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.

This might sound like a silly question, but can the two TL-Las side sponsons fire at something the Terminus Ultra is directly facing?

The answer seems to be no, as those TL-Lascannons can't fully face ahead due to the forward Las sponson getting in the way



If this is true, then the Terminus Ultra - firing at something directly ahead of it, can only fire with 1 TL-Lascannon and 2 other Lascannons, which is just half a Lascannon more firepower than a standard Godhammer/Phobos-pattern Land Raider firing at something straight ahead (2 TL-Lascannons).

Of course when firing at something to its side, the Terminus Ultra has 1 more Lascannon firepower than a Phobos firing at the same target.

Still I feel that, even if it were included in the SM dex, it would be a waste as paying 50 extra points and sacrificing ALL transport capacity and also sacrificing the option of being able to be taken as a transport instead of occupying a HS slot *just* to be able to get between 0.5 and 1 additional Lascannon firepower when firing at something just won't cut it.

Oh and it gets really funny when you realize that standard Land Raiders can now also take the Multi-Melta upgrade option that earlier used to be only reserved for Crusaders/Redeemers, so technically if enemy armor is within 24", the firepower advantage of a Terminus Ultra is even less compared to that of a standard Land Raider - the Terminus Ultra only has access to vehicle upgrades from the SM armory, but the MM isnt listed there; rather directly in the respective LR variant entries. So at <24" when firing at something straight ahead, the Terminus Ultra offers 0.5 extra Lascannon hits, while the standard Raider offers 0.66 MM hits. I'll take +0.16 shots at -1S, but +1AP over the Laz anyday. And lets not even think about the cheaper points cost of the standard Raider, the lack of power surges, the transport capacity, and the boost in AT firepower if shooting with the MM at something within 12"

If it's in the way, it's in the way.
Tough break really.

Sponsons are not hull... it is a grey area off the top of my head. I feel that it's probably intended that it can fire them all at the same target. IIRC the restriction on firing vehicle weapons is only hull and arc.

If your opponent has a larger target and is about 18" away you can indeed pump all the lazcannons at it.

Most of the time though, you fire 2 TLLC and a regular LC at one target, then use PotMS to pop off the other TLLC at a seperate target, only loosing one regular lazcannon shot.

Yeah, the terminus was a particularly poorly thought out idea...

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the terminus was a particularly poorly thought out idea...

Well to be frank there are builds that screw around with the sponson placement a little bit, like this one here, allowing for greater flexibility:




...but would that be a textbook case of MfA


...or would it be perfectly legal since there is no rule in the BRB regarding a vehicle's own "stuff" getting in the way? Weapons on a vehicle are only limited in terms of firing arcs which are clearly detailed in the rulebook.

I also believe there is a rule saying you can shoot through your own unit, so one could use that as justification for this kind of MfA.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Well to be frank there are builds that screw around with the sponson placement a little bit, like this one here, allowing for greater flexibility:

The fact that players came up with better designs doesn't change the fact that the Terminus was a stupid idea. If anything, for a company that prides itself on its creativity, the fact that it took people 3 and a half minutes to come up with better designs just makes it even worse.

...or would it be perfectly legal since there is no rule in the BRB regarding a vehicle's own "stuff" getting in the way? Weapons on a vehicle are only limited in terms of firing arcs which are clearly detailed in the rulebook. .

The firing arc is limited by the physical arc through which the weapon can turn. So the front lascannons will limit the rear cannons' arc.

Sadly the terminus ultra is no more though, lovely model though if not such good rules......

Being only able to fire 2 weapons after moving when it has 4 weapons wasnt good, nor was the firing arcs, this was a apoc only unit when it was out though wasnt it so not too much of a issue with apoc (HIWPI, apoc is not exactly competitive, house rules are a go!).

MarkyMark wrote:
Sadly the terminus ultra is no more though, lovely model though if not such good rules......

Being only able to fire 2 weapons after moving when it has 4 weapons wasnt good, nor was the firing arcs, this was a apoc only unit when it was out though wasnt it so not too much of a issue with apoc (HIWPI, apoc is not exactly competitive, house rules are a go!).

have the rules been scrapped? then why is GW still selling the upgrade kit?

 Sir Arun wrote:
have the rules been scrapped?

Not exactly. It's part of one of the formations in War Zone: Damnos now.

Considering it was "designed as a Titan killer" the 45 degree vertical elevation lets it fire all 5 Lascannons at most Titans. So still not a great design, atleast viable for intended use.

might come in useful against Imperial Knights ...lol

I think the problem with the terminus ultra is a matter of lazy modeling on the part of GW, not the rules. They wanted a new tank but didn't go to any effort to make the rear sponsons either lower, or higher, or even part of the front sponsons. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Ask an opponent if you can just fire 180 degrees with all the sponsons. I doubt many people out side of a tournament would have a problem. Especially since it costs .. what 300 points to field it.

On that note, remember that LOS is only blocked by the hull. Not by other weapons.

Eihnlazer wrote:
On that note, remember that LOS is only blocked by the hull. Not by other weapons.

while true, if it prevents you pointing a weapon at the target, then it's in the way. You can't magically pretend you can pivot through it.

Is one barrel of a twin linked weapon enough?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Is one barrel of a twin linked weapon enough?

Nobody knows.

 insaniak wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Is one barrel of a twin linked weapon enough?

Nobody knows.

I guess it's down to agreement with your opponent so.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Is one barrel of a twin linked weapon enough?

I dont think you can fit even one barrel behind the back of the forward Lascannon sponson

Im going with that weapons dont block LOS it goes by the hull...

Blocking LoS simply isn't the issue. It's the arc over which the weapon can be pointed.

Pyrian wrote:
Blocking LoS simply isn't the issue. It's the arc over which the weapon can be pointed.

If assembly of the model restrictts arc of fire it dosent matter, so for all purpouses the forward sponson isnt even there in terms of shooting the rear sponson, hull is still the limit though.

Its more clearly stated on page 72.

Is it?

By that logic the side sponsons of all codex approved Land Raider variants have a 180° fire arc.

Yet when you assemble them properly the shield only allows for a 90° fire arc...

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Blocking LoS simply isn't the issue. It's the arc over which the weapon can be pointed.

If assembly of the model restrictts arc of fire it dosent matter, so for all purpouses the forward sponson isnt even there in terms of shooting the rear sponson, hull is still the limit though.

Its more clearly stated on page 72.

That's not correct I'm afraid.
If you can't point the weapon at the target (assuming correct assembly, nothing glued in place) then it is outside the Arc of Sight.
No rule allows you to pretend the sponson isn't there.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Blocking LoS simply isn't the issue. It's the arc over which the weapon can be pointed.

If assembly of the model restrictts arc of fire it dosent matter, so for all purpouses the forward sponson isnt even there in terms of shooting the rear sponson...

That's not how it works. You're allowed to use the arc you would have if you've glued the weapon in place or added random doodads or whatever. You're not allowed to ignore the base configuration of the model, which in this case includes those forward sponsons.

I saw this problem at the start of the build.The solution is quite simple ,extend the sponson's on the back to accommodate the clearance from the front las cannon's.

 grendel083 wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
On that note, remember that LOS is only blocked by the hull. Not by other weapons.

while true, if it prevents you pointing a weapon at the target, then it's in the way. You can't magically pretend you can pivot through it.

BRB p 74, Vehicle weapons & line of sight, third paragraph, "On some models it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

While this may be RAW munching, I think it's acceptable here as GW was obviously sloppy and model design is broken. So from the above rule you can RAW out that it's free to move even through it's other sponson, so you'll get the full arc of your side sponson (front hull to back hull).

EDIT: can you put the TL lascannon in front of the normal one?

Zsolt wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
On that note, remember that LOS is only blocked by the hull. Not by other weapons.

while true, if it prevents you pointing a weapon at the target, then it's in the way. You can't magically pretend you can pivot through it.

BRB p 74, Vehicle weapons & line of sight, third paragraph, "On some models it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

While this may be RAW munching, I think it's acceptable here as GW was obviously sloppy and model design is broken. So from the above rule you can RAW out that it's free to move even through it's other sponson, so you'll get the full arc of your side sponson (front hull to back hull).

EDIT: can you put the TL lascannon in front of the normal one?

1st off you've dragged a thread up that's 8 months dead.

2nd this rule doesn't do what you think it does. It's for weapons that are glued or that should move but don't (Necron Nightsythe for example). Assuming the MOUNTINGS can move freely doesn't help if the hull then gets in the way and stops the weapon rotating. It's only the mountings that can be assumed to move freely, it doesn't allow the weapon to magically pass through the hull.

Yep, 8 months old is most definitely something we don't want to see happening. Have a good one