Valkyrion Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 These are static rules in a not so static universe. My arm is sticking out from behind a wall. The next second it's not. Then it is. Then it isn't. When are you going to shoot it, will you be able to hit it? My whole entire body is stood next to a wall. By the time I hear the gunshot I'm probably already dead. The only way you can guarantee a hit is if you can see most of me. Just because the miniature representation of me has his arm unable to move doesn't mean 'in reality' the model would actually be stood there like a scarecrow. Same with a storm raven or valkyrie. If you shoot at the wings, that will be constantly moving in an evasive pattern on a battle ground, the chances are the pilot will tilt up or down to evade. If you shoot at the body of the machine then there isn't anywhere it can go. Thats why it's 'the hull', because it's the only thing that can't realistically evade an incoming direct hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ant1clock Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Thanks for all the responses people its much appreciated. Whilst I'm starting to come down on the side of wings should be "targetable" I think the best way forward is just to agree this issue beforehand with the person I'm playing with. Now if only I can remember to roll for the red thirst!!! Cheers ant1clock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMouth Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 agree to the rules? wat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavement Artist Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Exactly. Once again, the hull is a specific part of the model that does not include the wings. You dont walk into a bakers and ask "what do you define as bread?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 This doesn't need to go to OR Forum. The rules arent even vague. It is just a bunch of people trying to apply real world mechanics to a fantasy tabletop game. When vehicles are concerned: Hull and turret is all you can target. Nothing else. When infantry are concerned: Body and head is all you can target. Nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'll point out the INAT FAQ (which has several rulings I personally disagree with) says wings are part of the hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 What is INAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Its the Adepticon FAQ. Only official at Adepticon (not a GW run event, but a big event and lots of local places in the US use the INAT FAQ as gospel) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMouth Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Its the Adepticon FAQ. Only official at Adepticon (not a GW run event, but a big event and lots of local places in the US use the INAT FAQ as gospel) and there for not relevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Legionnare Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I've been screwed time and time again by Valkyries hiding behind stuff and having their wings pop out. Seeing as how that's how my local play group back home in CT and up here in VT rule it I'm sticking with the word for word definition. Measure to the hull, a hull of the vehicle is the outer layer of the main body on anyone that has one today. Submarines have hulls, the extremities and rudders on the rear of it that help to steer it aren't considered the hull so why should wings be. Before anyone pulls a "But wings are crucial to the stormraven" argument against my idea; in the case of the submarine those rudders and such that are not part of the hull are just as important to it's survival and effectiveness, . I dunno, just logic? *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeller Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 1. Read the rulebook section relating to targetting vehicles. 2. Learn the various parts of an aircraft. A wing is a wing and a fuselage is a fuselage. Done. End of discussion. :) It is funny though that GW introduces TLOS and then adds a short list of targetting exceptions. I suppose it's based around the idea that those exceptions are in many occasions non critical or otherwise do not impact the fighting man when hit. Considering these vehicles are anti-grav the wings are really nothing more than weapon mounts, directional control, and propulsion system mounts. This isn't to say that should you target a valk's wing with a lascannon that the petrol won't leak and or explode in a catastrophic cacophany of deafening booms and violent shrapnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperors Immortals Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I live in Australia, and we may not be quite as fancy as a lot of other places but the way we play it is generally; The Hull is the bit that all the other bits are attached to. You may target the hull. Pretty simple really, i dont think many places us adeptacon rules or such like, just GW faqs - mostly because they have to be sent here on a ship which takes weeks :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Joseph Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 for everyone whos argument is that if you blow the wings of a plane it crashes. plane wings have airfoils. that is how they fly, in fantasy tabletop game they use bits of plastic. in fantasy fluff world they can hover and change direction at will, not something planes do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Captain Devlonir Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 for everyone whos argument is that if you blow the wings of a plane it crashes. plane wings have airfoils. that is how they fly, in fantasy tabletop game they use bits of plastic. in fantasy fluff world they can hover and change direction at will, not something planes do. Not to mention that those that bring in the 'shoot the wings the plane crashes' argument completely forget the Real Life plane I feel the Stormraven mimmicks: The A10 Warthog. And that plane is most famous for the fact that it can fly home with holes in it's wings so big a person fits through it. And that doesn't even use anti-grav! I say: Hull is the main body of the vehicle, so excluding wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsolom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 ... in fantasy fluff world they can hover and change direction at will, not something planes do. Hawker Siddeley Harrier anyone? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The TLOS rule exceptions are there to encourage people to actually convert and model their units with things like back banners, extravagant poses and elaborate weapons without a penalty. Otherwise everyone at tournaments would have an entire army of Marines built using the crouching legs from the Tactical sprue, with their weapons strapped to their back and arms crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphz Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm happy to accept the hull under a "I can't see you, you can't see me premise" as I can see people using the wings mounted weapons to great effect while hiding the "hull" behind some terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeller Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 for everyone whos argument is that if you blow the wings of a plane it crashes. plane wings have airfoils. that is how they fly, in fantasy tabletop game they use bits of plastic. in fantasy fluff world they can hover and change direction at will, not something planes do. Not to mention that those that bring in the 'shoot the wings the plane crashes' argument completely forget the Real Life plane I feel the Stormraven mimmicks: The A10 Warthog. And that plane is most famous for the fact that it can fly home with holes in it's wings so big a person fits through it. And that doesn't even use anti-grav! I say: Hull is the main body of the vehicle, so excluding wings. Don't forget the Israeli F-15 Eagle that flew home missing an entire wing! The fuselage serves as a lifting body but not in the same sense as an airfoil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I'm happy to accept the hull under a "I can't see you, you can't see me premise" as I can see people using the wings mounted weapons to great effect while hiding the "hull" behind some terrain. Unfortunately that doesn't work. Targeting FROM a vehicle is done from the barrel of the gun. Targeting TO a vehicle is done to the hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsolom Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Ok, we all know what the rules say in the BRB. I'm not arguing about the rule mechanics themselves, more of the time when the rules were actually written (2008) and the lack vehicles with wings in the game at that specific time (exceptions being IA rules). The problem came when they introduced what were exclusively flyers (Valkyries, Vendettas etc) into the game via the IG codex. These models followed special rules for flyers in the IA books BUT, GW were to lazy and obviously wanted to sell more models so decided just to use the Skimmer rules, hence the complete lack of any mentions of wings or diagrams of vehicles with wings in the main rulebook. Also the use of the word "hull" is in my opinion wrong as it pre-dates vehicles by several hundred years and is more suited to naval vessels. The reason you are able to target turrets is because they house the actual weapons themselves, stopping people from parking their Razorbacks, Russ' or whatever behind LoS blocking terrain with just their turrets showing and basically having a non-targettable weapon with which they can fire with relative impunity. Wings also mount weapons and I see no reason while they can't be targetted as they are in the vast majority of cases larger than turrets which coincidently also house weapons. Don't get me wrong, I have flying vehicles in my BA, IG and Eldar armies and use them on a regular basis but I would NOT abuse them in the manner I think a lot of people are, that would just reek of Parmesan cheese! If I can target a unit with it, they can target it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Weasel Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 GW were to lazy and obviously wanted to sell more models so decided just to use the Skimmer rules, hence the complete lack of any mentions of wings or diagrams of vehicles with wings in the main rulebook. Lazy? yea they did it because they didn't want to add any more rules or pictures... The valk being the only one at the time (and it wasn't out for a while after the rules book (july 08) and the valk was may of 09?) even if it was in the plans the main rule book was all but done before they had a valk... yea, they should put rules in for something that just doesn't exists... that's just silly bashing for bashing sake. and yea they called it a hull, because there weren't any fliers, just skimmers and tanks, all using hulls and turrets... why would they call it anything else? i find it funny... it's not a question of how you want, or do play it, it's what is the rule... from there it's house rules... nothign wrong with house rules, but that's not what the question is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsolom Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 i find it funny... it's not a question of how you want, or do play it, it's what is the rule... from there it's house rules... nothign wrong with house rules, but that's not what the question is. I find it funny that there is no official ruling on this. "Sorry sir, we can't target these aircraft as they are essentially flying wings, so we're just going to let them bomb the bejeezus out of us" :ph34r: http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/Ebsolom/755px-YB49-2_300.jpg http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/Ebsolom/800px-B-2_Spirit_original.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Weasel Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I love the B2.... they used to fly over my work on occasion. and you can't hit it, it's stealth man! why, no Hull to target!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The only way you are hitting a B2 with solid munitions is if the thing is actually parked on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 ok, lets remember, real life planes and even the realities of physics are irrelevant to the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.