Bodacious2182 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Assume a Rhino is place directly in front of Land Raider and a potential shooter is facing both vehicles head on. From my measurements, a rhino is 1.825" tall and 2.9375 inches wide with an area of 5.324219 inches. A Land Raider is 2.625 inches tall and 3.875 inches wide with an area of 10.17188 inches. The quotient of the area of front facing of the Rhino and the front facing of the Land Raider is .523425, or as a percentage, 52%. Given those calculations, should a Land Raider's front armor facing be obscured to shooters within that facing if a Rhino is directly in front of the Land Raider? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Yes, obviously. 52% is more than 50%, so you get an obscured save. Also, if you place the Rhino sideways in front of the Land Raider you would cover ~70% of the Land Raider (if your measurements are accurate; I didn't want to bust out my own), which is also definitely above 50%. :teehee: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhorneHunter57x Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Short answer: In theory, yes. Long answer: It depends on the height of the shooter (a Valkyrie would see more than a Guardsman). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 When we start measuring in thousandths of an inch, its time to realise we are taking this game of wardollies way too seriously... RoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 When we start measuring in thousandths of an inch, its time to realise we are taking this game of wardollies way too seriously... RoV B) yep. Still the OP raises another issue - are you going to measure it all up mid-game to check it does/does not obscure? My guess is no, and that it's done by eye, and who's gonna 'see' 2% hmmm? I wonder how this would go during a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurth Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 From my measurements, a rhino is 1.825" tall and 2.9375 inches wide with an area of 5.324219 inches. First of all, you probably cannot measure as accurately as your numbers here imply, and your results are off in that you fail to consider the concept of significant digits. Also, since I'n nitpicking here anyway, did you consider the empty space between the tracks below the hull, the various protrusions like hatches, exhausts, etc., and the sponsons of the Land Raider? Your apparent precision would seem to suggest so, but the measurements suggest otherwise :) Given those calculations, should a Land Raider's front armor facing be obscured to shooters within that facing if a Rhino is directly in front of the Land Raider? It probably would. But I doubt most players would care — it is much handier to just take a look at the model and if it seems toobscure about half the target, you get a cover save. If it doesn't seem to, then you don't. Another problem with this method, if you really want to go through with it, is that you would have to do this for all possible vehicle combinations in order to determine if a save is allowed or not … Good luck :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 *shakes head* RoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPetersson Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Allow me to put it this way: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2571/4170932303_56692b0c34_b.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/4171690470_545ce96d80_b.jpg So I would say yes, that is in fact obscured... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I think LPetersson has answered this question pretty well. IF you have direct side by side, or one right before the other, obscured should be pretty easy. Of course, the LOS of the firer has to be considered and then the issue of exact placement for the Rhino and Raider. Its a every shot needs to be checked situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hfran Morkai Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Alternatively you could always screen the rhino, considering it's more likely to be blown up by a larger range of weapons. Land Raiders are pretty solid, I know a lot of people would likely still target the raider even if the rhino is in front but I'd try and take out the rhino with lower strength firepower and hope I do some damage to it and expose the Raider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I honestly don't see why people get tied up over obscured vehicles... We know that if is very close then we simply drop 1 from the save... if its not very close, then its either obscured or not... I fail to see how this is open to interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Allow me to put it this way: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2571/4170932303_56692b0c34_b.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/4171690470_545ce96d80_b.jpg So I would say yes, that is in fact obscured... This post is answered with "WIN" ! Good call! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I honestly don't see why people get tied up over obscured vehicles... We know that if is very close then we simply drop 1 from the save... if its not very close, then its either obscured or not... I fail to see how this is open to interpretation. My experience, people spend a long time debating the 4+ save or no save thing and rarely are willing to fall back to the 5+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingo Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Assume a Rhino is place directly in front of Land Raider and a potential shooter is facing both vehicles head on. From my measurements, a rhino is 1.825" tall and 2.9375 inches wide with an area of 5.324219 inches. A Land Raider is 2.625 inches tall and 3.875 inches wide with an area of 10.17188 inches. The quotient of the area of front facing of the Rhino and the front facing of the Land Raider is .523425, or as a percentage, 52%. Given those calculations, should a Land Raider's front armor facing be obscured to shooters within that facing if a Rhino is directly in front of the Land Raider? Thanks. Except that you've not taken into account the change in apparent size as a result of the distance between the two. The pictures above demonstrate this clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Gotta love tunnel vision.... Perspctive... soo many people ignore it... but then relativity is a sin in 40k. Your absolutly right JamesI, however there is no reason for poeple to spend soo much time... if its close enoug to be debateable, take the 5+, personally im more interested in playing the game then worrying about 4+ or 5+... and if its not close, then there is no issue, and if someone is trying to make an issue, well your wasting your timer by playing someone whos more interested in gaining some slight advantage than having fun.... At the end of the day, its just a game... if people want to get themselves worked up.. im just going to stand back and laugh, then laugh all the way home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodacious2182 Posted December 9, 2009 Author Share Posted December 9, 2009 LOL I figured somebody would nitpick the thousanths of an inch thing. Fact is those are conversions from fractions. I figured the decimals would be easier to read than compared to 1 13/16 inches. Also, excel math is easier with the decimals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 LOL I figured somebody would nitpick the thousanths of an inch thing. Fact is those are conversions from fractions. I figured the decimals would be easier to read than compared to 1 13/16 inches. Also, excel math is easier with the decimals. Once you start using decimals, it's true it's not a bad idea to use as many decimals as you've got for all of your calculations...but when presenting your data there's no reason to show us all of those decimals. Round to the nearest tenth (or truncate, if you prefer) and there you have it. Hundreths of an inch are not significant to us, as you might guess. :) BTW, Bravo, LPeterson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurth Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Allow me to put it this way:<images snipped> So I would say yes, that is in fact obscured... Now take the same photos from a few metres away but zoomed in, or look at the models from the same position as your camera was, but with both eyes open. The part of the Land Raider covered by the Rhino may well appear to be different. That said, I agree with your point :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Thats an interesting point... since both eyes show a slightly off set perspective... would someone blind in 1 eye see something obscured where a normal sighted person would not? :) Bet they didn't take that into account when writing the rules... But thinking about it it doesn't matter, we draw LoS from the head or along the barrel of who/what is shooting, so viewing from a 'one eye' perspective is actually correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingo Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I think by 'line of sight' we should think in terms of 'line of shot'.* Anyway: total area is not a good way to look at it. The apparent area, the area we see (i.e. the physical size of the image projected on our retina) is what is important. The moon has an area many many many times smaller than the area of the sun. However, the position of the sun, moon, and earth, and the distances between them, mean that the moon can completely obscure the sun. You can cover your eye with your hand, but the fact that your hand is smaller than the universe doesn't mean you should be able to see anything. * Of course shots follow a parabolic trajectory... but we're talking about little pretend men firing imaginary weapons here ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Anyhew, back on topic a bit... depth perception is completly irrelivant for this rule because to determine if 50% is obscured you need to imagine a 2D plane... you don't need depth perception for 2D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igotsmeakabob!! Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Gents, keep it on topic please. A few posts have been edited, others just plain deleted. Which eye method you use isn't really important here nor is which type of gun or real life weapon you prefer ;). As far as I can see LPetersson excellently demonstrated how this issue is dependent upon the relative positions of firer, target, and the intervening model. Cheers I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredWing Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'd say it depends on how close the shooter is to the rhino when trying to see the LR. Or as Father Ted put it... Father Ted is demonstrating some plastic toy cows to Dougal. Father Ted: ...OK, one last time. These are small... but the ones out there are far away. Small... far away... ah forget it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cale Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 As several people have pointed out, the location of the observer is relevant. If a model is sufficiently tall, it begins to see the Raider's top profile in addition to its side profile, meaning that less of its total profile is obscured by the Rhino. In addition, an observer shorter than the Rhino will actually see less of the raider than is suggested by the comparison between the Rhino's side-profile-surface-area and that of the raider. So, yes. A Rhino can definitely obscure a Raider. In fact, it often will. But, it won't always, and comparing the actual surface area of a Rhino side to the surface area of a Raider side won't tell you whether it will or won't, because the position of the observer has a significant effect on how much of the Raider the observer can see in spite of the Rhino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.