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!
I'm hoping this is the correct place to ask this...
I wanted a consensus on a certain instance of a tank cover save, or at least for everyone to say whether I'm out to lunch or not.
In the main rule book past the portion stating that a tank gets a 4+ save for being 50% covered, it states that if a firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear) but can see another facing the tank receives a 3+ cover save. This rule is cut and dry for tanks without turrets such as a rhino or land raider, but what about tanks with turrets?
So, my question is: if a tank's facing side, lets say the front, is totally covered by a sufficiently high wall, or another tank of the same profile, but the turret is still visible will that tank get a 3+ save?
To me it seems that this scenario meets the criteria...the firing unit 'cannot see any part of the faceing they are in,' the front in this case, but they can still see another part of the tank (the turret). Also, the turret is never used to determine what side a unit is directing fire at, so I don't think you could say that seeing the turret means that you can therefore see 'a side'.
So has anyone dealt with this scenario before?
Meh, just always played it at a 4+ save, but I can see your point. Interested in seeing what other people feel on this.
This is kinda iffy... I would say 4+ until the turret is destroyed, as much as I would love a 3+ cover save.
I don't feel it meets the criteria. I can see the turret, so I can see the tank, that's established. Now we do the measuring to see if I'm in side, rear or front, or just call it if it's obvious. Once that's determined, I shoot and you get a 4+ cover. I cannot find the rule where it says the turret cannot be used as a determination for what side you're looking at, if that was true, you're technically looking at no side. If the turret can't make the determination, I'am facing a mystery side.
Basically, I'd resolve it normally and you would be rewarded with a 4+ cover from the wall.
Well, there is no rule that says the turret is not used to determine the side you're facing. For a base illustration, if you were to have a rhino that you are at such an angle to face front armor which happened to be totally blocked by a wall, but side armor was visible it would be a 3+ save. You "can see" the side armor "so you can see the tank" and measuring would confirm this as well...but you can't see the facing armor. When you're measuring for side, rear, or front I assume you use the through the hull corners method illustrated on page 60. Now I'm not trying to sound condescending here, but I think regular game play dictates that: if a LRBT has it's front hull facing you and visible, and it turns the turret to the side to shoot another target...you don't get to shoot side armor because of that, otherwise we'd have to resolve shots based on the multiple facing rules. By saying that the turret does determine facing when your hull facing is obscured it sort of dictates that you have to concider the turrets facing in all cases...and that would be strange. On page 60 it says "when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see it's hull or turret". The diagram is interpretational I guess, but it seems to run lines through the corners of the hull to show facing and the turret is not really addressed. Now back to page 62 "It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle." The rhino example above illustrates this simply, but to pop a turret on the tank and suddenly say I'm clearly facing X side because of the turret seems over-simplified. I've never had anyone use a turret to determine a facing, and in that sense to me it would seem to be excluded from what is used to determine a facing. The Prince of Excess...so in your example what would you do if you were obviously facing the front of a tank (which was not visible) but the side hull was visible as well as the turret? Would you automatically classify the turret as front facing and therefore ignore the rule on page 62? This seems like an over-simplification to me. It also seems strange that a tank with only it's turret visible would get a worse cover save than a tank with a whole, non-facing side, visilble?!?! I can understand defaulting to a 4+ to minimise confusion, but so far no one that I have spoken to about this rule was able to say turrets determine facing value X because of Y. I might have to agree to disagree and just continue with the game.
That was way to much of a text block for me to finish, split it up and I'll try again. I got to the part where you assumed I meant the turret implied facing? I don't remember saying that. I'm saying, I can see the turret, this allows me to shoot. I'am technically facing (insert side here) armor, the type is irrelevant. So I shoot that army, even though it's behind a high wall or some other feature.
You would than be granted a 4+ cover because way more than 50% of your vehicle is hidden. That is how I would play it, that is not the golden ruling of a warhammer god. If you want a straight up right answer, I'd post in the rules forum or check out the one on Dakka, I've gotten better rules answers there personally.
Sorry for the lengthy block Prince I appreciate the attempted read. The point of my lengthy entry was precisely to elaberateon on what you were refering to as irrelavent...the armour type. Prince: "I'm saying, I can see the turret, this allows me to shoot, I'am technically facing (insert side here) armor, the type is irrelevant. "So I shoot that army". The rule differentiates between the armor side you are facing and the side you can see. I assumed you were saying that turret implies facing because by saying: the turret allows me to see the tank.... and I am facing side x...so I shoot side x.....you ARE implying just that. Sorry if I wasn't clear on the topic, but that is exactly the mentality that I'mquestioning..Why woul you use the turret to say that you can see the armor that you are facing? Thanks for the replies every one and sorry for any spelling mistakes or offense, my keyboard is dying. Maybe I'll seek my answerelswhere.
Just turn the turret so the front is facing the shot, bam.
Just going off what it says in the book, I think you draw off lines from opposite corners of the vehicle. This forms 4 triangles across the unit. Page 60 of the rule book shows you how the parts are divided. Turrets are normally going to fall inside of all four segments so won't give you an oblique angle cover save unless it's a Chimera and they are shooting from behind maybe.
Last edited by Korona; July 5th, 2010 at 12:30.
I have to say you get the 4+. Antennae and such are not used to determine whether or not you can be seen, but a turret is quite something else. For one thing, a significant part of the crew (gunner and commander, at minimum) is inside the turret! When the rules say "cannot see any part" in the facing you're in, it doesn't say "any part except the turret", it says "any part," therefore, if you can see the turret, it's "only" a 4+ save. You seem to be arguing that "facing" is somehow synonymous with "hull." It isn't.
IG since 1999 __ DA since 2002 __ Tau since 2005 __ SoB since 2007
Brets 1997-1999 __ TK since 2009 __ Empire since 2010