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!
Alright so on brick shaped vehicles it's easy to tell where front/side/rear armor is. Just draw a line between the center of the vehicle and a corner and follow it out.
What are your opinions on more ambiguous vehicles? I'm specifically refering to the falcon. I'm inclined to use the point of the flying stand as the "center" and then use the corner like edges on the central back section with the ramp to draw a connecting line similar to the way an imperial vehicle would do it.
Fortunitly it hasn't come up because in 3rd Ed I was always either keeping my rear armor away from them or brazenly exposing it so my scorps could get a charge in, not much in between.
However with 4th Ed deployment I play the serpent a lot closer in to the enemy so they'll still be in charge range next turn. In my last game there was a spot where my opponent could have gotten a couple plasma and bolt pistols very close to that line, but not over it. I'd just like some reasurance I'm drawing the lines right or to hear what the proper method is.
Last edited by sunnyside; June 15th, 2006 at 16:37.
i use the chart in the BGB.
find the centre of the vehicle. split into 4 equal 90 degree segment.
"i am a leaf in the wind, see how i soar"
I do it the same as you, i draw lines from the centre of the flying base (or the model on handy box vehicles), but i also declare this before the game starts to avoid mid-game arguments, i find the opponent agrees before the game more easily, only ever wanting to use a differant system mid-game when it benefits them!!
Hope this helped!!
Inquistion force WIP. Pics on posts 17 and 23.
Um. Just to avoid complications in your games you may want to take a protractor to the rulebook. The example they give on p65 has 60 degree front and rear arcs and 120 degree side arcs rougly. I suppose one could just go with those angles but they fit the corners of the vehicle so perfectly I just figured that's how the angles were selected.Originally Posted by marv335
Going 60/120 on the falcon wouldn't be too bad. And I suppose it'd be hard to argue as being too narrow so there wouldn't be conflict. But with a wave serpent (while I have to sit down with a protracter, a ruler, and my serpent to make sure) if you just go 60/120 from the flight stand you suddenly can have models fireing into the rear armor while they are standing to the side of the vehicle! (If that doesn't make sence imagine using a pencil as a vehicle with 60/120 arcs from the center and consider a tiny model touching the side of the pencil 2/3 of the way to the back. It's in the "rear" arc now, same thing with the serpent.
So either the "center" needs to shift back as it gets longer (which makes sence as technically the center does move) and keep the 60 angle or the center can stay in place and just use the new corners which will probably generate something like a 45 degree angle. Or I guess I could just go 60/120 and stipulate that in order to shoot the rear armor the model must actually be behind the serpent.