Stormraven hull

[Brother Weasel]

ok, lets remember, real life planes and even the realities of physics are irrelevant to the rules.

 

no, see the B2 has no hull, so you can't hit it in game... ultimate stealth:)

 

the Raven has a hull, you can hit that..

[Alphz]

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.

 

Then thats where we disagree. If it is a point of the model which has striking capacity I see no logical reason that its not considered as part of the vehicle's hull.

 

The true LOS rule specifically states targetting of the main body so as extrarreneous bits are not punished such as banners and tails and decorations. If the wing is a mount for a weapon, its a hard point of the vehicle and essentially part of the hull for targetting as it is in no way and "unneccesary decoration to make the model look cool and so shouldn't be punished".

 

Measuring firing angles is also taken from the vehicle weapon. but if the vehicle itself (the targetable portion) cannot see the target then how is the weapon supposed to fire? You are picking and choosing how the rules should apply.

[Brother Weasel]

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.

 

Then thats where we disagree. If it is a point of the model which has striking capacity I see no logical reason that its not considered as part of the vehicle's hull.

 

The true LOS rule specifically states targetting of the main body so as extrarreneous bits are not punished such as banners and tails and decorations. If the wing is a mount for a weapon, its a hard point of the vehicle and essentially part of the hull for targetting as it is in no way and "unneccesary decoration to make the model look cool and so shouldn't be punished".

 

Measuring firing angles is also taken from the vehicle weapon. but if the vehicle itself (the targetable portion) cannot see the target then how is the weapon supposed to fire? You are picking and choosing how the rules should apply.

 

actually, no he isn't, he's reading the rules.

 

they are 2 different sets of circumstances with different rules, one for shooting, and one for targeting... it may not be "logical" but that's how the rules are written

 

Though... i do like the line of thinking that if it's a weapon mount it's a turret kind of thinking... (just as a rules argument, I wouldn't argue if someone shot the big ol wing of my raven ahaha)

[Alphz]

actually, no he isn't, he's reading the rules.

 

they are 2 different sets of circumstances with different rules, one for shooting, and one for targeting... it may not be "logical" but that's how the rules are written

 

Though... i do like the line of thinking that if it's a weapon mount it's a turret kind of thinking... (just as a rules argument, I wouldn't argue if someone shot the big ol wing of my raven ahaha)

 

Ok let me word this differently, and then we can play the RAW game too. But first, RAI, cause thats how I roll.

 

Can you think of any other model in the game that can draw LOS from a part of the model which is untargetable?

 

I cannot. If a vehicle fires from its sponson, then it is targetable. More than 50% obscured so sure, he gets a cover save but still targetable.

 

So I would present two choices, because I understand why players might not want the wing targetable as it makes the beasty quite sizeable and difficult to hide...

 

You can A ) Only be targeted at the hull, but must draw line of sight from the hull (and hull mounted weapons)

or B ) Be targeted on the wings and in turn be able to target with your wing weapons.

 

Simple and fair.

 

But for RAW, cause "he was just reading the rules". Um no, he wasn't. He was interpreting them so they will suit him, to have his pie and eat it too.

 

Because unfortunatly you are firstly misinterpreting the word "hull" with the word "fuselage". Which by RAW, fuselage is not mentioned, aaaand the dictionary definition of "Hull" is "The main body of a vessel, tank, flying boat etc"

 

So whats the main body of a vehicle? Because the rules do not make distinction (That I can find) between a stormraven or tank in terms of LOS. Well there is no clear definition, without interpreting the rules. So that leaves us with RAI, and I am pretty sure that both my options have an upside and downside to their use, where as Samanagol's interpretation includes only benefits with no down side: Not really the definition of fair.

 

So in closing, If I were to face you, and presented with the above (I feel) reasonable argument you still wished to gain all advantages with no disadvantage then you sir, are not someone I would be playing.

[Chairman_woo]

I love how people like to throw RAW around like it ever works in isolation (maybe for some really obvious rules)

 

There is no RAW without RAI as GW does not define every term they use exhaustively. You "RAW" GW's rules for targeting vehicles and when presented with a unlimited term like "Hull" you interpret a finite and exhaustive defintion, yet said finite and exhaustive defintion is neither of those things as GW's books arnt written by lawyers who define and protect every term they use exhaustively.

 

What we get here is a description of a set of circumstances and conditions not explicitly defined with reference to the object in question (Raven and flyers in general), however obvious the meaning of the work "hull" where a raven is concerned might be to you it is an act of interpretation, or if you like an attempt to discern the indended meaning of the word or rule i.e. RAI.

 

We have no finite declaration of what is and is not the "Hull" of a propper flyer/raven (either in 40k or general aviation) and as such it has become an arguement of interpretation no matter how many "straw man" or "black and white" arguements you care to deploy (inc. that one :tu: ).

 

 

I may agree with the sentiment that being able to shoot from a wing but not be targeted in return is having ones cake and eating it but, untill FAQ time you have house rules, and arguements/oppinions and nothing more I'm afraid....

 

I'd argue common sense but I dont belive it exists.....only oppinion and occasional consensus.

[Brother Nathan]

if you shoot somethings wings, it can crash. so i can allow that to happenthe same in game. it works against your opponents too. hopefully wont be too long before everyone has a flier then has to rethink their own logic for killing things....

but then the raven is unlikely to make it near my lists... to bloomin expensive in £ never mind points...

[Brother Weasel]

actually, no he isn't, he's reading the rules.

 

they are 2 different sets of circumstances with different rules, one for shooting, and one for targeting... it may not be "logical" but that's how the rules are written

 

Though... i do like the line of thinking that if it's a weapon mount it's a turret kind of thinking... (just as a rules argument, I wouldn't argue if someone shot the big ol wing of my raven ahaha)

 

Ok let me word this differently, and then we can play the RAW game too. But first, RAI, cause thats how I roll.

 

Can you think of any other model in the game that can draw LOS from a part of the model which is untargetable?

 

I cannot. If a vehicle fires from its sponson, then it is targetable. More than 50% obscured so sure, he gets a cover save but still targetable.

 

So I would present two choices, because I understand why players might not want the wing targetable as it makes the beasty quite sizeable and difficult to hide...

 

You can A ) Only be targeted at the hull, but must draw line of sight from the hull (and hull mounted weapons)

or B ) Be targeted on the wings and in turn be able to target with your wing weapons.

 

Simple and fair.

 

But for RAW, cause "he was just reading the rules". Um no, he wasn't. He was interpreting them so they will suit him, to have his pie and eat it too.

 

Because unfortunatly you are firstly misinterpreting the word "hull" with the word "fuselage". Which by RAW, fuselage is not mentioned, aaaand the dictionary definition of "Hull" is "The main body of a vessel, tank, flying boat etc"

 

So whats the main body of a vehicle? Because the rules do not make distinction (That I can find) between a stormraven or tank in terms of LOS. Well there is no clear definition, without interpreting the rules. So that leaves us with RAI, and I am pretty sure that both my options have an upside and downside to their use, where as Samanagol's interpretation includes only benefits with no down side: Not really the definition of fair.

 

So in closing, If I were to face you, and presented with the above (I feel) reasonable argument you still wished to gain all advantages with no disadvantage then you sir, are not someone I would be playing.

 

you'll note i'm only arguing for arguments sake, I'm much to relaxed to really care if someone shoots the wing, as long as we are all playing by the same rules and i know what those rules are, i'm pretty relaxed:)

 

the problems is exactly as you defined... but can be stated both ways, what is the main body, the storm raven player would like it to be the part holding the crew, the non (general terms) would like it to be the wings and tail... either side stating it is going to interpret it to what they want... fair isn't even a part of it, as it's a rule debate...

 

there won't be a defined answer unless GW faqs it:) i like to pose the arguments to see if someone can state somethig in such a way that if it becomes a problem i can give a really good argument so the game can continue:)

.

[SamaNagol]

It's not even a point of contention. Whether you think it is daft or whatever it makes no difference. The same as a Land Raider can have a sponson poking round a wall and still fire, but not be fired on, same goes for a StormRavens wing mounted Blood Strike Missiles

 

The rules are very clear, very well worded and there isn't room for confusion.

 

If you want to argue the semantics of what a hull is on a flying vehicle then that's up to you, but it is the fuselage. If you want to be really anal about it, I just won't let you shoot it at all because a flying craft doesn't even have a hull. It certainly isnt the wings or the tail.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I'm really glad I avoid these types of discussions now.

 

G :D

[Brother Weasel]

I'm really glad I avoid these types of discussions now.

 

G :whistling:

 

and make sure you tell everyone....

[Alphz]

you'll note i'm only arguing for arguments sake, I'm much to relaxed to really care if someone shoots the wing, as long as we are all playing by the same rules and i know what those rules are, i'm pretty relaxed:)

 

the problems is exactly as you defined... but can be stated both ways, what is the main body, the storm raven player would like it to be the part holding the crew, the non (general terms) would like it to be the wings and tail... either side stating it is going to interpret it to what they want... fair isn't even a part of it, as it's a rule debate...

 

there won't be a defined answer unless GW faqs it:) i like to pose the arguments to see if someone can state somethig in such a way that if it becomes a problem i can give a really good argument so the game can continue:)

.

It's not even a point of contention. Whether you think it is daft or whatever it makes no difference. The same as a Land Raider can have a sponson poking round a wall and still fire, but not be fired on, same goes for a StormRavens wing mounted Blood Strike Missiles

 

The rules are very clear, very well worded and there isn't room for confusion.

 

If you want to argue the semantics of what a hull is on a flying vehicle then that's up to you, but it is the fuselage. If you want to be really anal about it, I just won't let you shoot it at all because a flying craft doesn't even have a hull. It certainly isnt the wings or the tail.

 

Neither of you actually made any kind of point short of "nananana, you're wrong". a land raider can't poke a sponson and not be shot at, the rules define a weapon mount (turret) as a targetable portion of the vehicle.

 

Fair is a pretty constant term. Its not defined as something which benefits one player only, and hence I can't even comprehend the point you're trying to make Weasel? Are you saying that If I presented you with option A or option B you would turn around and say you could present a "good arguement" as to why neither of those are 'fair' for you and your stormraven should be able to perform unlike ANY other vehicle in the game, in a fashion that clearly benefits you with no disadvantages?

 

But as you say, I am perfectly relaxed as long as we can agree on how the vehicle will operate pre-game and I simply won't play anyone with the attitude of SamaNagol anyway.

 

annd SamaNagol, really are the rules really that clearly worded that you need to threaten that by RAW your stormraven is infact completely untargetable because it has a fuselage and not a hull?

 

I suggest you learn how to use a dictionary and NOT wikipedia for your general knowledge.

[biglou666]

This is an inteteresting conversation, some people are certain as to thier opinion, others not so sure. I am still rather uncertain.

 

for the pro-wing shooting: Weapons, (bloodstrike missiles) are carried on the wings, and in real life, wings would be rather vital for flying the vehicle.

for con-wing shooting: the wings arnet neccesarily defined as component of the hull in the rules, and when the missiles are fired, is the weapon mount still there?

 

Rather confusing, i can see why there is an argument over it... i personally would say that the wings could be shot... but i wouldnt mind if it was faq'ed either way.

[Morticon]

Thought I closed this nonsense already ^_^

 

 

There are two camps

Summary:

 

 

A-

 

Wings are not hull, therefore not a target.

Hull is hull as defined by (ir?)relevant outside sources (dictionary, encyclopedias etc).

 

B-

 

Wings are part of the hull, therefore a target

Hull/Fuselage question debated (as defined by various (ir?)relevant outside sources) as well as hull being used to cover the watertight part of a plane/ship

Rule book lists only three kinds of vehicle weapons - Hull Mounted, Turret/Pintle mounted, Sponson Mounted.

The Raven has the Blood Strike missiles on the wings - RAW universe implodes.

 

The end.