Antenae = Deathtraps?

[Locutus9956]

Just checking here but please tell me the huge antenae sticking out the top of the warrior arent counted for purposes of line of sight? Gun barrels and bits just sticking out are one thing but to have to hide an APC behind a 3 story building to keep it out of LOS would be pushing it a bit

 

[anton970]

common sense would be used, if you could see the "body" then fair enough but a whip anntena thats stupid!

 

[Hiromoon]

According to Matt it's part of the vehicle so it's fair game. Like Space Marine Sgts and their standard.. if it's poking up from behind a hill apparently you can still shoot at it.

 

[tneva82]

According to Matt it's part of the vehicle so it's fair game. Like Space Marine Sgts and their standard.. if it's poking up from behind a hill apparently you can still shoot at it.

GW games used(well atleast used. Dunno about latest development) use significant part visible rule. Sergeant banner showing not visible...

Frankly anybody trying to tell me they can shoot tank because ANTENNA is visible smacks powergamer to me.

 

[Hiromoon]

Given the size of those banners sometimes, Kumquat?


How about barrels?

 

[tneva82]

Given the size of those banners sometimes, Kumquat?


How about barrels?

Okay you can shoot the sergeant but it's only affecting banner. How much harm bullet riddled banner is going to be ?-)

As for barrels how much? If it's just barely visible again I would go for no. If it's well visible why not? Damage could represent dented barrel or something then. Kill scores bit harder justify but if barrel is well visible then go ahead.

 

[Hiromoon]

Deadly.. Apparently all Banners are coated with a flammable material that's strong enough to kill a Space Marine Sgt.

And okay, I just wanted to see where you were on this particular topic.

 

[Bondarus]

Surely this would come down to a common sense call between you and your opponent.

For me killing a vehicle outright cos you were able to shoot at its antenna is kinda dumb to me! :lol:

 

[Mr Evil]

simple

for game purposes dont attach the wip areals, as they slot in any way as seperatyes in the box, think ive lost one of mine already !!!

 

[Paladin]

Surely this would come down to a common sense call between you and your opponent.

For me killing a vehicle outright cos you were able to shoot at its antenna is kinda dumb to me! :lol:

Pretty much.

 

[Locutus9956]

Oh well, if theyre detachable then I guess its your own call But personally I would say that Matt wasnt being all that specific in his earlier post since the question was 'if you can only see a bit of the barrel or the antena' I would say if you can see ANY of the actual vehicle (including weapons), then its fair game.

 

[Turtle]

Simply put, I would tell my opponent that I, and most likely no one else, would ever play with him again if he was going to rules lawyer such a stupid result. It's a game, it's meant to be fun and friendly.

 

[lastbesthope]

But personally I would say that Matt wasnt being all that specific in his earlier post since the question was 'if you can only see a bit of the barrel or the antena' I would say if you can see ANY of the actual vehicle (including weapons), then its fair game.

Seemed pretty specific to me:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=25532&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Matt's 2nd post is the 4th post in the thread

LBH

 

[Locutus9956]

Rules lawyer it all you like but no sane wargamer would EVER allow you to target a vehicle based on being able to see something like a giant tall arial like that (not with direct fire anyway). I really dont care what is said by who on this one, any ruling that attempts to say you can target a vehicle that you cant even remotely see except for a tiny bit of wire sticking 10 feet above it is just plain wrong. End of story.

 

[Poko]

well, in Hordes you can also target a toenail of a warbeast.

while it does seem uterly stupid from sensible pov, i guess it does cut considerably on the number of LoS arguments during the game-if you can see it you can shoot it, end of story.

 

[Sgt. Brassones]

I could understand it if you were using a grenade launcher or morter as you need to know where the target is and then attack it from the top in an arcing tragectory.

 

[Locutus9956]

Im fine with it for potruding bits of a model like guns turrelts etc but in this case were talking about an arial that is taller than the model is long! But as I said I agree where indirect fire is used that fair enough you only need to know where the target is roughly not a line of sight to it (for mortars etc.

 

[TabletopWarrior]

If you know where your target is, it can be knocked out.

For example, even in WWII, a german Panther knocked out a Sherman tank he couldn't see. But he could tell where the Sherman was because of the trees the sherman was knocking down as it was moving through the forest. The German tanker was in a position to see the trees falling and was able to figure out the target location. This is from an official WWII era intel report.

So a future tank gun might be able to knock out a tank, shooting through the obstruction, so long as he knows where the target is located.

Some future anti-tank guided missiles actually shoot up into the air and come down to attack the top armor of the target vehicle.

So there are definitley situations when targetting should be allowed, because the firing unit can see a small portion of the target vehicle.

Should a current RPG be able to do that? Heck no! But these rules are intended to be a bit simpler, so there are a few wrinkles. But overall, I think this is a good rule.

TW

 

[katadder]

lol guess all warriors will be entering the battlefield minus aerials then no comms guys sorry, the enemy might see our aerial and kill us through it.

 

[Hiromoon]

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense, does it?