Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is the Stormraven's twin-linked Assault Cannon (can be switch to TL-Lascannon or TL-Plasma Cannon) considered a turret or mounted? It doesn't specify in the Blood Angels codex. Anyone familiar with the model knows it has a turret construction and can pivot 180 degrees.

Look at the model, if it looks it can turn that way it can, with that said the little armor/hull bit behind the turret looks like it limits it's movement

 SabrX wrote:
Anyone familiar with the model knows it has a turret construction and can pivot 180 degrees.

I think you answered your own question.

 HoverBoy wrote:
Look at the model, if it looks it can turn that way it can, with that said the little armor/hull bit behind the turret looks like it limits it's movement

Unless you left it off of your model. (mine came unglued, I left it off for a few games, it does not really give any advantage with it gone, but I decided that I did not like that look so i glued it back on).

If you don't glue it then it spins in place like a turret.

The rules for Flyers should be kept in mind when talking about how much of an effect leaving off a bit has.

GW has decided that the freedom of movement of the actual model is used in determining Arc of Fire.
If the little armour/hull bit limits its ability to turn, then the bit should be left in place (or played as if it was in place).

I assembled mine using all the bits that came with the kit. I don't plan to glue it in place. I can't remember whether or not the instructions state it should be glued in place.

Steelmage99 wrote:
The rules for Flyers should be kept in mind when talking about how much of an effect leaving off a bit has.

GW has decided that the freedom of movement of the actual model is used in determining Arc of Fire.
If the little armour/hull bit limits its ability to turn, then the bit should be left in place (or played as if it was in place).

For the StormRaven it does not matter at all, as the gun rotates slightly more when the air intake is not there, but it has no LoS with that extra traverse because of the engine mountings that are blocking LoS.

To me, it works like the leman russ sponsoons. They are physically limited by the model in how they can fire (about 90 degrees) as opposed to normal space marine vehicle sponsoons (about 180 degrees). But in the case of the raven, it is a turret that is limited to about 180 degrees because of the engine piece (or whatever that is) physically in its way.

That top gun has a huge blind spot that most players just aren't aware of. Worth pointing out.

I'm the one who's going to bring up this argument: Wouldn't leaving part of the model off so the turret can rotate 360 degrees be MFA? You are changing the model to give an advantage...

The top gun has an angle of about 220 degrees.

Dandruff wrote:
I'm the one who's going to bring up this argument: Wouldn't leaving part of the model off so the turret can rotate 360 degrees be MFA? You are changing the model to give an advantage...

The top gun has an angle of about 220 degrees.

I modelled mine differently cos I hate the look of the tail and intake. I have modelled tail fins like a fighter on the engine cowlings.
One guy called MFA but it turns out I have more or less the same LOS with the forge world turret.

It's a turret, with only 180" rather than a 360",

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I modelled mine differently cos I hate the look of the tail and intake. I have modelled tail fins like a fighter on the engine cowlings.
One guy called MFA but it turns out I have more or less the same LOS with the forge world turret.

Ooo, sounds pretty. Pics please?

I don't know where you guys bought your protractors... but my storm raven turrent barely rotates 90degrees!

You draw line of sight down the barrel of the gun, so If you can't point one of the 2 guns at the target, then you can't shoot it. Given some liberty, there is about a 45 degree arc in which you can shoot up and down.

What's the arc on each Hurricane sponson by the way ?

About 80*. They are not great as the hull gets in the way for lots of it and they cannot make it to perpendicular to the hull.

Thanks!

 Testify wrote:
That top gun has a huge blind spot that most players just aren't aware of. Worth pointing out.

Uh oh. Here we go again.

Page 72 of the rulebook:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally
move the gun and point it towards the target because of the
way the model is assembled or because the gun has been
glued in place.In this case,players should assume that
the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their
mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that
guns can swivel vertically up to 45°,even if the barrel on the
model itself cannot physicallydo that! Additionally,assume
all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45°.

If it's a turret mounted weapon it's assumed to be 360 degrees as per the rules for turret mounted weapons. If your opponent is a sniveling little baby, you get at least 45 degrees. Of course this being GW, the rules are written like poorly.

 agnosto wrote:
Page 72 of the rulebook:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally
move the gun and point it towards the target because of the
way the model is assembled or because the gun has been
glued in place.In this case,players should assume that
the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their
mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that
guns can swivel vertically up to 45°,even if the barrel on the
model itself cannot physicallydo that! Additionally,assume
all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45°.

If it's a turret mounted weapon it's assumed to be 360 degrees as per the rules for turret mounted weapons. If your opponent is a sniveling little baby, you get at least 45 degrees. Of course this being GW, the rules are written like poorly.

No, really - its the physical limit of the rotation.

 agnosto wrote:
If it's a turret mounted weapon it's assumed to be 360 degrees as per the rules for turret mounted weapons.

It's assumed to be whatever the model is physically capable of.

If your opponent is a sniveling little baby, you get at least 45 degrees.

Characterising those who disagree with you as 'sniveling babies' is bound to end well...

 insaniak wrote:

Characterising those who disagree with you as 'sniveling babies' is bound to end well...

Point taken. Personally, I only play for fun against reasonable people, not tournaments, so if a weapon is in a turret then....

If the rule's in a different place than what a quoted, please direct me to the proper place; otherwise looks fairly cut and dry to me.

 agnosto wrote:
Point taken. Personally, I only play for fun against reasonable people, not tournaments, so if a weapon is in a turret then....

I also play for fun... both against friends and in tournaments. I'm not really sure what your point is.

If the rule's in a different place than what a quoted, please direct me to the proper place; otherwise looks fairly cut and dry to me.

The rule is the one you quoted... which refers to the weapon being free to move in its mounting, not having a blanket 360 degree arc.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Dandruff wrote:
I'm the one who's going to bring up this argument: Wouldn't leaving part of the model off so the turret can rotate 360 degrees be MFA? You are changing the model to give an advantage...

The top gun has an angle of about 220 degrees.

I modelled mine differently cos I hate the look of the tail and intake. I have modelled tail fins like a fighter on the engine cowlings.
One guy called MFA but it turns out I have more or less the same LOS with the forge world turret.

Which one is it; more or less?

Not wanting to come of as a rules lawyer or TFG, but when we really get down to the nitty-gritty, then "less" is fine, but "more" i MFA.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Dandruff wrote:
I'm the one who's going to bring up this argument: Wouldn't leaving part of the model off so the turret can rotate 360 degrees be MFA? You are changing the model to give an advantage...

The top gun has an angle of about 220 degrees.

I modelled mine differently cos I hate the look of the tail and intake. I have modelled tail fins like a fighter on the engine cowlings.
One guy called MFA but it turns out I have more or less the same LOS with the forge world turret.

Which one is it; more or less?

Not wanting to come of as a rules lawyer or TFG, but when we really get down to the nitty-gritty, then "less" is fine, but "more" i MFA.

A little more. You have confused intent with outcome. MFA requires intent, I modeled for the look of the model.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Dandruff wrote:
I'm the one who's going to bring up this argument: Wouldn't leaving part of the model off so the turret can rotate 360 degrees be MFA? You are changing the model to give an advantage...

The top gun has an angle of about 220 degrees.

I modelled mine differently cos I hate the look of the tail and intake. I have modelled tail fins like a fighter on the engine cowlings.
One guy called MFA but it turns out I have more or less the same LOS with the forge world turret.

Which one is it; more or less?

Not wanting to come of as a rules lawyer or TFG, but when we really get down to the nitty-gritty, then "less" is fine, but "more" i MFA.

A little more. You have confused intent with outcome. MFA requires intent, I modeled for the look of the model.

Good point when i do that (and i do that a lot converting is my favorite part of the hobby), i just play the model as if it was normal.
For insrance the "hull" lascannon on my vendetta is turret mounted (think choppers), but i still measure and check LOS from the spot it would occupy if the model was stock.

Even though it's a turret, the design of the vehicle prevents swivel of the turret from going the full 360 degrees.

It has nothing to do with how one assembles the vehicle, rather it's how the vehicle is designed. Yes, one can not model the air intake, but I'd call that MFA, regardless of their intent. If your opponent agrees to allow whatever range modeling that way allows, then go for it, but the design of the vehicle is still very clear and that design blocks a full 360 degrees.

As I play GK and BA, my group has treated the turret as having a 180 degree firing arc.

I feel a model bought should be fully assembled especially if it would increase the arc to not do so.

That being said though is there a rule against this in a strict RAW sense?

I've had people trim down Valkyrie wings to make them look alot better in the past, in 5th where you couldnt miss the thing with a blast marker.

 frgsinwntr wrote:
turrent

TURRET! Where do people find that n?

The rule quoted above even states that if you glue your gun in place, you lose your swivel. You're now down to 45 degrees. Always found that harsh. Some guns are just sensitive and the vehicle becomes more stable if you glue it together.

 Purifier wrote:
The rule quoted above even states that if you glue your gun in place, you lose your swivel. You're now down to 45 degrees. Always found that harsh. Some guns are just sensitive and the vehicle becomes more stable if you glue it together.

No it doesn't.
It says the exact opposite.
See page 72