Assault Vehicle distance meassuring - first post

Hello everyone, this is my first post! I have some questions concerning our assault vehicles: Since they dont have any doors, being assault vehicles the whole hull is considered its entry point and exit point. But is the ram-like thingy in the front part of the hull too? Or is it a weapon? What weapon is that since the shock prow is its own weapon (supplied in the raveger kit) and normal raiders cant ram.

The same issue goes for the venom - from what point can I embark/dismembark?

Obviously the same issue goes for meassuring distances for weapons that passengers are carrying.

I earlier used the ram / prow as part of the hull and thus as a TACTIC turned my boats around to gain some extra mobility. This is not so popular in my gaming group, how do you people meassure?

The prow is not a weapon, but technically does count as part of the hull.

So you can disembark from the point, but that point also counts when your enemy is checking to see if you are in range for shooting or assault.
It also means that point needs to be behind the deployment line at the start of the game.

In terms of measuring, I go point to point. If I can avoid pivoting at the start or end of a move I do, but at the least I try to go from the prow point itself so that the pivot is part of the overall movement. Iknow thats not exactly covered in the rules, but I think its the fairest way.

My personal take is that it depends how friendly you want to game - if you're being competitive then it's part of the hull, and you can disembark from it, and the pivot to gain a little extra distance is perfectly legal.

In friendlier games I'm less bothered about measuring distances from the very end of the ram (i think sprinting down it to assault a nearby unit would probably slow you down a little) so I tend to measure from the 'main' hull. Similarly I wouldn't bother to turn transports to gain the maximum effect from movement.

It's a double-edged sword really. If you want to measure from it then opponents can measure to it so I don't really see a problem.

As the others have said, you can measure from it, but then your opponent can measure to it.

Personally, I settle with my opponent beforehand that we use the main body of the hull for measuring for simplicity, treating the prow as "decoration" like the sail.

The Venom is less clear cut with all the points. I tend to ignore the two prongs of the prow, measuring from where they meet.

Regardless of whether you measure from the prow or not, deploying the Raider sideways at the edge of your deployment zone and pivoting will grant extra movement and is perfectly valid.

There's some TOs who think the movement wording eliminated the pivot-boost, just a heads up.

When it comes to the ram, I let my opponent decide if it's hull.

To echo other thoughts, depends how competitive you want to be. When I play usually I like to think more logically then technicality. So I measure from the "hull", i.e. the places where I imagine passengers would be clinging to. I feel its the same with shooting from the transports, I go from where people should be.

I just wanted to point out a substantial error in the OP. Being an assault vehicle doesn't mean a vehicle has no access points or thatyou can measure from any point on the hull. Those rules apply to Open Topped Vehicles, open topped vehicles just also have the assault vehicle rule.

Erebus wrote:

The Venom is less clear cut with all the points. I tend to ignore the two prongs of the prow, measuring from where they meet.

You find that easier as a measurement method? That seems at least as finicky as measuring from the prow prongs in my opinion. Why do you use that method as opposed to the prongs?

Jimsolo wrote:

There's some TOs who think the movement wording eliminated the pivot-boost, just a heads up.

I actually thought the rules helped codify it as far more legit than it ever was before.

I don't play in tournaments, but my two LGS's i play at everyone is under the interpretation that the brow is actually war gear option "shock prow" and the sails are "enhanced aethersails" in terms of drawing distance and LoS they are ignored which is supported in the rulebook.

I thought you COULD draw LoS to wargear, just not "decorative elements."

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

I don't play in tournaments, but my two LGS's i play at everyone is under the interpretation that the brow is actually war gear option "shock prow" and the sails are "enhanced aethersails" in terms of drawing distance and LoS they are ignored which is supported in the rulebook.

Actually, the prow is just a prow. The shock prow is supplied in the Ravager kit, and is slightly larger. The enhanced aethersails upgrade does imply that there are normal aethersails too, doesn't it? It's just that there aren't any specified enhanced ones.
Bottom line is that prow and sails are part of the base model.

I used to believe the prow was part of the hull in terms of measurement, but I've recently suspended that belief because (and I don't have the rulebook on me) rams aren't considered as part of the hull. The prow is an auxiliary part of the Raider, in the same manner that you don't measure line of sight to a model's gun or antennae.

I'm under the impression that it really makes no difference whether the prow should be part of the model, and I've argued that it works to both players' advantage, but this isn't a valid argument as it draws nothing from the rules.

Granted the Raider model comes baseline with the prow, in my opinion it is similar to a Rhino's dozer blades -- which are not part of the hull.

Ultimately I think the ruling comes down to the purpose of the prow. If you believe it's solely for the model's maneuvering then it's part of the hull, if you believe it serves an offensive purpose then it would be more like a ram. I'm pretty ambivalent about it, and I can see it both ways for a lot of reasons. I'm probably only beaten into this unpatriotic view because my friends insistently argue it's unfair, but anyone can tell me why I'm wrong -- specifically using the section of the rulebook defining the hull.

Ironic really, since in order for a ram to be effective the entire hull has to be built around it to avoid it destroying the vehicle - in relation to the raider (and bear in mind technically only the shock prow in the ravager kit is a 'ram') the ram on the front would have to be mounted onto a central spine around which the armour plating of the vehicle is attached. Without that central spine the shock of ramming something would collapse any mounting point for the ram and crumple the front of the vehicle.

I'd say the difference between it and the Rhino's dozer blades are that without it, or some alternative, the raider has a big hole in the front of the vehicle, whereas the dozer blades are clearly a bolted-on addition that isn't an integral part of the structure.

It does seem a little unfair to argue that all 10 passengers are firing their guns from the very tip of the prow for measurment purposes, hence why I draw the distinction between friendly and competitive play.

The rule for vehicles is to measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements. Clearly the prow is not a gun barrel, doze blade, antenna or banner. Is the prow a decorative element? I'd argue that it is not. It's an integral part of the kit, shown on every official illustration or photograph. I don't see any reason to argue that it is not part of the hull.

By that reasoning, Count, the sail is also an "integral part of the kit" and is valid for targetting purposes. Though I'm sure everyone agrees that the sail is a decorative element.

Thor665 wrote:

You find that easier as a measurement method? That seems at least as finicky as measuring from the prow prongs in my opinion. Why do you use that method as opposed to the prongs?

I wouldn't say it's easier, no. Rather, it just seems more...sensible? "Realistic"? I just imagine that were the prongs to get hit, it'd merely cause minor cosmetic damage, whereas the centre-point is the location of its control mechanisms.

Ultimately though, like the Raider, I tend to decide it with my opponent beforehand so we're both on the same page.

Erebus wrote:

By that reasoning, Count, the sail is also an "integral part of the kit" and is valid for targetting purposes. Though I'm sure everyone agrees that the sail is a decorative element.

I'm not sure you'd get a consensus on that. I'd certainly argue that it's part of the hull and not merely decorative.

Codex Dark Eldar - Raiders wrote:

Though each of these craft is customised by its owning Kabal, all have certain key features in common – a repulsor keelblade manned by a talented steersman, aethersails to harness the energies flowing from the webway portal from which they descend, and a prowmounted heavy weapon to sow terror amongst the enemy.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I'd certainly argue that it's part of the hull and not merely decorative.

I'd agree that it's not merely decorative (at least fluffwise), but there's no way it's part of the hull. By definition, sails are separate and distinct from hulls.

Which definition? Nothing in the 40k rulebook that I've seen. Given that they are essentially the engine of the Raider/Ravager I don't see any reason to treat them any differently to any other engine.

You could also see that from a fluff perspective. What would happen to a raider if the aethersail was blown off? It would crash! To me it seem sensible that targetting it might have an effect...

Sigmaril wrote:

You could also see that from a fluff perspective. What would happen to a raider if the aethersail was blown off? It would crash! To me it seem sensible that targetting it might have an effect...

I don't know, the sail seems pretty decorative to me. The acceleration comes from the engines on the back and the hovering comes from the whatever that is on the bottom. Granted you could argue the sails are used to steer and they probably are intended for that, but I don't see a sail on the Venom.

At worst if you shoot the sail we'd be vector locked, at best if you shoot the sail we'd have to stop singing sea shanties.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Which definition? Nothing in the 40k rulebook that I've seen. Given that they are essentially the engine of the Raider/Ravager I don't see any reason to treat them any differently to any other engine.

Well, the actually definition of hulls and sails, for one.
But, gamewise, you specifically are told to ignore - gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, ect.
You are told to target hull or turret.
Wings are specifically counted as part of a hull.

Clearly the sail is not a turret (again, by the definition of what a hull and turret actually are).
So, the question is - are the sails 'hull' or are they 'ect'?
Neither hulls nor turrets are defined by the rulebook so your argument of 'what definition' falls flat as we need to use some sort of definition to know what the words mean, and, hey, like many undefined words in the book they appear to use the English language.

Per the dictionary a hull is - the body or frame of a ship/airship/ect.
A sail is - a piece of material extended on rigging.

So, I think it's safe to say the sail is, itself, not part of the hull.
I suppose a *very* narrow eyed interpretation could argue that the mast counts as part of the hull though the dictionary does not appear to support this theory.
I, personally, would argue that a mast has more in common with an antennae or banner than it does with a hull, and would suggest said player was a twit.

If he insisted I would allow him to target as such, but would wish to claim my disembarks from my boats into the third story of ruins as legal via wobbly model initial placement.

I basically disagree with your call on this one, Count. It is certainly not as clear cut as you appear to be trying to claim.

Thor665 wrote:

If he insisted I would allow him to target as such, but would wish to claim my disembarks from my boats into the third story of ruins as legal via wobbly model initial placement

As I said earlier, it's a double-edged sword. You want to shoot at the sail? I can shoot and disembark from it. Fair point though, the sail is probably less likely to be part of the hull, although I'd certainly still consider the prow to be.

I would also consider the prow to be - much like the deffrolla I think it only makes sense, after all, to ram you need to have hull to hull contact and visually it looks better with the ram/deffrolla touching than doing anything else. Though I do understand why people wish to argue otherwise - but if they do I just start my ram/rolla over the deployment line and it generally works out.

It is funny that I keep saying ram, as I never run those - but, y'know, rollas

In the past I seen some pretty unscrupulous measuring from various parts at tournies and some pretty silly line of sight stuff in the past. It takes a bit of common sense really, something that is pushed aside in lieu of technicalities the more competitive you get. Sails though are tricky, when playing my group generally consider the tips of sails and the top half to be non targetable as a lascannon through the fabric isn't going to do anything. The bottom half and the "masts" however are fair game because well, passengers would be there for example. Its difficult perhaps to simplify it as a yes you can or a no you cant because perhaps it depends on the angle, what's covering the rest of it etc.

Measuring from the tip of the mounted pyramid is pretty nit-picky for me, same if someone measured to it perhaps. At a high level its excusable because everyone tries to squeeze as many technicalities and loose interpretations of rules to gain the upper hand, at a friendly level I don't think it demonstrates good sportsmanship really. If the other player is being particularly lame (I once witnessed a slap fight between too guys over an additional 2mm in a movement phase) I might be tempted