What counts as hull?

[Welshman1440]

Just a quick one this morning

What exactly counts as the vehicle hull? Does the Hydra turret count as hull?

Does the wings of the valkyre also count as hull?

Thanks!

[SuperZuk]

IMHO, I do believe that the hull can be defined as the "base model" of the vehicle. This would include sponsons and chassis, however its debatable if the turrent can also be included. Some gamers may determine this by a house rule, but I'm not sure what the tournaments would rule.

In your example, I would count both the turret and the wings as part of the hull as its part of the infrastructure of the vehicle.

Anyone else have thoughts? The picture on pg 60 (Shooting at the Vehicle portion) of the rulebook does seem to assume that all the parts of the vehicle can be a part of the hull.

[Jwolf]

I would count wings as hull, yes.

[RocketRollRebel]

With a valk I do everything to do with measuring distances from the base and just use the model for LoS and facing and of course determining where units can disembark but otherwise I do it all from the base. Makes life easier.

[BuFFo]

Just a quick one this morning

What exactly counts as the vehicle hull? Does the Hydra turret count as hull?

Does the wings of the valkyre also count as hull?

Thanks!

Hull is just another word for body.

Do you consider your arms and legs part of your body? Yeah, of course you do. Think the same thing of vehicles. You'll understand it easier.

Considering a turret is up to you and your opponent/group.

[Welshman1440]

Thanks guys,

Buffo; I thought it was the case, people have tried it against me (Making the turret not actually a part of the hull) and the guy hid the 'hull' behind a chimera. The judge called in his favour to my protest. Just wanted to get the community's opinion on this.

[Nabterayl]

The rulebook explicitly calls the turret part of a vehicle's legal target zone. Not the guns attached to the turret, but the turret itself is legal. Same with walker arms and legs.

[gcsmith]

Think of this, if u can damage the gun, how on earth can u not shoot at it, Id say Fair enough i cant shoot u, but LOS works both ways.

[Nabterayl]

Think of this, if u can damage the gun, how on earth can u not shoot at it, Id say Fair enough i cant shoot u, but LOS works both ways.
Yeah, but the rulebook specifically says that gun barrels don't count as legal targets. It seems slightly silly at first, but if you think about it, if all you can see is a tiny bit of barrel, it's pretty silly to be able to cause the entire vehicle to explode so violently that all that's left is a crater :p

There are ways you could house rule this so that if you can't see the hull you can't cause immobilized or destroyed results, but I think GW decided to go the simpler route and just say that gun barrels cannot be shot.

[Lord Anubis]

Among my circle, we've got a simple understanding that any element that would be required for the vehicle work is "the hull" and a viable target.

A dreadnaught will keep working fine if you shoot off its banner, no matter how large and elaborate the banner is, so the banner is not a viable target.

A valkyrie will plunge to earth if you shoot off its wings, therefore the wings are a viable target.

We've found that 99% of the arguments against this get nullified by regular shooting rules. If someone wants to argue that seeing half an inch of the Valk's tail isn't a viable target, well, if all you can see is a sliver of the tail it's going to be obscured anyway, so there's less chance the shot will have an effect.

Nice, simple, and keeps the game moving. Which is the whole point.

[Dooley]

Being an actual US Army Tanker, I would have to say that the turret of a tank is a perfectly valid target. Now as far as just being able to see a weapon barrel or a banner or antenna and calling that a valid target I would say no. Plus its always a fair assumption that if you can shoot back you can get hit back. Maybe on the extreem cases like only being able to see fractions of modles aybe upping the cover save may be a viable option to keep the game moving.

[Lerra]

Another question: Is the turret a viable target after a "weapon destroyed" result that removes the turret? Most people will physically remove the turret after it is destroyed, especially on models like the Leman Russ where the turret is built to be removable.

[Nabterayl]

My inclination would be to say no. If it bothered me, I'd just tell my opponent to keep the turret on and I'd remember that the gun was destroyed.

[Dooley]

Although true LOS would apply. If they take the turret off and its not there you cant see it there for you cant hit it. But if they keep it on....light it up!