Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
im not sure if this is cheese or just good tactics but...
if someone fires at your rhino and it is partially obscured by your landraider thr rhino would count as hull down.
lets say i have an armoured company with 5 chimeras, can i arrange them in a triangle so that each one is partially hidden behind the one in front. meaning the 4 tanks behind the leader are always hull down, and the lead tank is vunerable. unless you fire its smoke launchers!!!!!
this would create a tank formation that is totally hull down, even in the middle of a totally fetureless ice sheet fr example
can somone explain how this should work?
You're correct in your assessment of the triangle formation, as long as the attacker's point of view is from the front. If they move to the side, they may be able to get a clear shot of the side tanks. Otherwise, vehicles partially blocked by other vehicles or terrain are hull down. Its actually a very hard tactic to pull off since many enemy formations have a wide enough front to be able to get side shots against a tight tank formation.
you might also be concerned that any ordnance weapons your enemy has may have a chance of hitting several of your vehicles at the one time. Not too sure about the trial rules and how they have changed this but with normal rules, I was able to hit three of his vehicles with my demolisher cannon and took out 3 in one hit - obviously my opponent wasn't very happy with this. Especially since I destroyed all of his units in two of the vehicles using the ordnance table - hahahahah.
in the TVC, that demolisher shot would not have worked as well as it did.
unless the hole in the middle of the template is over the vehcle (sp?) the strnaght is halves, in polar bears case to 5, which inst gonna hurt most tanks
but using the current rule i see your point.