing nothing on the model and is a completely new add on piece to the vehicle. The shock prow is like less than a fifth of an inch in difference than the standard hull bit.

Are the spiky blades underneath also hull?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And yes, yet again you fall back on the "it isnt complete without it so it must be hull!!!" non-argument. For the nth time: that argument is wrong.

At least I have an arguement.

All you cite is opinion with no basis within the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

And yes, yet again you fall back on the "it isnt complete without it so it must be hull!!!" non-argument. For the nth time: that argument is wrong.

Why is that argument wrong? you have never cited a single rule for god's sake....

Nos, for the last time. Answer the question i have been asking you from the start.

"Why exactly does the prow NOT count as the hull, what exact text are you using to justify your opinion?

You still haven't answered the question, all you do is mindlessly repeat your opinion and bathe in your own superiority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

theonetyrant wrote:I really see no reason to argue over this, counting it as part of the hull has so many draw backs i see it as pointless to want it this way (guns are technicly further away as you can only start the hock prow 12" on and no more, bigger model to shoot at, you dont even get bonus disembarking as you started no more than 12" on anyway). If everone here is so worried about it at the start of the game say to your opponent im counting this as part of the hull if they disagree take it like a man and say ok thats fine.

Exactly, it is actually bad for competative dark eldar players (like myself) but it is nonetheless true. It enables one to be shot much, much easier.

Why is it wrong?

Apparently you've not read any of the last few posts? Just a blank "i dont understand"?

The argument the prow-is-hull side is proposing is: the part is HULL because the model would be incomplete without it. [as in, there is a hole in the model]

Proof that the argument is wrong, by contradiction: a hull heavy bolter for a chimera is hull because without it the model is incomplete (there is a gaping hole - the EXACT rationale used for the prow) - except guns are defined in the rules as not-hull

Your argument leads to a contradiction, and is therefore wrong. Can you at last finally understand that point? If you dont understand the argument, can you at least show some comprehension of the point?

And what exact text am I using? The definition of decorative in the rulebook. How is something you buy as an addition an essential part of the hull? How is it any less decorative (as in, no functional purpose) than a dozer blade?

Where is your RULES text proving it is hull? Page and paragraph. Note - an irrelevant dictionary quote that applies to sailing ships, not 41st millennium skimming antigravity craft, doesnt count.

The BRB never describes Dozer Blades as decorative.

It just lumps them into a list that ends with "and other decorative elements". Decorative or not, they still don't count for measurements.

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why is it wrong?

Apparently you've not read any of the last few posts? Just a blank "i dont understand"?

Again, i understand exactly what your argument is, and it is my attempt to show you why it is wrong. You still have the fundamental misunderstanding that because someone disagrees with you it somehow means they fail to comprehend....

nosferatu1001 wrote:The argument the prow-is-hull side is proposing is: the part is HULL because the model would be incomplete without it. [as in, there is a hole in the model]

Proof that the argument is wrong, by contradiction: a hull heavy bolter for a chimera is hull because without it the model is incomplete (there is a gaping hole - the EXACT rationale used for the prow) - except guns are defined in the rules as not-hull

You are still using the same terrible example of weapons. A PROW IS NOT A WEAPON. it is an entirely different rule debate. Your continued use of this example only proves you don'yt understand the debate being had.
What you need to prove your argument correct is to show how the prow is specifically decorative, which you have not done whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Your argument leads to a contradiction, and is therefore wrong. Can you at last finally understand that point? If you dont understand the argument, can you at least show some comprehension of the point?

And what exact text am I using? The definition of decorative in the rulebook. How is something you buy as an addition an essential part of the hull? How is it any less decorative (as in, no functional purpose) than a dozer blade?

Because the shockprow is an upgrade to the existing prow on a raider. The prow of a dark eldar raider is clearly a continuation of the "spine" of the vehicle itself. Do you see the ribbed spine continue into the formed "arrowhead" of the prow? That is clearly hull. A dozerblade is simple a piece of wargear glued to the front end of a rhino. As it was said above, NOT having the prow would be using an incomplete model, ergo, modeling for advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Where is your RULES text proving it is hull? Page and paragraph. Note - an irrelevant dictionary quote that applies to sailing ships, not 41st millennium skimming antigravity craft, doesnt count.

It's funny, you still haven't answered my question but simply ask the same one to me. I will answer it because it seems you are unable to.

Page 60 says " when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles). "

So, the prow falls into two catagories... one being hull, as an essential part of the vehicle, and the other "gun barrels, antennas, or decorative banner poles". Can you honestly say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the prow honestly is in the same category as antennas ? If so then there is no sense continuing this discussion.

Now, lets see you pull some rules out yourself, or will i have to do that for you too?

nights blood wrote:You are still using the same terrible example of weapons. A PROW IS NOT A WEAPON. it is an entirely different rule debate. Your continued use of this example only proves you don'yt understand the debate being had.
What you need to prove your argument correct is to show how the prow is specifically decorative, which you have not done whatsoever.

Sigh.

Thats the whole point. You cannot use an argument that relies on "any incomplete part of the model makes that incomplete part hull" when weapons exist, as they act as a contradiction. So no, you dont comprehend.

Im proving YOU are wrong, not that I am right. Subtle difference. Showing YOUR argument leads to a contradiction, making it a useless argument.

Respond to the entirety of my post.

But pg 56 BGB says "Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners, and other decorative elements)."

I would say that the shock prow falls into the same category of dozer blades/deff rollas/siege shields. Antennas happen to be in that category as well, but so do banners, guns, and fiddly bits.

Aesthetically and usefully, the shock prow is the skimmer version of a deff rolla(damage stuff in front of it while looking like an ice breaker, the bull dozer of the sea). That fact that it looks and behaves similarly to other items that fall into the lump 'not hull' category tells me that it isn't hull.

-cgmckenzie

But the problem is that though dozer blades are specifically mentioned, siege shields, deffrollas and shock prows are not.

This is one of those areas where there is an opinion on two sides of what the shock prow is. (or indeed the regular 'prow' on the front of raiders and ravagers for that matter)

Nosferatu maintains that the prow and shock prow are decorative elements.

Others maintain that they are part of the hull.

Neither are wrong.

I play Dark Eldar. My regular opponent and I have house ruled that the prow is part of the hull, so LOS and ranges can be drawn to it. That's the disadvantage.

But my passengers can disembark within 2" of it. That's the advantage.

You aren't going to find anything in writing that says definitively whether it is or is not part of the hull.

But, of sourse, that's just my opinion.

Deff Rollas are dozer blades for orks(more or less), while siege shields are dozer blades for SM(again, more or less). It's not perfect but its the best precedent that I have for deciding where the shock prow fits into the game.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Deff Rollas are dozer blades for orks(more or less), while siege shields are dozer blades for SM(again, more or less). It's not perfect but its the best precedent that I have for deciding where the shock prow fits into the game.

-cgmckenzie

cgm

Not trying to be sarcastic but honest here.
there are two types of prows
there is the normal prow of the dark eldar raider, which is simply a piece of plastic on the end.

And the wargear option shockprow, which allows skimmers to tankshock.

The normal prow is clearly hull, but i understand the conflict of whether the shockprow indeed counts as hull, as it might fall into the "dozerblade" category.

Nights blood - I tried doing so previously, and you would then ignore parts of my post you wanted to ignore, and respond to others with irrelevancies. So, to make it simpler, I'm going to try you with one point at a time.

Can you finally admit the "its not complete without X therefore X must be hull" argument is bunk? Given I have proven it is wrong (proof by contradiction) you cannot hang any argument that prow == hull based on that argument. You simply cannot do so, without acnowledging your lack of an argument at the very least.

Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

So - nights blood - two things for you to properly respond to.

time wizard wrote:But the problem is that though dozer blades are specifically mentioned, siege shields, deffrollas and shock prows are not.

This is one of those areas where there is an opinion on two sides of what the shock prow is. (or indeed the regular 'prow' on the front of raiders and ravagers for that matter)

Nosferatu maintains that the prow and shock prow are decorative elements.

Others maintain that they are part of the hull.

Neither are wrong.

I play Dark Eldar. My regular opponent and I have house ruled that the prow is part of the hull, so LOS and ranges can be drawn to it. That's the disadvantage.

But my passengers can disembark within 2" of it. That's the advantage.

You aren't going to find anything in writing that says definitively whether it is or is not part of the hull.

But, of sourse, that's just my opinion.

Good synopsis. I hope this can clarify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nights blood - I tried doing so previously, and you would then ignore parts of my post you wanted to ignore, and respond to others with irrelevancies. So, to make it simpler, I'm going to try you with one point at a time.

Can you finally admit the "its not complete without X therefore X must be hull" argument is bunk? Given I have proven it is wrong (proof by contradiction) you cannot hang any argument that prow == hull based on that argument. You simply cannot do so, without acnowledging your lack of an argument at the very least.

Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

So - nights blood - two things for you to properly respond to.

I literally responded to every letter of the previous post, yet you continue to be unable to answer any of the questions raised.

time wizard wrote:But the problem is that though dozer blades are specifically mentioned, siege shields, deffrollas and shock prows are not.

This is one of those areas where there is an opinion on two sides of what the shock prow is. (or indeed the regular 'prow' on the front of raiders and ravagers for that matter)

Nosferatu maintains that the prow and shock prow are decorative elements.

Others maintain that they are part of the hull.

Neither are wrong.

I play Dark Eldar. My regular opponent and I have house ruled that the prow is part of the hull, so LOS and ranges can be drawn to it. That's the disadvantage.

But my passengers can disembark within 2" of it. That's the advantage.

You aren't going to find anything in writing that says definitively whether it is or is not part of the hull.

But, of sourse, that's just my opinion.

This.

Comon guys, neither side has any conclusive evidence to provide. One side thinks it appears decorative, another side thinks it looks like part of the hull. There are no hard rules on how to tell what is non-hull and what is hull, so just work it out in your own games and stop beating this horse to a bloody smear on the ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

In your opinion. That's all you have, is an opinion. Stop trying to browbeat people who don't see it the same way you do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Time - it falls into "does the vehicle look like it could do without it" as far as decoration goes. That is what theyre getting at.

No it cannot do without it. W/o the prow peice, the Raider's aerodynamic sillouette appears compromised and incomplete. Hence it would not function optimally for a Dark Eldar Vehicle. (one can easilly and logically assume) If you are to veiw the raider without the prow bit, there is obviously a grotesque ommission in the vehicular body and streamlined aircraft-like shape.

You can do without the shock prow as, unlike its SHIP ancestors it does not form an actual part of the enclosure of the hull. Making it decorative. Meaning it is ignored.

We are both trying to figure out where you're coming up with this assumption.

Nights blood - no, no you didnt. You took the painfully obvious point that it was a weapon, which was the entire point of the proof, and somehow decided this was a revelatory thing. It wasnt. it was the point of the proof. It proves the argument has no rational basis.

You have yet to respond to this in any meaningful way. Until you do, there is no point continuing, as this is your only "proof" that it counts as hull.