Assualting tanks

[hivefleetsurt]

This has come up in a few different games that I've played. If you are assaulting a tank and that tank has the 'dozer blade' upgrade and it is modeled onto the tank, do you have to still have to be able to reach the hull of the tank or just the dozer blade? I've had my cc fex assault a vindicator in cover and roll a 5 on the difficult terrain roll and be able to reach the dozer blade but not the hull and been told that he doesn't make it into assault. Also what if it is modeled on the tank but not taken as an upgrade?

[coredump]

The blade is part of the tank. If you can get to the blade, you can attack.
Just like you can't get within 1" of the blade if you are not assaulting.
Just like if they tank shock, and the blade touches, you are affected.

The blade is an upgrade, just like any other part of the tank.

[hivefleetsurt]

Thanks. That is what I thought. But what about if it is modeled on the tank but they didn't take the upgrade?

[coredump]

You can model a tank (or most anything) any way you want. You can put a dozer blade on a landspeeder, if you want to model it that way. It just has no effect unless it is allowed, and you pay for it.
So, if they want their tank to have a dozer blade, that is fine, but then it is part of the tank.

Tell you what, put a small layer of felt around the base of your models. Now they can't get assaulted, ever....

[lowlygaunt]

Just remember a lot of these rules are designed so people do not begin modeling to take advantage of them. If the dozer blade were not part of the tank and did stop assault I guarentee in the next tournament you would see people with that blade modeled 6 inches in front of their tanks, and 10 inches wide so you had to run all the way around it to assault the tank. The rule about vehicles blocking LoS in a collumn up is the same thing. Otherwise some powergame players would model all of their vehicles 6 inches tall to giarentee they blocked LoS.
I remember when the ork battlewagon rules said they can carry as many ork models as can fit on it, and any that fall off are killed. People showed up with a wire hanger sticking out the top of the wagon, and slipped 50 orks onto it thru the gap between their legs. Yep, it therefore carried 50 orks and none died because they couldn't fall off (which was in reality very orky in fluff).
There is a point where common sense needs to not be discarded to give a player an advantage in a game. Interpreting rules this way really takes away from the game. Playing should be fun, not winning, players who interpret rules only in their fasvor need to re think their reasons for playing. This is why the tournaments factor in sportsmanship into their decisions on winning players. Last gamesday LA, there were 13 undefeated players in 40k (i think close to 100 entered). Sportsmanship and army painting decided the real tournament winners!
Oooops sorry, one of my buttons! Sorry for the rant.

[coredump]

The rule about vehicles blocking LoS in a collumn up is the same thing.

There is no such rule. Vehicles are wysiwyg, if you can see over them, they don't block LoS. (except walkers in CC, and skimmers)

[Sledgehammer]

Not only is the dozer-blade a legitimate target of your assault. It's also a target to shoot at: Your opponent hides his tank behind terrain (WYSIWYG-terrain in this case) and from the perspective of your sniperfex you can just see the edge of his dozerblade you can shoot the tank, even if the tank were invisible to the fex without the blade...

[arcticsnake]

I thought Vehicles are the same as MCs, Size 3 and blocks line of sight...

[coredump]

The do block line of sight, but you can see over them.

Normal infantry don't block line of sight, you can see *through* them.

[lowlygaunt]

Yeah, I used the term collumn up instead of the "size 3" term, for example, at the local GW, a dreadnaught blocks LoS if your LoS traces its path thru the dreadnaughts base, that is their interpretation, even if you can see something thru its legs etc, this was done because someone added a solid wall to the back of their dreadnaught to create a 4x4 inch wall blocking LoS, and other players quickly began copying this so they were not "screwed" by allowing shots thru its legs, arms etc. It got old very fast. I have been at tournaments where people purposefully built extra armor onto their rhino's in such a way that it created a 10 inch wide wall, that was 8 inches high, behind which their troops could shelter. These are the reasons for interpreting the vehicle as blocking LoS over its normal base area as a collumn 3 "sizes" high (the collumn description comes from the GW staff here). Almost all of the GW terrain, LoS rules etc are really left purposefully open and vague, so that they can be interpreted in agreement amongst players, when someone starts to use WYSIWYG in an "abusive" manner.

[coredump]

It would have been better if the tourney judges, or GW red shirts, had just stopped people from doing stupid stuff with their models.

There is a big difference between shooting through a models legs, and putting up a 4x4 wall behind your model. Of course, I suppose they don't mind that if I can see that wall, I can shoot that dread...
And if you want to be that anal... by shooting through the dreads legs, you still can only target exactly what you can see. (ie. the one model in LoS)

Instead of making new rules, they should have just disallowed that stupid tank.

Yes, going through the legs is crazy, but LoS is pretty straightforward, if you can see the target, you can shoot the target. (Area and CC not withstanding)

[lowlygaunt]

Yeah, I certainly wasn't arguing with you Coredump, just pointing out the things I have seen in my 16 years of experience in tabletop wargaming. And you will find players who will interpret the things you say as "stupid" or that should be outlawed (as in this case) as someone just using the rules to their advantage (and here we are back to a similiar beardy/cheesy definitions and validity argument).
It was simpler to define the rule as a collumn on the base, then for the GW staff to go look at every person's army for things of this nature they had to rule on, thus taking the chance that they would lose people from the tournament etc, and at the least make an enemy of the player they "targeted". The base as the definition for LoS is a simple solution to the gajillion ways people build vehicles, given the standard basing system GW has. I am amazed you have not run into these issues in tournaments yourself. And certainly you can see how this simple interpretation eliminates a lot of arguments?
Now, to point out a recent argument at the GW Northridge store that this rule solved, and that shows that LoS is not so simple (seeing LoS is simple, determining the results of hits thru LoS is not). Because of terrain, two dreadnaughts were in line on the board between two buildings. the front was a CC dread and the back an anti-vehicle dread. The opposing player wished to shoot the rear dread, because its ranged weapons were a far greater threat than the CC's. He could see the rear dread thru the legs of the front, but only see one of its feet. he therefore claimed LoS to the dread and fired, destroying it. The owning player then began to argue that if he could only see one foot (true under LoS), the destroyed/explodes region of the chart should be impossible to get. It is irrelevant who was right etc, both guys had a logical argument to support their side, and neither was going to back down (which really means they were a little to intent on "winning"). By making the front dread a collumn blocking LoS before the game was started, and having both players agree to the rule, the GW staff simply negated completely the argument.
Sometimes what one interpets as "stupid", another interprets as fitting the fluff or just a cool conversion. If they had left it to the staff to just remove "stupid" vehicles, then it becomes a complete interpretation and judgement call, something most rule systems try very hard to avoid, and at the absolute least, would leave a player unhappy.
Just to be complete here, and not that I am certainly defending the player who added the block to his dread, but his explanation was that his chapter came from a world with serious volatile chemicals in its atmosphere, and that rainfall would destroy vehicles in mere months due to this. So each vehicle was fitted with an "umbrella" to defend it from this corrosive nature. In combat it was rotated to its back. Pure fluff BS, designed just to justify what he had done, but my point is, people will find a fluff way to justify these things. And this fluff isn't any more unreasonable then a lot of the fluff in the GW codices. So that player had a "legitimate" argument for the conversion of his vehicle. Throw the vehicle out of the tournament and you are making an arbitrary "this FLUFF is stupid, not a this vehicle is stupid" decision. And GW certainly does not want to deter any fluff players come up with.
Now most of the above is not my own argument, but instead the email response of the local manager of the GW store (who I know well and corrospond with due to my own activities at the store), so no killing the meesenger please!
Ooops sorry, got long winded, wasn't my intention. Just remember nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and rarely does a yes/no answer cover all possible circumstances.

[coredump]

I understand your point, and I understand the simplicity involved in the 'column' approach. I just don't believe it is the only or best solution to some of the abuses.

Just because you can't tell the exact boundary between 'okay' and 'not okay' doesn't mean there is no boundary. (by 'you' I mean in general, not anyone in specific)

For instance, I can understand the argument about shooting between the legs, and it goes with the bit about being able to see 'enough' of a target model.
But that doesn't mean a judge can't tell when someone is trying to abuse the system. That is what a judge is for... making judgments.
For instance, I can put my gaunts on bases that are 4" diameter. Now you can't get past them to my Zilla list. Or I can put my fexes on 6" diameter bases... now they will *really* block LoS. If I did this, I would expect a Judge to tell me to stop being a putz.

Someone wants to add a huge wall behind them, or a crazy 'umbrella'..... it is up to the judge to make a call, preferably without making up new rules.

Now, to be clear, when you talk about a 'column' how tall is that column? For instance, if my warrior with a VC can see over your tank, can I shoot over your tank? Is the column infinite, or is the column you are talking about just to the physical height of the model?

Hey, no killing the messenger, I am not even upset with the ruling, as much as upset that it was made because of some (apparent) putzes trying to abuse the system

[lowlygaunt]

Well said Coredump! the collumn was the regular 3 "sizes" high. I also think the issue with the judges making a ruling is a factor of how many judges. Sadly at Gamesday LA, for the tournament with 100 players or so there were. . .4 official judges. it was somewhat crazy, but that is all the staffers GW had to officially judge the rules during the tournament! Same with the local GW store. Often on nights where there are 20+ players about, there are two employees trying to run the store and oversee the rules etc. they just do not have the time to make a ruling on every little thing, especially given that each game is supposed to be finished in 90 minutes (which in itself is insane, since some battles are 2k on 2k. On the same note and even more insane, many of these people want to go to apocolypse 3k vs 3k in 90 inutes on a 4x4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! table. Can you imagine deploying a 3500 point army of tyranids on a 4 foot table?!?! Talk about zero manueverability, strategy etc, just run straight ahead, its all you can do.)

PS; on the rules abuse thing, I have seen it all. i was at GW two weeks ago, and watched a night goblin player try to pull one of the most unbelievable abuses I have seen. For those who don't know Night goblins get fanatics in their units. They are crazy gobbos with wrecking balls, who pop out of the unit when an enemy gets within 8", and they can do massive damage. this guy in placement had a unit of gobbos that was 20 ranks deep. It covered almost 16" of table. he placed it at the edge of his deployment zone (12" in) facing lengthwise on the board, so front face the side of the board. On his first turn, he "wheeled" the front of the unit so that it faced away from his opponent, and by the wheel rules, claimed the rest of his unit then lined up behind them. . .thus stretching across the board and to within 8" of his opponent, so that his fanatics came out, charged on turn 1 before his opponent even moved. he then had enough movement left to turn the gobbo unit about face. The store employees told him to go away. This guy was serious too!
When you play long enough, and tournaments have something on the line, you will see it all!

[zark]

Well one of my house rules is that if there is a dissagreement about the rules and there is no way to solve the issue quickly without alienatign one party, we usually just grab a die each and roll whoever rolls higher go by that ruling then move onto the game.
Sure you may get annoyed at the result but its the fairest way to resolve the issue without siding with one party. The bottom line is its just a game, the more time you use arguing over minor issues the less time you get to play.