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!
Ok so this has not come up yet but i have a feeling it will as some point in my games.
Is a tank turret for the Leman Russ considered part of the hull as it is used for something like being hulled down for a cover save? I am in the understanding the the hull would be the main body of the tank ie: not the turret or the sponsons.
I don't think the rules as written are very clear. I figure since it's a damage location (weapon destroyed) the turret should count towards the obscured/visible percentages. Strictly speaking the turret is an integral part of the tank since it's where the commander and main gunner normally sit. I don't think you can call it peripheral like a banner or coms antenna.
The rules could be clearer, but AFAIK, no. The turret is seperate from the hull and does not count towards the obscurment of the facing.
Come visit my blog at: www.warstrike.org
The wording on page 62 of the big rulebook is about whether 50% or more of the facing is obscured or not. It does not say anything about only 50% of the hull. 'Hull down' is only a passing comment and not defined other than saying hull down is now the same as obscured.
IMHO as the turret makes up part of the profile of the facing then it should be included when looking at the model. Though like Korona I would not include banners and the like either.
"The nature of Mon Keigh was irrepressible!"
I see your points, But does the rule book also say to ignore things like wings, baseing materials and weapons for drawing line of site to shoot at a target. Is the turret not just the main gun of the tank?
Well the idea there is that Dante et al don't have to spend the battle with their weapons in the air so you assume it's moved out of sight when your gunners are trying to spot him. It's to reflect the fluid way infantry are moving which is also reflected in their cover system. The static nature of vehicles is exactly why they need this stricter setup.
Also consider that if you discount turrets you are discounting that huge turret on the Eldar Falcons, Manticores etc.
Last edited by Korona; June 19th, 2010 at 10:46.
I'd never claim the missiles on the manticore rack are a valid target, but I'd consider the turret on the russ a valid target. The gun is attached to the turret, so the gun itself isn't a valid target, but the turret itself would be (IMO, anyway).
Just like the manticore or Deathstrike, the missiles wouldnt be valid targets, but the rack they're on would be.
Well the rules for determining the vehicle as a valid target requires LOS to its hull or turret and rules out stuff like gun barrels and banners. I'd have a hard time arguing that the missiles aren't a vulnerable part of the Manticore though, if they get hit that would be pretty devastating.
I'd go with the turret itself but not the main gun (as above) that would make it harder for a vanquisher to get cover but easier for a demolisher (weapon sizes) and that seems wrong to me.
As far as missiles on the Manticore i wouldnt count them the missile on the model is only a static representation, it may already have fired or the missiles could be at a different angle than shown (and so on)