Vehicles going to ground

[Bean]

So, I was looking through the rules for going to ground, today, and I noticed that they referred to units and models--never non-vehicle units or any set of units that fails to include vehicles. According to the rules for going to ground, vehicles can pretty clearly do it. This struck me as odd, so I figured I'd see what you guys had to say:

Can anyone come up with a rule that prevents vehicles from going to ground?

[addamsfamily36]

I am speechless at this.......

so much so that I'm going to take a lie down and listen to calming whale music

[Bean]

I am speechless at this.......

so much so that I'm going to take a lie down and listen to calming whale music

Why?

[Morgan Darkstar]

pg 62 small rule book

VEHICLES AND COVER - OBSCURED TARGETS

3rd Bullet point

"Obviously vehicles cannot go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise."

[Bean]

pg 62 small rule book

VEHICLES AND COVER - OBSCURED TARGETS

3rd Bullet point

"Obviously vehicles cannot go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise."

Good to know.

[Morgan Darkstar]

No probs. :)

[addamsfamily36]

I am so glad that there is a rule. It is very late here, and i was too tiered too go through my rulebook ealier, but i was dreading the thought of the rule not being in there and facing the idea of tanks going to ground. Thank goodness it specifies they can't. if it didn't i think i would have cried

[dannyat2460]

if it didn't i think i would have cried

There there its ok the nasty rule has gone it cant hurt you ever again

[Tynskel]

If only had there not been the obscured target rules... I would have loved to turn my land raider on it's side, blocking LoS on the dread knight.

[Bean]

If only had there not been the obscured target rules... I would have loved to turn my land raider on it's side, blocking LoS on the dread knight.

Heh, you still can. No rules on the orientation your vehicles must take on the table. They can run around on their sides all you want. =P

[armbarred]

The only rule to prevent it would be which facing are you shooting at? What is its AV? Since none is listed, does it count as 0? So my little Bolt Pistol will auto pen you...

[Tynskel]

Heh, you still can. No rules on the orientation your vehicles must take on the table. They can run around on their sides all you want. =P

bwahahah!
Are you saying we are playing RAI?

[Skragger]

Even so, I think logic and common sense would have said "no, a tank cant dive into the dirt and try desperately to dig a foxhole with nothing but its... um.. exhaust port.. for dear life"

A walker, I could maybe possibly see. But even then, the thing is so large it wouldn't really change the target much. And I think most walkers suffer from "I've fallen and I can't get up"

[Bean]

The only rule to prevent it would be which facing are you shooting at? What is its AV? Since none is listed, does it count as 0? So my little Bolt Pistol will auto pen you...

No, this is one of the most classic examples of flawed logic around--akin to the "if there's no price tag on it, it's free!" nonsense that you sometimes get in the retail business.

If an item in a store doesn't have a price tag on it, it's not free--it's just not for sale.

If a facing doesn't have an armor value, the armor value isn't zero--you just can't hurt the vehicle in that facing at all =P. There is actually no reason at all to equate a lack of an armor value to an armor value of zero.

Really, though, the facing system doesn't depend on the vehicle being oriented in any particular way. You draw the corner-to-corner lines along whichever face is pointing up, pick a facing to be the front, and extrapolate the sides and the rear from there. It doesn't matter whether the vehicle is right-side-up, up-side-down, or on its side--the mechanism provided in the book still works.

So, no. Everything you've said here is basically just wrong. Sorry =P.




Are you saying we are playing RAI?

Nope.

[addamsfamily36]

Oh my, i had just gotten over tanks cowering behind some shrubbery, now, sideways tanks. I think i might go back to bed lol

[fade_74]

No, this is one of the most classic examples of flawed logic around--akin to the "if there's no price tag on it, it's free!" nonsense that you sometimes get in the retail business.

If an item in a store doesn't have a price tag on it, it's not free--it's just not for sale.

If a facing doesn't have an armor value, the armor value isn't zero--you just can't hurt the vehicle in that facing at all =P. There is actually no reason at all to equate a lack of an armor value to an armor value of zero..

So, by your logic....If the bottom of a tank can't be hurt.....what happens if I take the bits I have (5 leman russ bottom hull sections) and create a tank out of just those and a turret? Is it unkillable?

Oh, if you see something in a retail establishment that doesn't have a price on it....go to the register, and say "Excuse me, there is no price on this item, can you scan it and tell me how much it is?" Just because there is no price on it doesn't mean it's not for sale.

[Kawauso]

Heh, you still can. No rules on the orientation your vehicles must take on the table. They can run around on their sides all you want. =P

This sounds suspiciously like an invocation of the 'Air Bud Clause'. Which is stupid. :P

[Bean]

So, by your logic....If the bottom of a tank can't be hurt.....what happens if I take the bits I have (5 leman russ bottom hull sections) and create a tank out of just those and a turret? Is it unkillable?


No. That isn't a rational extension of my logic at all. What I said was that if a section of a vehicle didn't have an armor value, you couldn't hurt it. I then went on to say that every section of the vehicle will always have an armor value, regardless of how the vehicle is oriented.

The armor value isn't attached to a particular bit or physical portion of the model of the tank, but to the area of the tank which falls between the corner-to-corner lines of whichever of its facings is pointing up.

So, if you'd actually bothered to read what I'd written, you'd have seen that what you're suggesting here is both wrong and something with which I don't agree.



Oh, if you see something in a retail establishment that doesn't have a price on it....go to the register, and say "Excuse me, there is no price on this item, can you scan it and tell me how much it is?" Just because there is no price on it doesn't mean it's not for sale.

Sometimes. Shelves aren't generally for sale, nor are the store's own cleaning supplies and office supplies and computing equipment, nor any number of other items you can routinely find without price tags in retail stores. Anyway, it was just an example. The point is that an item without a value doesn't have a value of zero--it just doesn't have a value. The two aren't the same at all, and the argument to which I was responding required the assertion that they are.

[Bean]

This sounds suspiciously like an invocation of the 'Air Bud Clause'. Which is stupid. :P

I have no idea what you're talking about, but the fact remains that it is perfectly legal to place your tank on its side and play it like that.

[SonicPara]

I can't decide if this is trolling or just one of the most appalling attempts at rules exploitation :confused:

[Bean]

I can't decide if this is trolling or just one of the most appalling attempts at rules exploitation :confused:

Neither. It started as a legitimate question about the rules. That question was answered, but the thread persisted on a tangent because of a second legitimate and relevant observation of the rules coupled with people (like you) who are actually just trolling. If you have something relevant or legitimate to add to the thread, feel free. If you're just here to insinuate insults, please just don't.

[Tynskel]

Neither. It started as a legitimate question about the rules. That question was answered, but the thread persisted on a tangent because of a second legitimate and relevant observation of the rules coupled with people (like you) who are actually just trolling. If you have something relevant or legitimate to add to the thread, feel free. If you're just here to insinuate insults, please just don't.

Bwahahaha! a bit rich, eh?

The rules for the tanks are subjective. This is also the case for infantry models. This is due to GW wants you to have fun with converting your models.
You can modify your tank, but it obviously has to be within reason if you want to play with your tank with other people.

[SonicPara]

A question can be appalling, and these are. The notion that a tank could dive into the ground for cover or could work properly when propped up on its side is really reaching for some ultra-cheesy advantage and as a wargamer I find it appalling. I'm not saying that you are as I do not know the reasons that you are posing these questions, but the questions imply that someone is trying to exploit such absurd interpretations of the rules and in my opinion that is just awful.

Also, I'm now convinced that this is not trolling as you clearly don't understand what trolling is. Now this thread just makes me sad.

[Bean]

The rules for the tanks are subjective. This is also the case for infantry models. This is due to GW wants you to have fun with converting your models.
You can modify your tank, but it obviously has to be within reason if you want to play with your tank with other people.

The rules aren't subjective, but they are loose, and I generally agree that you should try to keep your conversions (even simple ones like turning a vehicle on its side) in-line with some conventional idea of what the model should look like, to avoid people simply refusing to play against you, which is a legitimate response.

[Bean]

A question can be appalling, and these are. The notion that a tank could dive into the ground for cover or could work properly when propped up on its side is really reaching for some ultra-cheesy advantage and as a wargamer I find it appalling. I'm not saying that you are as I do not know the reasons that you are posing these questions, but the questions imply that someone is trying to exploit such absurd interpretations of the rules and in my opinion that is just awful.

I disagree. The question wasn't really about trying to get an advantage, and, really, the notion that a tank commander might put some effort into maneuvering his vehicle to take full advantage of the available cover isn't ridiculous at all--it's actually been done in real life.


Also, I'm now convinced that this is not trolling as you clearly don't understand what trolling is. Now this thread just makes me sad.

I do know what trolling is: your earlier post is a prime example: posting without the intent to add useful content to the thread, but with the intent to incite or inflame an argument. You may not have been trolling, but if you weren't, your post was just stupid. I'm sorry the thread makes you sad, but it remains the case that your "contributions" are doing nothing but make it worse.

[addamsfamily36]

Sometimes. Shelves aren't generally for sale, nor are the store's own cleaning supplies and office supplies and computing equipment, nor any number of other items you can routinely find without price tags in retail stores. Anyway, it was just an example. The point is that an item without a value doesn't have a value of zero--it just doesn't have a value. The two aren't the same at all, and the argument to which I was responding required the assertion that they are.

Unless that store is woolworth's !!

i hope there are some UK people in this thread as that joke won't make any sense otherwise


I disagree. The question wasn't really about trying to get an advantage, and, really, the notion that a tank commander might put some effort into maneuvering his vehicle to take full advantage of the available cover isn't ridiculous at all--it's actually been done in real life.

Taking cover or maneuvering behind or into cover is a lot different from lying flat on the ground though.


I think the problem is the idea of a vehicle going to ground was absurd and was thankfully written off by the rules. Now there is a notion for sideways tanks. I'm not going to argue RAI or RAW just simply, If i set up my army on a table and my opponent took out his army and placed every tank sideways my only reason to play from that point on would be to teach that person a lesson. I would say i would pack up and leave, but i prefer to play against someone who isn't being as cheesy as that.

[SeattleDV8]

You would gain no advanage by putting a vehicle on it's side.
The top armour treated as the side armour as per BRB pg.60
"..barrage weapons, however, always hit the top vehicle's side armour (representing its top armour)"
And the bottom armour would be treated as rear armour as per the SM Codex pg.67 Cluster mines
"....the hits are resolved against the rear armour, to represent the munitions striking the weaker under-armour."

Silly arugment anyway , it comes down to "The rules don't say I can't do that!"
Which is not a strong point to argue rules from.
Or do you use the number on the bottom of the die to determine your rolls? because the book doesn't discuss that the top is the correct side to read, either. some things are just THAT obvious.

[addamsfamily36]

Silly arugment anyway , it comes down to "The rules don't say I can't do that!"
Which is not a strong point to argue rules from.
Or do you use the number on the bottom of the die to determine your rolls? because the book doesn't discuss that the top is the correct side to read, either. some things are just THAT obvious.

Lol, with my shocking ability to roll a large number of one's maybe i should try that one

[Demonus]

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests...

[wkz]

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests...
The sad thing is the fact that the real live version of this argument actually managed to acquit someone from a crime (instead of a mistrial or similar)...


...Silly arugment anyway , it comes down to "The rules don't say I can't do that!" ...Note: The rules OBVIOUSLY doesn't say I can't stab my opponent in order to prevent him from taking a turn!! So if I stab the person in the fact, he can't perform the next turn, so I WIN BY DEFAULT!!
<insert evil laughter here>

[SeattleDV8]

And everyone knows how painful it is to be stabbed in the 'fact'.....heh

[wkz]

And everyone knows how painful it is to be stabbed in the 'fact'.....heh
ah crud, a typo
Ah, but "fact" is not defined, good sir, thus it can mean just about any body part... ... ... do you feel lucky, PUNK?