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.

With the release of the new Tau Piranhas, a question has come up (and currently being debated) regarding the vehicles arcs (Front, Side, Rear). It's important for not only determining the relative armor value, but also which facing an assaulting model is attacking.

The 40K rule-book does not specifically spell out how to determine a vehicles arcs, but does show an illustrated example of one. The example (based on a Rhino) shows the arcs are drawn from the corners of the vehicle. This easily works for most Imperial vehicles that are generally boxy in shape, but does present problems with alien vehicles with rounded body-lines or unusual shapes. This is especially applicable to the new Piranha.

So the question is this, which of the three following examples would you say be how a Piranha should be treated? (Note that I have not included the drones as part of the vehicle itself.) Or is there another option/suggestion to determine the vehicle's arc?

Option 1:


Option 2:


Option 3:

i like opt. #3, personaly.

Opt. 3, notice the vertex is at the center of the vehicle, and how each angle is just about 90.

Option 3 is the most even and square, and uses the center of the vehicle. Most people I've seen have used 90-degree angles and the center of mass to determine facings, so it'd be the most common version.

The rulebook obviously doesn't spell out exactly how the arcs are determined. Because of this I think it is something you are always going to have to bring up with your opponent before the game.

If I were choosing, #3 seems the most fair, it just might take a bit of getting used to for players used to measuring to the corners of their boxy Imperial vehicles.


BTW, this question is also included on the Dakka FAQ (although just using the Eldar Falcon as an example).

Posted By yakface on 06/12/2006 8:23 PM

BTW, this question is also included on the Dakka FAQ (although just using the Eldar Falcon as an example).

I went back and checked the FAQ , found the question, but for the life of me couldn't locate the answer. So how do you resolve this issue with all of the exotically shaped vehicles?

Well, the FAQ is simply a collection of the real problems with the 40k rules. I didn't try to apply unofficial answers to the FAQ, and the situation you describe has no easy answer based on the rules.

The only solution is to (as I said before) discuss it beforehand with each opponent and just be consistent. If both players are using the same conventions to measure arcs then everything should be okay.

Of course, with some of the really odd shaped vehicles (like a Falcon) I think your #3 convention is the only fair way to go, which means Imperial players would need to also play that way (true 90 degree arcs).

I like 2 because it makes the vehicle longer than it is wide, if you get my meaning, and references actual physical features of the model. But Yakface's comment is valid; some vehicles are too difficult to tell and everyone ought to play the same way. Perhaps there should be a "vehicle arc" template.

Perhaps there should be a "vehicle arc" template.

Good idea! You could easily make one by drawing on the Ordnance blast marker with a permanent marker. That way both players would be sure they were playing exactly the same way.

We pretty much do the same thing here. We stole the template idea from battle fleet gothic. Everyone uses the same template, so no one gets to have an unfair advantage. We made our own until we found out that gale force 9 makes some too.

The handy dandy multi template is indeed a wonderous tool.

Thanks for all the constructive feedback. Our local group is looking towards adopting the BFG method for determining the Vehicle Arcs for the more unusually shaped/sized/constructed vehicles. BTW, excellent suggestion regarding the modification of a large blast template for this purpose.

I got one of those too, they are great and put every vehicle on common ground.

The handy dandy multi template is indeed a wonderous tool.

gah i hate those things. the overlaping templates annoy me i will just stick to my GW ones.

as for my choice i go with option 2 because it si not a square vehicle like a rhino ot leman russ but it would be best to confer with your opponant first.