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.

Agreed. Over fluffing tends to make people question the practicality of rules and start questioning things too much. As the answer to the OP has been given in spades, recommend this thread ends. If people want to talk about Fluff for a certain race or vehicle we can start a new thread....hmmmm. Starting new thread now....

Agreed. Still I can see Death-Rolla Jumping as a new national sport for orks, right before the Gnasher-Squig eating contests.

Ork Olympics anyone?

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

As supernatural as it may be... balancing on a SAIL...

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.

You have left out etc. The actual hull of the Raider is the deck and plating on the side. The sail is not a part of the hull, so therfore it's not targetable.

Saying it is targetable is like saying "Since I can see the head on your Defiler, I can draw LoS to it." If you really aren't sure, consult your opponent, or in a tournament, ask an official before you start playing.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

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.

You have left out etc. The actual hull of the Raider is the deck and plating on the side. The sail is not a part of the hull, so therfore it's not targetable.

Saying it is targetable is like saying "Since I can see the head on your Defiler, I can draw LoS to it." If you really aren't sure, consult your opponent, or in a tournament, ask an official before you start playing.

Can you point to a rule showing what GW means by "etc." or that only the "deck and plating" are hull? No. which is where this debate stems from. Also, if I can see the head of your defiler, why can't I shoot it? It'll get a cover save, but we have no idea, what GW means by "etc."

Happyjew wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

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.

You have left out etc. The actual hull of the Raider is the deck and plating on the side. The sail is not a part of the hull, so therfore it's not targetable.

Saying it is targetable is like saying "Since I can see the head on your Defiler, I can draw LoS to it." If you really aren't sure, consult your opponent, or in a tournament, ask an official before you start playing.

Can you point to a rule showing what GW means by "etc." or that only the "deck and plating" are hull? No. which is where this debate stems from. Also, if I can see the head of your defiler, why can't I shoot it? It'll get a cover save, but we have no idea, what GW means by "etc."

There is something to be said for judgement. I judge the sails as not part of the hull, but other people may.

As I said, discuss it with your opponent and tournament officials before playing so that you are completely clear.

i dunno. im of the opinion that the sails, regardless of size are functional. even in small sailboats if your sail or mast or any part of that is busted, warped bet, has holes, etc your generally not going anywhere, and if you do manage any kind of momentum, good luck actually going where you want. and we use sails on tiny 4 person craft to gigantic yachts. (bluenose if your in canada)

additonally, the way the model is build it looks like the steersman is controlling the sail and the rudder. therefore you could assume that the sails and rudder allow and help the thing steer and otherwise navigate.

that would seem to me to indicate it is definitly "functional" and has in game effects, (your raider can turn after all), and should be targetable. obviously cover applies, and if all you can see is the sail, i would almost argue for the 3+ in that you cant see an actual 'facing' as such. as for LOS, like i said..the kit has passengers hanging off the sides, why not one perched on the mast or swining around by chains attached to the top of it? - hell put a targeting lense or something up there as a "lookout camera". or whatever. as for disembarking... well you loose alot trying to disembark from the sail, unless your going onto upper floors of buildings. but again, these guys are eldar pirates, who are known for agility and speed. not hard to believe they would have ropes or something to effect the move.

i guess in the end my opinion is that they are not decorative under the "etc" for the above and all the reasons i posted earlier. and the enhanced version is "definitly targetable" even nos said that. so why arent the normal ones? they have the same surface area, and do the same thing. there is also no entry that states wargear with effects are valid targets. look at dozer blades, hunter killers, search lights, rams, and so on. they are all wargear with effects, with varrying rules regarding targeting. aside from the deffrolla (wich i think is FAQ to be hull but i may be wrong) most are not targetable.

but yea i think we are otherwise just spinning our wheels on this, and i would request the mods that maybe this one is done before it get out of hand? - either way i think im done with this one, unless another compelling argument comes into play.

time wizard wrote:

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.

Ha! In the previous codex Orks had an awesome upgrade called spikes and blades which weren't allowed on Trukks because "da boyz would skewer themselves" but were allowed on Battlewagons for some reason?!?!

So da boyz have some experien e jumping of spiky rides as long as those are BW's!

DarthSpader wrote:
i guess in the end my opinion is that they are not decorative under the "etc" for the above and all the reasons i posted earlier. and the enhanced version is "definitly targetable" even nos said that. so why arent the normal ones? they have the same surface area, and do the same thing. there is also no entry that states wargear with effects are valid targets. look at dozer blades, hunter killers, search lights, rams, and so on. they are all wargear with effects, with varrying rules regarding targeting. aside from the deffrolla (wich i think is FAQ to be hull but i may be wrong) most are not targetable.

I completely disagree that a vehicle upgrade shock prow or aether sail is 'definitely targetable'.

The notion that if the object has some sort of gampeplay rule attached to it suddenly makes it part of the hull is not supported by the rules. You are tasked with drawing line of sight to the vehicle's hull and then they list a few things that are to be ignored (including the almighty 'etc', of course) and one of those things is 'decorative banner poles'.

In no way does that mean the argument hinges upon what items are decorative and what are game functional. All that matters is what you consider the hull of the vehicle or not. Now, obviously GW has left this completely wide open for us to endlessly argue about, but it does need to be said that the argument that because a piece of equipment has an in-game effect suddenly makes it part of the hull is not logically sound. I mean, hell, even gun barrels have an in-game purpose (you measure range from them, for gods-sake), but those are clearly listed as being ignored.

And as I have pointed out before, the rulebook shows a diagram measuring to the 'hull' of an Ork Trukk, ignoring its ram, which is a vehicle upgrade that has rules associated with it.


So I'm not saying that the rules say yes or no to an Aether Sail or Shock Prow being part of the hull or not. They don't. We each have to decide that on our own.

But the concept that classification of the prow or a sail on a Raider somehow changes into being part of the hull when you take the upgraded version literally has no basis in the rules. If you think the sail is part of the hull then it is part of the hull regardless of whether it is upgraded or not and the same is true of the regular prow vs. the shock prow.

Either these items are considered part of the hull all the time or they're not. Taking the wargear versions of them has no rules basis for changing this.