Question 1: Are tank side sponsons considered one weapon or two?

example: opponent rolls 'weapon destroyed' on damage table, are both sponsons eliminated or just one?

Question 2: Are pintle-mounted weapons considered weapons in the example above, where a 'weapon destroyed' is rolled on the damge chart? (i think it is cheese that my opponent purchases a combi-bolter on his vindicator so to save his demolisher cannon at the expense of a 5 point upgrade)

please explain and consider different circumstances. thanks!

Q1) 2 under all circumstances unless specifically stated otherwise

Q2) The opponent chooses what weapon is destroyed, not you. The Pintle weapons just allow you do do stuff after the main gun is gone and also stop additional weapon destroyed results becoming immobilised.

I'm not sure about the first scenario, last time my LR got a weapon destroyed on it I forget what happened.

For the second scenario I believe the upgrade weapons are applicable under weapon destroyed.

to GWAR!:

REALLY?! man have I been getting shafted if I (the attacking player) gets to choose which weapon my opponent (he who is receiving the vicious blows) has lost!

can I get BGB cite so I can vehementle defend this position next time it comes up?

Pretty sure it's page 60 or 61

Deuce11 wrote:to GWAR!:

REALLY?! man have I been getting shafted if I (the attacking player) gets to choose which weapon my opponent (he who is receiving the vicious blows) has lost!

can I get BGB cite so I can vehementle defend this position next time it comes up?

Page 60, under "3 Damaged - Weapon Destroyed":
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed

I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

I play it as 2 weapons for all purposes.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

Yeah but you never play by the rules anyway.

Two weapons - you roll to hit separately, they have different arcs of fire.

If they were one weapon, you would be rolling it as 'twin-linked', and you would only ever be able to fire out the front!

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

Yeah but you never play by the rules anyway.

You know in all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone model a tank with only one side sponson. I understand that you see the rules in black and white Gwar but they need to be read all over. Oh snap.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

Yeah but you never play by the rules anyway.

You know in all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone model a tank with only one side sponson. I understand that you see the rules in black and white Gwar but they need to be read all over. Oh snap.

G

They are printed in black and white, so no wonder he sees them like that jk

They are destroyed together IMO.

As they are purchased at a single cost, therefor they are a single target to be destroyed.

In fact I can not find a single person locally around that thinks otherwise.

Clthomps wrote:They are destroyed together IMO.

As they are purchased at a single cost, therefor they are a single target to be destroyed.

In fact I can not find a single person locally around that thinks otherwise.

Lol, that is by far the most Bananas Logic I have ever seen. An Imperial Guard Squad is bought for a single cost, should the whole unit die if one model dies?

Clthomps wrote:They are destroyed together IMO.

As they are purchased at a single cost, therefor they are a single target to be destroyed.

In fact I can not find a single person locally around that thinks otherwise.

Really? Huh.

Of the 4 states and 6 or 7 groups I've played in over the years, I've never seen a single person who hasn't played them as 2 separate weapons. I'd always see it done as 2 separate weapons when GW used to run games at GD, too.

Not saying you're wrong, just never personally seen it played or even suggested it be played that way before.

Especially ya know since it says you get a PAIR of sponsons. Last I checked PAIR meant two (Conversely PEAR means tasty Fruit, like a banana)

Since they are clearly two weapons then I have to agree with GWAR...separate.

Two seperate weapons. They fire individually and fire in different directions.

Two separate weapons.
Fire separately, destroyed separately.

Only bought as ONE option.

2 weapons I think most people get confused by this specifically when thinking of heavy bolter sponsons. Since in 4th ed STR 5 weapons were considered defensive people always fired with 3 HB + battle cannon from a LRBT or heavy bolters + auto cannon from Predators. Even in 4th ed they wre considered 2 weapons but being able to fire them always is a likely reason for confusion.

Yeah, it always struck me as pretty clear. Sponsons count as one weapon each, so a weapon destroyed result can only take out one at a time, even though they're bought in pairs.

On the note of Land raiders in the space marine codex, it specifically states the entry for each land raider variant that the side mounted weapons with the word two in front of it (e.g. "Two twin-linked lascannons") as opposed to the phrase sponson mounted lascannons.

The term 'two' is identifying them individually as opposed to grouping them as a multi-part weapons system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To me sponson mounted weapons have always functioned as 2 seperate weapons for LOS, firing, targeting (with reference to the land raider machine spirit rules), and applicable firing arcs.
Even though they are purchased as a single option they are physically 2 separate weapons on the vehicle.

Yes, any two non twin-linked weapons are 100% separate, regardless of whether they were purchased together or not. It's ridiculous to say that your weapon destroyed result is going to destroy two weapons on different sides of the tank at once.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Yes, any two non twin-linked weapons are 100% separate, regardless of whether they were purchased together or not. It's ridiculous to say that your weapon destroyed result is going to destroy two weapons on different sides of the tank at once.

But the Flux Capacitor was hit with the enemies Inverted Tachyon Beam which reversed the Polarity of the Positronic Circuitry causing a Cascade Failure in the Main Deflector Dish Captain!

More likely the Imperium uses cheap wiring and it has a nasty habit of causing a chain reaction that carries though and overloads the weapon on the far side.
In the 41st millennium good electrical engineers are hard to find.

I think my theory is far more likely

For those that prefer a 'legalistic' arguement, the rule states on a 3, One of the vehicles 'weapons' is destroyed.

A pair of sponsons is not a weapon in their own right, - they are moutings for weapons. As per the diagram shown on page 58 with the description of 'the weapon on the right sponson cannot draw line of sign, to the chosen target....".

So, with my legal hat on, the destruction of a weapon would be the destruction of a weapon from a sponson (singular).

Add that to the fact you are paying double the cost for two guns and Im committed to the "they are two weapons" camp.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Two seperate weapons. They fire individually and fire in different directions.

Noting PotMS as one exception the two sponsons fire at the same target. They are a weapons system.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Two seperate weapons. They fire individually and fire in different directions.

Noting PotMS as one exception the two sponsons fire at the same target. They are a weapons system.

G

The battlecannon also fires at the same target, are you saying that the Battlecannon and the Heavy Bolter are the same weapon system too?

@Green Blow Fly: Following that logic, do you count the bolters carried and fired by a unit of marines as one weapon system, because all bolters have to fire at the same target?
I can see neither a rule aspect nor a "realistic" aspect why one "weapon destroyed" result should insta-kill weapons on complete opposite sides of a vehicle, which are manned by different gunners and fired like they were separate units according to the rules.

This one is easy, they fire separately, they are 2 different weapons. If they fire together (the Tau pulse gun things for example) then they are one system.

Since on the LR the side sponsons can fire at separate targets with machine spirit, that would shoot down even the last trace of an arguement that sponsons are a single weapon.


Sliggoth

I think the consensus on this thread is clear. However, I am deeply disturbed that people thought the 2 sponsons were removed as one unit in a weapon destroyed situation.

Really, why waste the ink to print 2 lines for what can be said in 1 line. Secondly, by not having 2 lines written for a line item cost we don't see 1 sponson Leman Russ tanks out there. Which would therefore require a third line to be printed to state you can't take just 1 sponson, and a following erratta / faq printed 9 months later, AND hours on a forum arguing how 1 sponson weapons make no sense.

So, to be clear, 1 purchase cost, 2 separate weapons, 2 separate damage removals.

No place in C:SM does it call it a weapon system, or tell you that you have purchased two guns that can't function without each other. The requirement is simply that if you get two guns for one price, one mounted on each side. They do not give you an option to purchase only one gun. One is not required for the other to work; one is required to purchase the other.

There is no requirement that is specific to the gun profile or the vehicle profile to require them firing on the same target, or both firing together at all. The only requirement that governs the predator in this regard is the standard generic "can't split your fire" rule. If you are trying to claim that makes them a weapon system (which is a made up term in the predators case), then the turret weapon would be part of your mythical weapon system as well, since it is required to fire at the same target as the side sponson weapons.

What examples are there of any guns that are purchased together and destroyed together besides a twin-linked gun?

Flexen wrote:I think the consensus on this thread is clear. However, I am deeply disturbed that people thought the 2 sponsons were removed as one unit in a weapon destroyed situation.

Really, why waste the ink to print 2 lines for what can be said in 1 line. Secondly, by not having 2 lines written for a line item cost we don't see 1 sponson Leman Russ tanks out there. Which would therefore require a third line to be printed to state you can't take just 1 sponson, and a following erratta / faq printed 9 months later, AND hours on a forum arguing how 1 sponson weapons make no sense.

So, to be clear, 1 purchase cost, 2 separate weapons, 2 separate damage removals.

I am deeply disturbed that you are deeply disturbed about a trivial subject. Please lighten up. This is a game of toy soldiers.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:No place in C:SM does it call it a weapon system, or tell you that you have purchased two guns that can't function without each other. The requirement is simply that if you get two guns for one price, one mounted on each side. They do not give you an option to purchase only one gun. One is not required for the other to work; one is required to purchase the other.

There is no requirement that is specific to the gun profile or the vehicle profile to require them firing on the same target, or both firing together at all. The only requirement that governs the predator in this regard is the standard generic "can't split your fire" rule. If you are trying to claim that makes them a weapon system (which is a made up term in the predators case), then the turret weapon would be part of your mythical weapon system as well, since it is required to fire at the same target as the side sponson weapons.

What examples are there of any guns that are purchased together and destroyed together besides a twin-linked gun?

If a DCCW is destroyed do you also remove the gun attached to it such as a melta or heavy flamer?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:If a DCCW is destroyed do you also remove the gun attached to it such as a melta or heavy flamer?

You mean the weapon that has the explicit notation that the melta, flamer, or storm bolter is a built-in weapon? Of course. Thank you for pointing out the precedence within the same codex. The Predator has no such notation that the side sponsons are "built-in" together, and thus would not be destroyed together.

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:If a DCCW is destroyed do you also remove the gun attached to it such as a melta or heavy flamer?

You mean the weapon that has the explicit notation that the melta, flamer, or storm bolter is a built-in weapon? Of course. Thank you for pointing out the precedence within the same codex. The Predator has no such notation that the side sponsons are "built-in" together, and thus would not be destroyed together.

QFT.

green Blow Fly needs to read the rules a little better before talking methinks.

There is nothing in the rules to support that they are either one or two weapon systems. A consensus here is nice but not conclusive.

In regards to the DCCW query I was just throwing your camp a little bone to chew on Gwar. Have at it mate.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is nothing in the rules to support that they are either one or two weapon systems. A consensus here is nice but not conclusive.

In regards to the DCCW query I was just throwing your camp a little bone to chew on Gwar. Have at it mate.

G

Actually, the DCCW weapon case is crystal clear.
Page 73: If the walker suffers a weapon destroyed result and the player chooses the close combat weapon, the walker loses the bonuses conferred by the Dreadnought close combat weapon (and any other weapon built into the same arm).

Can you explain to me why you think sponsons are 1 Weapon even though there are two of them, they have different Arcs of fire and in the Case of the Land Raider can even fire at different targets?

G, I think you are a great guy and all, but that sponson weapons are 1 weapon idea is nuts (no offense). I have never even heard of this before. I have played in 3 different countries and several different stores too. But your not the only one that plays it that way from this thread, its neat to see how other people play.

Honestly, there is no rule anywhere that I have seen that either claimed that they are one weapon or separate weapons. To me, it seems pretty logical that because they operate *independently* of each other, regardless that they are bought together means the can be destroyed *independently* from each other as well.

And for the fact that GW goes through lengths to tell us that certain weapons (DCCW/built in weapon and co-axle weapons) are in fact destroyed with the other 'main' weapon kinda points to the 'default' being that we must assume unless specified otherwise that other *independent* weapons must be treated separately when it comes to 'weapon destroyed' results.

It doesnt matter how many people you have played that play it that way... there could be many more that play it my way for all we know.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:It doesnt matter how many people you have played that play it that way... there could be many more that play it my way for all we know.

G

No, there isn't.

I used to think that both sponsons were removed in a Weapon Destroyed result because they are often bought as a set.

Then I read the rules and realized that there is no basis for that position whatsoever.

Green Blow Fly wrote:It doesnt matter how many people you have played that play it that way... there could be many more that play it my way for all we know.

G

We accept the rules as the only method of gaming and that is all we consider on this forum. If you like to make up your own rules, this isn't the right forum. GBF is just arguing to argue.

I think he actually gets these ideas that make sense to him, believes he's "got it" so to speak, and then refuses to change his position for fear of losing face on the internet.

sourclams wrote:I think he actually gets these ideas that make sense to him, believes he's "got it" so to speak, and then refuses to change his position for fear of losing face on the internet.

he should Browse /b/ for a while. Crushes your self esteem and makes you not care really.

I am always right you know
And when I do make an Error, I admit it (as rare as those are )

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

Yeah but you never play by the rules anyway.

QFT.

I lol'd

Green Blow Fly wrote:
You know in all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone model a tank with only one side sponson.
G

I used to play a kid who had a predator with one HB and one LC sponson. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that he'd glued his pride an joy into an illegal (and fugly) abomination.

I say when I am wrong. In this case there is a circle jerk in progress. You already have your pivot man so I won't participate.

G

Oh yes you will. For the simple reason that you need to have the last word.

No you do.



G

I've never seen two sponson weapons treated as being destoryed by one Weapon Destoryed result.

And here's the last word:

Sniekies!

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Yes, any two non twin-linked weapons are 100% separate, regardless of whether they were purchased together or not. It's ridiculous to say that your weapon destroyed result is going to destroy two weapons on different sides of the tank at once.

But the Flux Capacitor was hit with the enemies Inverted Tachyon Beam which reversed the Polarity of the Positronic Circuitry causing a Cascade Failure in the Main Deflector Dish Captain!

I don't know which part is even my favorite. Maybe the one where Gwar referred to me as "Captain."

Carry on, Ensign.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I say when I am wrong. In this case there is a circle jerk in progress. You already have your pivot man so I won't participate.

G

Actually its more like a anal rape and your the star.

Say that to my ass cannon when you try to stick it in I'll blow it off... not like you have much to contribute anyways.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh snap.

GBF - if you sided with chaos, you would have a REAPER Ass cannon!

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Flexen wrote:I think the consensus on this thread is clear. However, I am deeply disturbed that people thought the 2 sponsons were removed as one unit in a weapon destroyed situation.

Really, why waste the ink to print 2 lines for what can be said in 1 line. Secondly, by not having 2 lines written for a line item cost we don't see 1 sponson Leman Russ tanks out there. Which would therefore require a third line to be printed to state you can't take just 1 sponson, and a following erratta / faq printed 9 months later, AND hours on a forum arguing how 1 sponson weapons make no sense.

So, to be clear, 1 purchase cost, 2 separate weapons, 2 separate damage removals.

I am deeply disturbed that you are deeply disturbed about a trivial subject. Please lighten up. This is a game of toy soldiers.

G

I am also disturbed by you GBF, mostly because you seem to lack any ability to critically examine your starting assumptions and recognize when you are in error despite blatantly obvious and clear text. That is disturbing because one assumes that you can vote, and the possibility of others like you being majority tyrants is horrifying.

BTW how would (for example) a lascannon shot destroy each sponson (at the same time) without damaging the rest of the tank?

Kapitan Montag wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
You know in all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone model a tank with only one side sponson.
G

I used to play a kid who had a predator with one HB and one LC sponson. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that he'd glued his pride an joy into an illegal (and fugly) abomination.

Hey, if he was paying for LC sponsons I would let him have it.

Things like real warfare have nothing at all to do with wargaming or the rules but please feel free to continue entertaining us with your real world examples. They are very interesting to say the least.



G

GWAR! I see your frustration and amuzement and agree with the hilarity. Each sponson is one weapon guys, they are treated as individual weapons, fire independently and so are not counted as a pair. What you are basically arguing is that a lascannon shot rips off the left gun and because the right gun feels left out, it blows up too...

Not true, just as coaxial weapons like next to a baneblade's main cannon, or one of the razorback options, lascannon AND twin linked plasma gun can be destroyed independently.

Now although I agree with what Gwar has said (although I do not agree with Gwar) Having the two lascannons as one weapons system makes the LR much more assaulty. Now you can fire both of them when you move 6 in or when you use PotMS (if they get destroyed together, they should fire as a unit as well). Heck ya, 12 in and I can still fire all the weapons except for my heavy bolter, I am totally down with that, my grey knights will be better than ever. and if I use PotMS I can still fire the Lascannons at different targets! For firepower like that I wouldnt mind it... alas its still against RAI and RAW.

That is how it would have to be played right?

GBF - what's your stance on super heavy tank sponsons? Which, as they are mounted on a super-heavy, can fire at separate targets all day long.

Scott-S6 wrote:GBF - what's your stance on super heavy tank sponsons? Which, as they are mounted on a super-heavy, can fire at separate targets all day long.

By GBF's logic - all the weapons on a bane blade are purchased in the cost of the tank, therefore, when 1 weapon is destroyed, then they all blow up because they were not line item purchases with separate and individual costs.

I bet GBF will end up posting that he was kidding about his arguments and he got us all - we are all his suckers for arguing with him. Mark my words.

If that happens, just say those three magical words:

"Nemesis Force Weapon"

Actually GameandWatch, coaxial weapons' fate is tied to the weapons they are coaxial with if I recall. I will double check when I get home, but I think if the main cannon goes, so does the coax.

Scott-S6 wrote:GBF - what's your stance on super heavy tank sponsons? Which, as they are mounted on a super-heavy, can fire at separate targets all day long.

Totally different beast.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flexen wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
GBF - what's your stance on super heavy tank sponsons? Which, as they are mounted on a super-heavy, can fire at separate targets all day long.

By GBF's logic - all the weapons on a bane blade are purchased in the cost of the tank, therefore, when 1 weapon is destroyed, then they all blow up because they were not line item purchases with separate and individual costs.

I bet GBF will end up posting that he was kidding about his arguments and he got us all - we are all his suckers for arguing with him. Mark my words.

That's how the people I play here in central Florida play.

G

Just to throw one more nail in this coffin, look at the Razorback. The lascannon and twin-linked plasma cannons are purchased together, identical to how the Predator side sponson weapons are purchased.

From the C:SM FAQ:

Q. If a Razorback armed with a lascannon and
twin-linked plasma gun suffers a weapon
destroyed result, does it destroy both (ie. the
lascannon and the plasma gun) or just one?

A. Only one weapon – either the lascannon or the
twin-linked plasma gun.

The reason they are treated as two seperate weapons is because if you move and they are lascannons for example you only get to fire one not two. In fact a LR can fire at two seperate targets with them.

The lascannon/plasmagun is a co-axial set of weapons and as such holds no bearing upon sponson systems. Sorry please try again.

Also stop bringing up the LR as it has a special rule that lets it target separately the sponsons. You are really reaching for some thin air.

G

Sorry, please try again. If it was co-axial they would all be destroyed when one is destroyed. The fact that we are told explicitly that their fate is not tied together means they cannot be co-axial.

The example still stands perfectly. They are weapons purchased together that are not destroyed together because they have no notation that would link them to the same weapon destroyed result like a co-axial weapon or a built-in weapon.

Also stop bringing up the LR as it has a special rule that lets it target separately the sponsons. You are really reaching for some thin air.

Nope. If you count sponsons as '1 weapon system', then that 1 weapon can't fire at two different targets. It could move 12, fire the heavy bolter, and both sponsons at another target, assuming arcs of fire allow it. But if the sponsons count as 1 weapon, you could not fire half a weapon at one target, and have the POTMS fire the other half at a different target.

POTMS lets you fire 1 additional weapon, not the same weapon twice.

Sponsons have always been two separate weapons, and still are. You just buy them in pairs, and can't buy them one at a time.

Can you POTMS a Predator? The answer is no. What applies to the LR does not apply to the Predator. Is just taht simply folks.

G

If sponsons really were a single weapon system would they not be twin-linked and only able to fire at a target that both have LOS to?

So...by the logic that they are a single weapon system, and are destroyed together, that must mean I can fire both as a single weapon, since for all intents and purposes they are a single weapon system? And it lets you fire one weapon if you move? So...a Predetor can move six inches and fire two lascannon shots at something?

Intruiging theory...wrong, as far as I can see, but it might be funny to play that way.

saying that the land raider sponsons are different than a predators due to the PotMS rule and cant be used as an example is like like saying that a unit of sternguard cant use lysanders bolter drill rule because they can fire specialized rounds.

sponsons always have been, and probably always will be two separate weapons. (the only fluff reason that most vehicles cant fire at multiple targets is because they generally have 2 crew members, a gunner and a driver. one gunner means one target)

Oh wow I just don't know what to say at this point.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Oh wow I just don't know what to say at this point.

G

Oh, I know the answer to this one, "Oh, I'm sorry, I guess i was mistaken. I'll try to play it right from here on"

Clthomps wrote:They are destroyed together IMO.

As they are purchased at a single cost, therefor they are a single target to be destroyed.

In fact I can not find a single person locally around that thinks otherwise.

....... OK but the price is paying for 2. A predator may take a side sponson Lascannon for 60 points which is normally the price of 2 lascannons which are 30-35 points each (usually). On the other hand, the Predator wording for side sponsons is,

SM codex pg. 142 wrote: May take side sponsons with heavy bolters for........
or Lascannons for........."

Where does it say 1 or 2 side sponsons with HB or LC? it only says the words in plural with no limit or minimum or set amount included.
Also I can not find a single person at my FLGS who plays they are 1 weapon.





-Orkishly

Green Blow Fly wrote:Oh wow I just don't know what to say at this point.

G

You could start by giving us page numbers to anything in the book that supports your position.

Okay I am probably wrong here but that is how everyone I play rolls with it. Should I tell them they could be wrongish on this one? It could open up a really big can of worms. I don't want to be that guy if yuo catch my drift.

G

That is of course up to you. I would personally. I'm sure if you ask people will provide the needed page numbers and arguments so that you can properly explain to them the issue and why you've all been doing it wrong.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay I am probably wrong here but that is how everyone I play rolls with it. Should I tell them they could be wrongish on this one? It could open up a really big can of worms. I don't want to be that guy if yuo catch my drift.

G

Your only helping yourself and your friends by telling them the correct rules. If they want to continue playing as a house rule, so be it. If they give you heartburn about it, then they really aren't good friends.

keep on rocking in the free world!

SonofTerra wrote:
the only fluff reason that most vehicles cant fire at multiple targets is because they generally have 2 crew members, a gunner and a driver. one gunner means one target

Sorry to nit pick but that is wrong, at least in the IG tanks. If you read the fluff that accompanies Pasks' entry he mentions "sponsons gunners" after mentioning both the driver and gunner. Also, in the LRMBT area it says that it has a crew of 3 without sponsons and a crew of 5 with sponsons

Very good point!

G

Actually, if you read the entry for the Predator, it simply says: "May take side sponsons with Heavy Bolters for +25 pts or with Lascannons for +60pts"

There appears to be no rule saying how many sponsons, or even how many heavy bolters per sponson.

Lascannons are too expensive!

G

Polonius wrote:Actually, if you read the entry for the Predator, it simply says: "May take side sponsons with Heavy Bolters for +25 pts or with Lascannons for +60pts"

There appears to be no rule saying how many sponsons, or even how many heavy bolters per sponson.

.....THAT'S WHAT I SAID!!!!

According to RAW you can take 7 sponsons with 10 Lascannons per sponson, or on the flip side, you can only take 1 sponson with 1 Lascannon. Depend's how you read the rule.


EDIT- To the conversion mobile!!!..... Wonder how many people would let me use a Predator with 501 sponsons each with several LC?

EDIT EDIT- Gwar! you are so right that I can't read your whole sig because of it!!!!




-Orkishly

Here's a Thought:
Where does it say Sponsons have to be on either side of the tank?

Here's another thought:
Rule wise, you can use an Epic rhino or predator and fit 10 models in the rhino and then run around being blocked from LOS by models feet and any piece of terrain!

Don't think anyone would let me do this either though

orkishlyorkish wrote:Here's another thought:
Rule wise, you can use an Epic rhino or predator and fit 10 models in the rhino and then run around being blocked from LOS by models feet and any piece of terrain!

Don't think anyone would let me do this either though

Well no because it's not a 40k model. That would be the same as me using a BFG Model as my Superheavy Thunderhawk.

Gwar! wrote:

orkishlyorkish wrote:Here's another thought:
Rule wise, you can use an Epic rhino or predator and fit 10 models in the rhino and then run around being blocked from LOS by models feet and any piece of terrain!

Don't think anyone would let me do this either though

Well no because it's not a 40k model. That would be the same as me using a BFG Model as my Superheavy Thunderhawk.

And? who says you can't? As long as you have WYSIWYG. LOL




EDIT- I am, of course joking though.

All joking aside, would anyone have a problem with someone placing both sponsons on 1 side? I know on a Land Raider you can't, because the rules specifically state "Land Raiders have one access point on each side of the hull and one at the front.", but nothing is preventing you doing it on a Predator or Leman Russ

Gwar! wrote:All joking aside, would anyone have a problem with someone placing both sponsons on 1 side?

What do you think?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:All joking aside, would anyone have a problem with someone placing both sponsons on 1 side?

What do you think?

Well it's allowed by the rules, so I would say you shouldn't have a problem. Whether you do or not is another matter however

I think this would solve a lot of problems. I would have no problem if someone did this in a game.

Broadside Leman Russ FTW Mofo!

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:All joking aside, would anyone have a problem with someone placing both sponsons on 1 side?

What do you think?

Well it's allowed by the rules, so I would say you shouldn't have a problem. Whether you do or not is another matter however

I think you already know the answer to this one, bro.

(Besides you can make your Land Raider a seven of clubs with Lascannons glued to it if you want. It's not AGAINST THE RULES.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:All joking aside, would anyone have a problem with someone placing both sponsons on 1 side?

What do you think?

Well it's allowed by the rules, so I would say you shouldn't have a problem. Whether you do or not is another matter however

I think you already know the answer to this one, bro.

(Besides you can make your Land Raider a seven of clubs with Lascannons glued to it if you want. It's not AGAINST THE RULES.)

Actually it is, because the rules technically forbid all conversions not made from Citadel Miniatures:

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow

However, Modelling a Leman Russ to have both sponsons on one side is NOT against the rules, because if that were, then modelling a marine with the bolter at an angle would be against the rules (and it isn't btw )

Gwar! wrote:

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow

However, Modelling a Leman Russ to have both sponsons on one side is NOT against the rules, because if that were, then modelling a marine with the bolter at an angle would be against the rules (and it isn't btw )

firstl, where is this rule from? What book? Secondly, it ISN'T??? Great, I've been modeling all my bolters at the same angle for no reason then! lol joking

Gwar! wrote:Actually it is, because the rules technically forbid all conversions not made from Citadel Miniatures:

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow

However, Modelling a Leman Russ to have both sponsons on one side is NOT against the rules, because if that were, then modelling a marine with the bolter at an angle would be against the rules (and it isn't btw )

It doesn't say that playing cards aren't referred to as models, just that Citadel Miniatures are.

A playing card is a model of.. uh.. a larger playing card. (Or you could consider the card to be an exemplar of it's kind, worthy of imitation. Either way.)

If I add weapons to a piece of sprue, can it be a Leman Russ if it has full WYSIWYG?

What if you sculpt a tiny citadel out of clay?

orkishlyorkish wrote:If I add weapons to a piece of sprue, can it be a Leman Russ if it has full WYSIWYG?

Well WYSIWYG needs to consist of a Leman Russ Hull

Gwar! wrote:

orkishlyorkish wrote:If I add weapons to a piece of sprue, can it be a Leman Russ if it has full WYSIWYG?

Well WYSIWYG needs to consist of a Leman Russ Hull

Fine I'll add a tiny piece ontop of the sprue piece

IBL.

+1