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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Plus there is this:

cu·po·la A gun turret; a small domed hatch above a gun turret on some tanks

https://www.google.com/search?q=cupola+definition&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=cupola+definition&aqs=chrome.0.57.3050&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So you believe that the person that corrected the OP had every right to correct him for calling it a hatch, even though your definition calls it a hatch?

On that note everyone is wrong. It's really a toy.

I could break down that definition for you as to what they are refereing, but it's pointless.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The Rhino has at least four openings; three access points for embarkation/disembarkation on the sides and rear, and one large hatch over the passenger compartment which is the firing point.

It may be modeled with up to two more openings at the front, which are there for looks and/or to serve as weapon/wargear mounts.

It may be modeled with up to two more openings at the front, which are there for looks and/or to serve as weapon/wargear mounts, or the firing point as RAW dictates top hatch, and that is what the openings on the front are.

If you treat the forward opening/s as possibly being the singular "hatch" referred to by the Rhino's firing point rule, then you create confusion which cannot be resolved through the RAW, as there is nothing to distinguish WHICH of the multiple hatches on top of the vehicle is the correct one. This interpretation is therefore self-evidently impractical and to be avoided. It's also unsportsmanlike, as it represents an effort to obtain a more powerful option in an ambiguous situation.

Of course, if we allow ourselves to be guided by the actual model and what is being represented by the rules, the answer is self evident before you even start worrying about RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Since there are three opening on the top of the vehicle and the reference is to "top hatch" and not "Top Hatches" there is obviously only one hatch. The other two openings would be the scuttles.

Except the front hatch is a hatch and not a scuttle, as the vehicle is not a ship.

Scuttle is usually a nautical term, but it can apply to buildings as well. (But not vehicles).

scut·tle

1. A small opening or hatch with a movable lid in the deck or hull of a ship or in the roof, wall, or floor of a building.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scuttle

So those hatches on the front are not scuttles.

The rules state "hatch" not "hatches" there's only one. There are three openings but only one hatch. Which one of those kids is doing it's own thing? Unless you want to argue that singular also means plural or perhaps that plural form of hatch is hatch.

There's three openings. One of them is a hatch for rules purposes.

We could argue the merits of whether a tank is a ship, as it does have a hull. I won't.

 Idolator wrote:

There's three openings. One of them is a hatch for rules purposes.

Which, oddly enough, is why people are often 'corrected' when referring to the cupolas as hatches. Causes less confusion to only refer to the big hatch as a hatch.

Didn't GW specify in one of the Astronomicons (second one I think), that the large hatch above the crew compartment on a Rhino is the Fire Point?

You mean one of the chapter approved compilations, during 3rd? Yeah, they did. I think they also specified it in that silly Wargear book in 4th ed. I think the old Chaos codex FAQ also specified it, as early printings of the codex had a misprint and just read "Firing Points: 1", rather than specifying that two guys could actually fire out of it, so the FAQ said something like "Errata: Two models can actually fire out of the fire point, which is the large hatch over the passenger compartment."

Of course, the current SM codex isn't quite as explicit, so it's theoretically possible to encounter a human being who tries to argue the point. I've never encountered it at the table, but all things can be found on the internet.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course, the current SM codex isn't quite as explicit, so it's theoretically possible to encounter a human being who tries to argue the point. I've never encountered it at the table, but all things can be found on the internet.

I play like that, and my group has no issues, though If I were to play it out of the large hatch instead of the small hatch, nothing but the angle of the vehicle will change, and that is really a non-issue as far as I am concerned, since Rhino's are AV 11 on front and sides.

I can place the large hatch as close as I can place the small hatch and not have any affect on what AV the enemy is shooting at.

I will probably play by the large hatch from now on because

1) It really makes no difference.

2) Most people here seem to play that way, so maybe this is the norm at tournaments.

It does make a material difference, as using the passenger hatch you do lose a little bit of range or have to swing the rear around, making it harder to get cover for the Rhino, and easier to get an angle for shots on the rear armor.

 DeathReaper wrote:
2) Most people here seem to play that way, so maybe this is the norm at tournaments.

Not at tournaments I've been to.
If someone tries to use the front pieces I correct them and ask a judge to verify. So far every judge has been on my side.
Even if it doesn't make a difference in them getting the shot off or not, there's no reason to allow incorrect behavior.

Rigel, you've misunderstood him. He's saying his friends have not argued the point, but he's willing to consider using the rear hatch because that seems the consistent approach "here", as in on Dakka.

Yeah, I did. Sorry DR.