So I am under the impression that the Doom Scythes weapons are hull mounted. GW hasn't stated this but it has to have a mounting as it is a vehicle and using simple reasoning one can deduce that it is not a turret, pintle mount or sponson, so this leaves hull mounted which woud give it a 45 degree LoS (For both weapons). Myself and jy2 have been broching the subject from opposing angles and thought it prudent to move the subject here. The original thread is here

My claim is that since the death ray has 45 degree arc for LoS then according to page 16 and the header "out of sight" any models that are a part of a unit being hit but are outside of the 45 cannot have wounds allocated to them from the wound pool as per the out of sight rule. Basically only models that are within its 45 degree LoS arc can be killed.

Basically, Red's position is this:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Oh I know there are mitigating circumstances. The examples you provided work just fine with the wound allocation rules. My contention is only that you must have LOS via your firing arc in order to allocate wounds. So:

1 2 3 4 5 6
.....\\\\\\////
........\\\//
..........v 45 degree arc, please forgive my drawing and ignore periods lol dakka was messing up my drawing without them.

in this situation lets say you hit 1 through 6 and wound all 6, you can allocate all six wounds but you are restricted to to models 2-5 for allocation. So any wounds left over after saves are wasted. So many people are forgetting to apply the "out of site" rule to the Doom Scythe. Further more they omitted an explanation on it's mounting (both weapons actually) but I think it's safe to deduce that it isn't a turret, pintle, or sponson weapon. This leaves us with hull mounted as defined in the BGB which gives it a 45 degree LOS. I think this is the most conservative approach until they ever or if ever they address it's mounting officially. This is more what I was addressing before but your points are both spot on assuming proper arc.

My position is this. If just 1 model from the unit is within the firing arc of your vehicle, then you can hurt more than just that 1 model in the unit (unless the other models are completely out of LOS). Just like if just 1 model is within range of your gun (and the other models in that unit are just out of range of your gun), then you can shoot and kill more than just that one model.

So what do you think, dakkalites?


Also, keep in mind we are talking specifically about the doom scythe's deathray, which has different rules on how it is used.

The rule says anywhere within 12".

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The rule says anywhere within 12".

That is a good point, so would you consider the death ray works like a turret then?

So make sure the Death Ray has 45 degree LOS on the unit it wants to nuke? It makes sense that they are hull mounted and it's how I play them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, yeah the Death Ray never has to target a unit, just pass a line through them. So the 45 degree arc would only matter for the tesla destructor.

 jy2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The rule says anywhere within 12".

That is a good point, so would you consider the death ray works like a turret then?

No it does not work like a turret. The model has a full 360 degree arc. That is the RAW.

 Red Corsair wrote:
My claim is that since the death ray has 45 degree arc for LoS then according to page 16 and the header "out of sight" any models that are a part of a unit being hit but are outside of the 45 cannot have wounds allocated to them from the wound pool as per the out of sight rule. Basically only models that are within its 45 degree LoS arc can be killed.

I agree with the logic behind this position (ie: only models in LoS can have wounds allocated to them and thus be killed). I think it's debatable what the fire arc of the Death Ray is though. It's mounted on what looks like a ball joint (which would support 360) but a poster on the NOVA forums said this about the arc

As the proud owner of a doomscythe I tested the actual arc of the giant "Laser"

Even after removing the cabling the gun cannot swivel because of the shape of the gun itself. It is stopped by the destructors.
Even after slightly modifing the gun I cannot get it to be a pintle mouted weapon without entering "modelling for advantage" territory.

(which would support 45). Without an official ruling you just have to come to an agreement.

45 degree arc. It can only target a unit in that arc*. I do think the line could pass out of that arc, though.

*(the line should, I think, probably be required to start in the arc too, but there's currently nothing specifying that).

Anywhere within 12" is just what it sounds like – anywhere.

 jy2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The rule says anywhere within 12".

That is a good point, so would you consider the death ray works like a turret then?

I think it can fire behind itself but that is just my opinion reading the entry from the codex... We can introduce caveats to limit its arc but I don't think that is right. Note that the 'gun' sits underneath the flyer for what it's worth.

LOS is different to Arc of Fire.

you can only shoot at or target units in LOS, but if that shot can woudn models that are in LOS.

therefore the model that are in LOS but out of the Arc of fire CAn be wounded by wounds in the wound pool.

My 2p.

My perception?

Line of Sight and Arc of fire are two different things, as Praxiss has stated.

There is nothing, not in the rules nor in the model, that suggests the Death Ray has a Turret based LoS. Thus it's hull mounted, and has a 45 degree Line of Sight.

The ability states that you can draw a line anywhere within 12" - which includes outside of that Line of Sight.

So, while the Doom Scythe can only see in the front, it can draw that line behind it, if it wishes.

The catch being that you can't allocate wounds / damage to models you can't see - so there's little point.

I'm happy to debate it, but I've been frustrated lately by necron players going "nah it looks like a turret so it has a 360 degree Line of Site"

It does mean a savvy player can snipe models though. Generate a ton of hits and wounds and put them all on the 1 model that is in LoS. A bit situational perhaps but just something that might come in useful.

 Praxiss wrote:
LOS is different to Arc of Fire.

you can only shoot at or target units in LOS, but if that shot can woudn models that are in LOS.

therefore the model that are in LOS but out of the Arc of fire CAn be wounded by wounds in the wound pool.

My 2p.

If you reread the Death Ray it tells you how to drop the line which achieves the hits. As I have stated already though, nowhere in the DR entry does it tell you how to allocate those wounds so we must fallow the BGB which tells us that if models are out of sight they cannot have wounds allocated to them. The line can trace anywhere but wounds must be allocated through convention.

Also reread your vehicles section, vehicles determine LoS based on their weapon and its arc of fire. So therefore the death ray has a 45 front facing arc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lukus83 wrote:
It does mean a savvy player can snipe models though. Generate a ton of hits and wounds and put them all on the 1 model that is in LoS. A bit situational perhaps but just something that might come in useful.

This is true but no more so then indirect fire.

Let me point out some of the relevant quotes to this discussion.

Necron codex, p.50 wrote:
To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3D6" of the first. Then, draw a straight line between the 2 points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

And from the main rulebook:

BRB, p.72 wrote:
Vehicles need to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them.

BRB, p.16 wrote:
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and shooting attack ends.

It just makes no sense to me that the doom scythe can "fire" its death ray anywhere but then can't hurt anything if the target is not right in front of it. I think that in this case it is implied (only for the death ray, not for its tesla-destructor) that either it has LOS or it doesn't need LOS to damage targets in the path of its deathray because the ability to fire the deathray "anywhere" within 12" of the gun breaks the normal requirement for needing LOS to the target.

It basically works similar to the Hive Guard Impaler Cannon in that it can hit any unit within X" of it whether there is LOS or not.

To me it makes perfect sense. They wanted the player to have the freedom to choose how he draws the line but fallowing the basic rules of shooting. You can still pick any point but you can only ever kill the models in the arc of the weapon.

This is my personal opinion RAW aside I think it also makes the most sense giving the models background and the description. It essentially is flying forward at supersonic speeds cutting trenches in front of it with a surgical laser. It was nonsensical to me before that a fixed forward gun was drawing lines behind itself?

Back to RAW, nowhere in the necron codex does it give permission to ignore wound allocation as per line of sight. So this is how it should be played. Just don't waste shots outside its front 45.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necron codex, p.50 wrote:
To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3D6" of the first. Then, draw a straight line between the 2 points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

Further more this tells us to nominate a point anywhere within the weapons range nowhere in that does it tell us to ignore LoS or firing arc to determine those two points. So having read that more closely I think an argument can be made that the points have to fall within the 45 degree arc as well. It's common sense that my hull mounted las canon has a 48 inch range in every direction but my shots have to be placed in my 45 degree arc of visibility same applies to the death ray. I think the anywhere is simply telling us to pick a point anywhere between 1 and 12 inches and normal shooting conventions tells us it also must be in LoS.

I agree with jy2 but understand where others are coming from in reference to the arc. I think the codex rule overrides the rule book in this particular case.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I agree with jy2 but understand where others are coming from in reference to the arc. I think the codex rule overrides the rule book in this particular case.

You haven't supported your claim though. It doesn't tell you anywhere in the Necron codex to ignore the rules for shooting which require LoS both when you choose a target and when allocating wounds. The relevant quotes have been posted and it isn't there. Unless there is something else we have missed the deathray has to follow the vehicle rules for LoS.

Also note the Necron codex doesn't even mention mounting or arc which is why we must refer to the BGB here.

 Red Corsair wrote:
To me it makes perfect sense. They wanted the player to have the freedom to choose how he draws the line but fallowing the basic rules of shooting. You can still pick any point but you can only ever kill the models in the arc of the weapon.

This is my personal opinion RAW aside I think it also makes the most sense giving the models background and the description. It essentially is flying forward at supersonic speeds cutting trenches in front of it with a surgical laser. It was nonsensical to me before that a fixed forward gun was drawing lines behind itself?

Back to RAW, nowhere in the necron codex does it give permission to ignore wound allocation as per line of sight. So this is how it should be played. Just don't waste shots outside its front 45.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necron codex, p.50 wrote:
To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3D6" of the first. Then, draw a straight line between the 2 points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

Further more this tells us to nominate a point anywhere within the weapons range nowhere in that does it tell us to ignore LoS or firing arc to determine those two points. So having read that more closely I think an argument can be made that the points have to fall within the 45 degree arc as well. It's common sense that my hull mounted las canon has a 48 inch range in every direction but my shots have to be placed in my 45 degree arc of visibility same applies to the death ray. I think the anywhere is simply telling us to pick a point anywhere between 1 and 12 inches and normal shooting conventions tells us it also must be in LoS.

Well, the doom scythe's death ray made near-perfect sense in fifth edition, as it was written for. While the operation of the death ray has not changed at all, the ability to wound has. The debate being brought up here would have easily been the same in 5th edition but no one brought it up then because there was no clause of not being able to wound those that you can't see. That is really the only thing that has changed, but now people bring up the 45 degree arc thing and all that when that still existed in 5th? No, the arc of the gun doesn't matter. Here is why, the very first line of vehicle weapons & line of sight (Pg 72) says a vehicle needs to be able to draw LOS to their targets in order to shoot at them. It then goes on to specify they are talking about target unit. So, the death ray doesn't target a unit, first off, it just shoots anywhere within 12" of the gun. So now after the shooting has been made we determine wound allocation. Yes, there is a rule stating you can't wound what you can't see but there's also a rule stating you can't shoot at what you can't see and we already know the death ray overrides that.

And, hm, it seems jy2 already said most of this. Hah. *Sigh* Shoulda read the whole thread. Oh well...I guess I'm a fast skimmer (bad joke).

I'm torn. First I thought that the range rules would stop a 360 degree arc. However, p71 clearly makes the distinction between LOS and range, so firing behind is reasonable from that description. Then I reasoned LOS would stop it as you couldn't allocate wounds behind you. However, I found the following on p72:

Vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them.

So, how am I shooting them if I don't have LOS? I know codex overrules rulebook and everything, but for me that would imply if I can hit them, they can take wounds. Even if the first point needs to be picked within LOS, you could still fire behind you with the line, which would imply to me that it DOES have 360 degree LOS. So, really the question I'd want answering is this: does firing the line count as shooting at the unit for the full length of the line? If yes, we can say that as we can fire at the unit, we have 360 degree LOS and wounds are allocated to the closest model. If no, we have to decide why not and this will limit us to the 45 degree arc. To be perfectly honest, I'd agree with your opponent beforehand as I suspect we don't have enough evidence to rule one way or the other and it needs an FAQ.

Eyjio wrote:
I'm torn. First I thought that the range rules would stop a 360 degree arc. However, p71 clearly makes the distinction between LOS and range, so firing behind is reasonable from that description. Then I reasoned LOS would stop it as you couldn't allocate wounds behind you. However, I found the following on p72:

Vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them.

So, how am I shooting them if I don't have LOS? I know codex overrules rulebook and everything, but for me that would imply if I can hit them, they can take wounds. Even if the first point needs to be picked within LOS, you could still fire behind you with the line, which would imply to me that it DOES have 360 degree LOS. So, really the question I'd want answering is this: does firing the line count as shooting at the unit for the full length of the line? If yes, we can say that as we can fire at the unit, we have 360 degree LOS and wounds are allocated to the closest model. If no, we have to decide why not and this will limit us to the 45 degree arc. To be perfectly honest, I'd agree with your opponent beforehand as I suspect we don't have enough evidence to rule one way or the other and it needs an FAQ.

But this is the main problem, you are making assumptions when you try to interpret what is implied. To me it is still very simple, the "anywhere in range" simply lets you place the starting point anywhere between 1-12" and inside the 45, then place the other point anywhere else in the 45 arc. You look at the model to determine its mount, which is obviously hull mounted. So you cannot shoot outside the 45. You still haven't provided hard clear proof that you don't allocate wounds using the convention. It's because there isn't any in the Necron book that states you ignore LoS when determining wound allocation. Are you claiming that it is a turret?

And it is also possible to hit models with templates but not be able to allocate wounds to them, so that point is moot.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
I'm torn. First I thought that the range rules would stop a 360 degree arc. However, p71 clearly makes the distinction between LOS and range, so firing behind is reasonable from that description. Then I reasoned LOS would stop it as you couldn't allocate wounds behind you. However, I found the following on p72:

Vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them.

So, how am I shooting them if I don't have LOS? I know codex overrules rulebook and everything, but for me that would imply if I can hit them, they can take wounds. Even if the first point needs to be picked within LOS, you could still fire behind you with the line, which would imply to me that it DOES have 360 degree LOS. So, really the question I'd want answering is this: does firing the line count as shooting at the unit for the full length of the line? If yes, we can say that as we can fire at the unit, we have 360 degree LOS and wounds are allocated to the closest model. If no, we have to decide why not and this will limit us to the 45 degree arc. To be perfectly honest, I'd agree with your opponent beforehand as I suspect we don't have enough evidence to rule one way or the other and it needs an FAQ.

But this is the main problem, you are making assumptions when you try to interpret what is implied. To me it is still very simple, the "anywhere in range" simply lets you place the starting point anywhere between 1-12" and inside the 45, then place the other point anywhere else in the 45 arc. You look at the model to determine its mount, which is obviously hull mounted. So you cannot shoot outside the 45. You still haven't provided hard clear proof that you don't allocate wounds using the convention. It's because there isn't any in the Necron book that states you ignore LoS. Note that it is possible to satisfy the anywhere in range and the rules for shooting vehicles and LoS when you follow my interpretation but trying to shoot 360 degrees and to satify the shooting rules is impossible as it stands. Your question also didn't make any sense to me, currently you can't even place the line outside the 45 arc because of the rules for vehicles and LoS. Are you claiming that it is a turret?

Well, you're making assumptions that "anywhere on the battlefield in the weapons range" includes only within 45 degrees up/down/left/right. If you limit it to that, you're not placing it "anywhere on the battlefield". The range is 12" from the barrel of the gun. LoS is determined separately from determining range. You're not required to have LoS to anything to determine range.

The big book even makes a not of them being different things on pg. 71.

As I say, needs an FAQ as it's really not clear how to resolve it. For all I know, i could count as pintle mounted as they are generally fixed in place with 360 degree LOS. I mean, I doubt it but I wouldn't want to definitively state it's not.

Everyone I play is cool with the Doimscythe firing behind itself. Hasn't been an issue yet.

There is no turret and the pipes on either side are mounted directly onto the hull, fixing it into place. In addition the tesla destructors that flank both sides would further impede the gun's movement. I don't see how this gun could be anything but hull mounted.

The rules for the gun imply that you can hit models outside LOS as you can place the line anywhere within 12", but codex entry does not address wound allocation.

The main rule book specifies that both range and LOS is drawn from the end of the weapon barell for vehicles and that LOS is further limmited by thier ARC. So for hull mounted weapons thier LOS is limmited to a 45 degree arc.

As for Impaler Cannons, the codex specifically states (not implies) that they can hit models outside of LOS...but again does not address wound allocation. So by RAW they can hit but not wound models that are not in LOS. Now TOs, including NOVA, are House FAQing Impaler Cannons to wound outside of LOS.

Eyjio wrote:
As I say, needs an FAQ as it's really not clear how to resolve it. For all I know, i could count as pintle mounted as they are generally fixed in place with 360 degree LOS. I mean, I doubt it but I wouldn't want to definitively state it's not.

There is no debate, as it is CLEARLY hull mounted. As such you cannot wound out of LOS, which is out of 45 degrees left AND right in total, and 45 degrees up AND down, in total.

 wyomingfox wrote:
There is no turret and the pipes on either side are mounted directly onto the hull, fixing it into place. In addition the tesla destructors that flank both sides would further impede the gun's movement. I don't see how this gun could be anything but hull mounted.

The rules for the gun imply that you can hit models outside LOS as you can place the line anywhere within 12", but codex entry does not address wound allocation.

The main rule book specifies that both range and LOS is drawn from the end of the weapon barell for vehicles and that LOS is further limmited by thier ARC. So for hull mounted weapons thier LOS is limmited to a 45 degree arc.

As for Impaler Cannons, the codex specifically states (not implies) that they can hit models outside of LOS...but again does not address wound allocation. So by RAW they can hit but not wound models that are not in LOS. Now TOs, including NOVA, are House FAQing Impaler Cannons to wound outside of LOS.

This^

wyomingfox put what I was clumsily saying into perfect words

There is no need for a FAQ on this weapon, it's clear they are hull mounted just as it is clear the missiles on a storm raven are hull mounted.

In the fluff of the night scythe (weak argument I know) - it describes the tesla destructor as turrent mounted.. any room for that in here?

xStuuy wrote:
In the fluff of the night scythe (weak argument I know) - it describes the tesla destructor as turrent mounted.. any room for that in here?

It's been discussed previously, in another thread, but it's generally understand that's a mistake in the fluff (we all know GW can make mistakes) and you're suppose to reference the model. Or in some cases, I believe it will also say if the weapon is pintle or turret mounted.

To clarify, I'm arguing if there isn't a 360 mount, you cannot fire at all, not that wounds aren't allocated as normal. That immediately follows from 360 degree LOS.

You can say the weapon is hull mounted as it's fixed in place, but I would refer you to p72

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.

As I said before, vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them. I'm pretty sure we're classing this line as shooting and the rules for the Death Ray say any point in range - not in LOS. I'm going to show WHY the 2 points also need to be able to fire out range with some maths.

We have 45 degree vertical LOS as well as horizontal. On flat terrain, I make the death ray to be about 3.75" from the base. Using trig, this gives us our minimum point away as being exactly (15√2)/4. This is roughly 5.3" away from the ray as the crow flies. Drawing straight from this to the 12" maximum mark clearly won't give us something that encompasses the 18" potential range. In fact, it'll be a reduced length coming off the radius (realistically the LOS is a sector of a sphere). Now, as spheres are annoying and we're only considering a 2D cross section anyway, so let's just consider 2 concentric circles - one of radius 15√2/4 and one of radius 12". We can plot these on a graph using plot x^2+y^2=12^2 and plot x^2+y^2=(15√2)/4)^2. Now we want to consider only a 45 degree line of sight - so plot x=y and x=0. Solving useful intersections of our smaller circle gives (0, 15√2/4) and (15/4, 15/4). Solving useful intersections of our larger circle gives (0, 12) and (6√2, 6√2). The diagonal will be our longest line possible to draw - it is just over 9". So, we must have to go out of range on the second point or accept that we can only trace a 9" line with any 3d6 roll higher.

So, why is this an issue? We can just pick another point 3d6 forwards in the 45 degree arc right? Well, yes, we can. However, even if you concede the first point must be within range AND LOS (despite the rule clearly saying anywhere in range, which triggers codex>rulebook), the second point has absolutely no restrictions on it at all - it simply says within 3d6 of the first point. Consequently, as it breaks the rules for range, there's no reason it doesn't break the rules for LOS either. It neither has to be in range nor in arc, as nothing says it must be due to the unusual nature of the shot. So, I can shoot out of LOS - which means I can't shoot them (paradox), which means either the arc is 360 degrees or the second point has invisible restrictions - either way needs an FAQ. The wounds are almost irrelevant up until now, as nothing has been allocated - as I can move the second point out of LOS if it's hull mounted, I can't fire if I exactly follow the rules to fire the weapon. A little absurd, no? Had they said "nominate a point on the battlefield within the weapon's range", then this problem would still exist - however, it says "nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range". Whilst I'm at it, why is the word "anywhere" in the sentence if it cannot fire... well, anywhere?

So, we would have to accept the following for the Death Ray to not be able to have 360 degree LOS:

-The use of anywhere is irrelevant, the first point MUST be within LOS
-The second point MUST ALSO be within LOS, which we should intrinsically know somehow
-GW did not intend to override the rules for firing a weapon

If a single one of these fails, 360 degree LOS follows immediately as otherwise the weapon cannot be fired using the quote I keep repeating:

Vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them.

If you can pick a point, it must be within LOS to fire the weapon, hence the first two give 360 degree LOS. If they did intend to override the rules for firing a weapon (unlikely) then the debate is moot anyway as the whole wound allocation system breaks down (I can fire out of LOS... but I don't wound anyone). Again, that's absurd and had they wished to do that then I would've expected it to be stated.

So, do we agree that an FAQ is needed now? They either need to clearly state the second and first point need to be within the firing arc and that it's hull mounted OR that it is turret mounted, despite not being modelled as movable.

Eyjio wrote:
To clarify, I'm arguing if there isn't a 360 mount, you cannot fire at all, not that wounds aren't allocated as normal. That immediately follows from 360 degree LOS.

You can say the weapon is hull mounted as it's fixed in place, but I would refer you to p72

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.

That's all well and good but you're leaving out the second part that says "players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings." So, again, how is the gun actually mounted to the vehicle? On the hull.

I didn't read the rest of your math quiz, no offense.

Now here we have a weapon that appears to be hull mounted. For all intents and purposes, it probably is, so let's just assume it is.

Now here's the paradox.

It's description says that you can place the point anywhere. So in essence, you can fire the death ray anywhere as long as it is in range (within 12" of the gun). I'm sure most people can agree with that, right?

Ok, now hull-mounted weapons only have a 45 degree arc of LOS. And in order to fire a weapon, you need to have LOS to the target. Now if I pick a primary point (or secondary point) outside of the arc - and it is legal because the rules say I can - then how can I fire the death ray when I don't have LOS to the target? The rules never tell you how to allocate wounds for the death ray. However, it also never tells you that you don't need LOS to fire the death ray as well. Then how can you fire at something that you can't see?!? You basically have 2 options. 1) You don't need LOS to fire the death ray or 2) you have a 360 degree LOS with the death ray. Given the premises, those are the only 2 things you can assume because otherwise, you just can't fire the death ray at all outside of its 45 degree frontal arc and that breaks the rule of the death ray (where you can fire anywhere with the death ray).

And why can you make this assumption? Because the rules of the death ray supercedes the normal rules for shooting. In order for the death ray to work in accordance to the rules stated in the necron codex, you either need to assume it (the death ray only) has LOS to the target or that it doesn't need LOS to the target. That is the only way for it to work RAW-wise.

 Kevin949 wrote:

That's all well and good but you're leaving out the second part that says "players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings." So, again, how is the gun actually mounted to the vehicle? On the hull.

I didn't read the rest of your math quiz, no offense.

You successfully missed the entire argument then. jy2 essentially just repeated it - not allowing it to have 360 degree LOS creates a paradox where you can shoot a unit, which means you cannot shoot the unit, so you create wounds but don't simultaneously and nothing can be allocated. I summarised it in the first sentence of my post too:

To clarify, I'm arguing if there isn't a 360 mount, you cannot fire at all, not that wounds aren't allocated as normal. That immediately follows from 360 degree LOS.

For a moment, let's assume it's hull mounted. Even if the first point must be picked within LOS (although the usage of "anywhere" would imply that such a restriction doesn't exist), the second point has no restrictions at all, apart from being within 3d6 of the original point. So, I can fire without LOS. The rules tell me I can't fire without LOS - the Death Ray says nothing about LOS at all, it simply is worded in such a way that LOS isn't a concern. So, if I follow the exact instructions to fire my weapon, I can't fire my weapon, which then inflicts hits and wounds, which are meaningless as the rules say I can't fire. It's a paradox. So, we must allow 360 degree LOS or an FAQ needs to come out adding in the missing restrictions.

I would also contest it's hull mounted. It's fixed in place to the bottom of the hull. It's not, however, totally embedded into the hull like all other hull mounted weapons - it has a modelled ball joint. If I assumed it was free to pivot on this, even with the tubes I'd have a 180 LOS, significantly more than 45 degrees. So yeah, it might be "hull mounted" or it might not be - at this point, it's irrelevant because the weapon causes a paradox if it's not given 360 degree LOS.

Eyjio wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

That's all well and good but you're leaving out the second part that says "players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings." So, again, how is the gun actually mounted to the vehicle? On the hull.

I didn't read the rest of your math quiz, no offense.

You successfully missed the entire argument then. jy2 essentially just repeated it - not allowing it to have 360 degree LOS creates a paradox where you can shoot a unit, which means you cannot shoot the unit, so you create wounds but don't simultaneously and nothing can be allocated. I summarised it in the first sentence of my post too:

To clarify, I'm arguing if there isn't a 360 mount, you cannot fire at all, not that wounds aren't allocated as normal. That immediately follows from 360 degree LOS.

For a moment, let's assume it's hull mounted. Even if the first point must be picked within LOS (although the usage of "anywhere" would imply that such a restriction doesn't exist), the second point has no restrictions at all, apart from being within 3d6 of the original point. So, I can fire without LOS. The rules tell me I can't fire without LOS - the Death Ray says nothing about LOS at all, it simply is worded in such a way that LOS isn't a concern. So, if I follow the exact instructions to fire my weapon, I can't fire my weapon, which then inflicts hits and wounds, which are meaningless as the rules say I can't fire. It's a paradox. So, we must allow 360 degree LOS or an FAQ needs to come out adding in the missing restrictions.

I would also contest it's hull mounted. It's fixed in place to the bottom of the hull. It's not, however, totally embedded into the hull like all other hull mounted weapons - it has a modelled ball joint. If I assumed it was free to pivot on this, even with the tubes I'd have a 180 LOS, significantly more than 45 degrees. So yeah, it might be "hull mounted" or it might not be - at this point, it's irrelevant because the weapon causes a paradox if it's not given 360 degree LOS.

Well, you're creating a paradox where one doesn't exist. Nothing is stopping you from shooting per the rules of the death ray, nothing is stopping you from hitting per the rules of the death ray. The only issue that arises is wounding models out of LOS of the vehicle, which is a rule that didn't exist in 5th edition. Everyone is so hung up on this LOS and 45 degree arc business when it doesn't apply to the death ray. Drawing LOS to your target is a limitation for targeting a unit for standard shooting, the targeting rules for the death ray do not follow these standard rules.

I agree with jy2.

codex > rule book

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I agree with jy2.

codex > rule book

The codex does not override the rulebook restriction on allocating wounds to models out of LOS. JY2 has not shown this

I know we hate to interpret rules here as then we are getting into RAI instead of RAW but I think as this weapon is mounted on a flying vehicle we may have to take a little liberty. The evade rule itself as well as the Zoom rule tells us that flyers are never actually stationary. We have to assume that where they are at the end of the movement phase is the point where they are firing yes but at the same time tell me that the flyer is not in fact moving perpendicular to the ground or banking around or some other aerial maneuver. They have to model it so it makes sense and they have some basis to run it by so they model it with a base attached to the bottom and weapons under-slung like modern aircraft. None of this actually means anything as top and bottom mean little to a flyer so it could actually be upside down or on it's side at the end of movement. All this being said unless they are going to mount flyers on gyroscopic mountings you might as well put them flat on the board with no base if you assume the are sitting perfectly level with board at all times. If they can move as flyers can IRL then facing means nothing....

Wait for a faq or use the anywhere are about the only options you have unless you want to force flyers to crash if they fire as they are "stationary".

 Kevin949 wrote:

Well, you're creating a paradox where one doesn't exist. Nothing is stopping you from shooting per the rules of the death ray, nothing is stopping you from hitting per the rules of the death ray. The only issue that arises is wounding models out of LOS of the vehicle, which is a rule that didn't exist in 5th edition. Everyone is so hung up on this LOS and 45 degree arc business when it doesn't apply to the death ray. Drawing LOS to your target is a limitation for targeting a unit for standard shooting, the targeting rules for the death ray do not follow these standard rules.

It's not though, nothing allows you to ignore that rule. Nowhere in the death ray does it allow me to ignore LOS to shoot, so I must have LOS to shoot. The restriction is upon the target - which is everything along the line. Do you not think it's a little bizarre that I can create 5 hits on a unit, which I then can't wound because, although I needed LOS to fire, I didn't have it?

Eyjio wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Well, you're creating a paradox where one doesn't exist. Nothing is stopping you from shooting per the rules of the death ray, nothing is stopping you from hitting per the rules of the death ray. The only issue that arises is wounding models out of LOS of the vehicle, which is a rule that didn't exist in 5th edition. Everyone is so hung up on this LOS and 45 degree arc business when it doesn't apply to the death ray. Drawing LOS to your target is a limitation for targeting a unit for standard shooting, the targeting rules for the death ray do not follow these standard rules.

It's not though, nothing allows you to ignore that rule. Nowhere in the death ray does it allow me to ignore LOS to shoot, so I must have LOS to shoot. The restriction is upon the target - which is everything along the line. Do you not think it's a little bizarre that I can create 5 hits on a unit, which I then can't wound because, although I needed LOS to fire, I didn't have it?

No, the target is the "point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapons range". Range=\=LOS. Everywhere you look in the book referencing shooting they say, for standard shooting attacks, to pick a target in RANGE and LOS. Deathray overrides the LOS by stating "anywhere". If you limit the target point of the weapon then you are not abiding the "anywhere" clause in the weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I agree with jy2.

codex > rule book

The codex does not override the rulebook restriction on allocating wounds to models out of LOS. JY2 has not shown this

Exactly, everything being argued so far is based on assumption and conjecture. Bottom line is the deathray tells us how to achieve hits when drawing our line. It doesn't say ignore LoS let me remind you, it just never mentions line of sight, big difference. This to me makes those previous assumption even weaker.

You still need LoS to allocate wounds, welcome to 6th.

So it's crystal clear actually.

!. draw your line as per DR description
2. Count hits
3. Allocate wounds using normal rules (which require LoS)

If you place your line out of the 45 degree arc you are going to lose those wounds that can't be placed. Seems fairly intentional to me actually. GW just wrote one more inclusion to wound allocation that fixes things without reams of FAQ'ing.

codex > BrB. The brb also states I cannot target my own units. But I can drop the beginning or ending point right in the middle of my squad if I want to. Or can make the line pass entirely threw my unit if I so choose.

So. Targeting rules are broken by the Death Ray.
LOS is broken by the Death Ray. (The anywhere clause)
Angle of Fire is broken by the Death Ray. the 2nd point may very well fall outside 12" on 3d6

and your saying with all of that that the line can't wound unless a model is within 12 inches and a 45* arc in front of me?

 keltikhoa wrote:
codex > BrB. The brb also states I cannot target my own units. But I can drop the beginning or ending point right in the middle of my squad if I want to. Or can make the line pass entirely threw my unit if I so choose.

So. Targeting rules are broken by the Death Ray.
LOS is broken by the Death Ray. (The anywhere clause)
Angle of Fire is broken by the Death Ray. the 2nd point may very well fall outside 12" on 3d6

and your saying with all of that that the line can't wound unless a model is within 12 inches and a 45* arc in front of me?

Yes exactly. You need LoS in 6th Ed to allocate wounds from your wound pool. So if their aren't models from a unit being hit in your 45 degree arc of LoS then you empty the wound pool and they are lost as per pg 16.
Also people need to stop with the codex trumps rulebook argument because the codex can only trump what it addresses. The necron codex doesn't address wound allocation requiring LoS.
As of now no one has provided a rule that says the DR doesn't need LoS to allocate wounds.

 keltikhoa wrote:
codex > BrB. The brb also states I cannot target my own units. But I can drop the beginning or ending point right in the middle of my squad if I want to. Or can make the line pass entirely threw my unit if I so choose.

So. Targeting rules are broken by the Death Ray.
LOS is broken by the Death Ray. (The anywhere clause)
Angle of Fire is broken by the Death Ray. the 2nd point may very well fall outside 12" on 3d6

and your saying with all of that that the line can't wound unless a model is within 12 inches and a 45* arc in front of me?

Yes. Welcome to 6th. COdex only overrides BRB when it actually conflicts - here there is NO CONFLICT in the rules relating to allocation of wounds

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I agree with jy2.

codex > rule book

The codex does not override the rulebook restriction on allocating wounds to models out of LOS. JY2 has not shown this

Maybe not, but I've shown that some rules just can't work in a pure RAW sense.

If you are talking about pure RAW, the the Hive Guard Impaler cannon and Tau SMS missiles don't work. They can fire at a unit out of LOS, but they can't allocate wounds to it.

If you are also talking about pure raw, then the Out of Sight rule doesn't apply to vehicles. Thus, if you can somehow hit a vehicle out of LOS, then you can damage it.

Sometimes, you have to make a logical assumption in order to have a particular rule work by RAW. Otherwise it just doesn't and there is no need for that rule in the first place.

 jy2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I agree with jy2.

codex > rule book

The codex does not override the rulebook restriction on allocating wounds to models out of LOS. JY2 has not shown this

Maybe not, but I've shown that some rules just can't work in a pure RAW sense.

If you are talking about pure RAW, the the Hive Guard Impaler cannon and Tau SMS missiles don't work. They can fire at a unit out of LOS, but they can't allocate wounds to it.

If you are also talking about pure raw, then the Out of Sight rule doesn't apply to vehicles. Thus, if you can somehow hit a vehicle out of LOS, then you can damage it.

Sometimes, you have to make a logical assumption in order to have a particular rule work by RAW. Otherwise it just doesn't and there is no need for that rule in the first place.

First of all, those examples are irrelevant. There is a section in YMDC that invalidate challenges entirely, thing is, it holds no baring on this topic. They have their own RAW and ironically both those units discuss LoS, where as the DR actually doesn't at all. Because of its absence and the term anywhere you assume it ignores LoS. I've stated before, not mentioning and saying illicitly to ignore LoS are two monumentally different things.
Second of all, you have created your own paradox, you really didn't prove a thing RAW, you made assumptions based on areas that YOU deemed unclear. Care to show us a rule that states the DR doesn't need LoS to allocate wounds or are you just going to claim it's unclear (which it's not) again using circular logic?

 jy2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I agree with jy2.

codex > rule book

The codex does not override the rulebook restriction on allocating wounds to models out of LOS. JY2 has not shown this

Maybe not, but I've shown that some rules just can't work in a pure RAW sense.

If you are talking about pure RAW, the the Hive Guard Impaler cannon and Tau SMS missiles don't work. They can fire at a unit out of LOS, but they can't allocate wounds to it.

If you are also talking about pure raw, then the Out of Sight rule doesn't apply to vehicles. Thus, if you can somehow hit a vehicle out of LOS, then you can damage it.

Sometimes, you have to make a logical assumption in order to have a particular rule work by RAW. Otherwise it just doesn't and there is no need for that rule in the first place.

Youre assuming their intent is to allow wounding out of LOS, with no actual rules to back that up or even any fluff. A tleast HG and SMS have the "out of LOS" wording - the death ray has NOTHING

But the entry says you can place the first point anywhere.

It says anywhere within range actually. Also if you read page twelve it tells us to check range and LoS in any order which tells me that the two are separate requirements entirely and the anywhere only addresses range. All of this of course being moot as when we get to assigning wounds you still require LoS. Btw have you found a rule that addresses that one yet?

They really need to release an FAQ about this. Both sides make really good arguments. Drawing a line of sight from the shooting point to the target is a good point, however, the DR never really picks a "Target" So....I dont know.

 Red Corsair wrote:

It says anywhere within range actually.

Sure which is limited to 12"... Nothing major there in my opinion.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
But the entry says you can place the first point anywhere.

Yep. Brilliant.

Now find an exception to the rules regarding wound allocaiton and LOS. You cannot? Then it cannot wound models out of LOS, same as every other gun in the game that doesnt have a specific exemption to the usual rules.

To the people arguing that you can't wound a model you can hit can you please explain how that works logically. If I hit you with a bullet fired blindly through a wall, do you magically not get wounded because I was unable to see you?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
To the people arguing that you can't wound a model you can hit can you please explain how that works logically. If I hit you with a bullet fired blindly through a wall, do you magically not get wounded because I was unable to see you?

Logically, no. But 40K is not a logic based game. Deviating missiles can't wound targets out of LOS either, despite bouncing to land straight on their heads. It's not a uniquely Necron problem.

Irdion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
To the people arguing that you can't wound a model you can hit can you please explain how that works logically. If I hit you with a bullet fired blindly through a wall, do you magically not get wounded because I was unable to see you?

Logically, no. But 40K is not a logic based game. Deviating missiles can't wound targets out of LOS either, despite bouncing to land straight on their heads. It's not a uniquely Necron problem.

Except that this is a weapon that can specifically fire off axis as evidenced by rules stating as much. What kind of sense does it make to design a weapon that can hit targets at these angles but that can, by some voodoo, not wound them.

everyones so hung up on the word anywhere but there missing the whole sentence "To fire the death ray, nominate a point anywhere within the wepons range..". It doesnt say nominate a point anywhere within 12", it says anywhere within its range. to me that says first point must be within 12" and 45 degrees of the doomsythe. if it cant turn more then 45 degrees how is behind it within its range?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Irdion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
To the people arguing that you can't wound a model you can hit can you please explain how that works logically. If I hit you with a bullet fired blindly through a wall, do you magically not get wounded because I was unable to see you?

Logically, no. But 40K is not a logic based game. Deviating missiles can't wound targets out of LOS either, despite bouncing to land straight on their heads. It's not a uniquely Necron problem.

Except that this is a weapon that can specifically fire off axis as evidenced by rules stating as much. What kind of sense does it make to design a weapon that can hit targets at these angles but that can, by some voodoo, not wound them.

Because it was a weapon that was designed for a rules system that no longer applies.

You talk as if the weapon was created in 6th edition rules, which it wasn't. it's unfortunate that GW hasn't addressed this but as it stands it's entirely viable to hit outside of LOS but you can't technically wound anything. It's ridiculous, yes, but those are the breaks.

Yea I'm in the group saying sure target w/e you want in your 12" range. Than say you can't wound those are you sure that's where you want your line? ^^

Bronzino88 wrote:
everyones so hung up on the word anywhere but there missing the whole sentence "To fire the death ray, nominate a point anywhere within the wepons range..". It doesnt say nominate a point anywhere within 12", it says anywhere within its range. to me that says first point must be within 12" and 45 degrees of the doomsythe. if it cant turn more then 45 degrees how is behind it within its range?

No, range does NOT include the mounting movement to determine LOS. These are separate things.

Think of it this way, a psyker has a power that works within 12". You measure out 12" to a unit inside some ruins. You determine they're in range, now you check LOS and realize they're out of LOS and the power won't work. It's the same for vehicles except their LOS limitation is where the gun is facing. Their range is any direction at all to the amount specified.

Your example is irrelevant since infantry have a 360 degree arc. So heres an example for you: a squad of paladins are standing right behind a vindicator, are the paladins in range of the demolisher cannon? no, no they arnt.



Edit: got example backwards

Bronzino88 wrote:
Your example is irrelevant since infantry have a 360 degree arc. So heres an example for you: a squad of paladins are standing right behind a vindicator, are the paladins in range of the demolisher cannon? no, no they arnt.

Yes, they are, by definition.
They're out of LOS but very much in range. You should read the rules on measuring ranges.

Codex > BRB

It is just that simple - really.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Codex > BRB

It is just that simple - really.

Only when there is a rules conflict. Is there a conflict in the wound allocation part of the rules? No. Therefore codex>brb does not apply.

Eyjio wrote:

So, we would have to accept the following for the Death Ray to not be able to have 360 degree LOS:

-The use of anywhere is irrelevant, the first point MUST be within LOS
-The second point MUST ALSO be within LOS, which we should intrinsically know somehow
-GW did not intend to override the rules for firing a weapon

1) Anywhere could be to clarify that you're not targeting an enemy unit, rather just marking a point on the ground.
2) Anything in the 45 degree arc would still be in line of sight, which is rather simple.
3) I'd say if GW did intend to over-ride all the rules, you could expect the shooting rules to start with "Instead of firing normally..."

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jy2 wrote:

Maybe not, but I've shown that some rules just can't work in a pure RAW sense.

If you are talking about pure RAW, the the Hive Guard Impaler cannon and Tau SMS missiles don't work. They can fire at a unit out of LOS, but they can't allocate wounds to it.
If you are also talking about pure raw, then the Out of Sight rule doesn't apply to vehicles. Thus, if you can somehow hit a vehicle out of LOS, then you can damage it.
Sometimes, you have to make a logical assumption in order to have a particular rule work by RAW. Otherwise it just doesn't and there is no need for that rule in the first place.

Impaller cannons ignore jink and any terrain or effect that gives cover, other than the cover the target is in or touching.
The smart missiles target gets cover for anything they are in, touching, or inbetween, totally different than the impaller.

What is the same is that both of those examples specifically say that they can fire on units out of line of sight.

Seems to me that the initial point on the ground is the target, and must be in line of sight. After that, draw your 3D6" line where ever you want.
Like the scattering blasts, GW hasn't said a word about allocating wounds, even though they list it as a different step in the shooting process.


-Matt

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Codex > BRB

It is just that simple - really.

Only when there is a conflict. Please show the codex rule that conflicts with the requirement to have LOS when allocating wounds

In my opinion there is a direct conflict since the rule in question says anywhere... There are no caveats stated in this particular rule.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
In my opinion there is a direct conflict since the rule in question says anywhere... There are no caveats stated in this particular rule.

Again, you havent showed a conflict between the rule for ALLOCATING wounds and the codex rule allowing you to place the line anywhere

You can, indeed, place the line anywhere
If you place it out of LOS then you cannot allocate any wounds

The latter rule doesnt, in any way, prevent you from placing the line anywhere you like.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
In my opinion there is a direct conflict since the rule in question says anywhere... There are no caveats stated in this particular rule.

Again, you havent showed a conflict between the rule for ALLOCATING wounds and the codex rule allowing you to place the line anywhere

You can, indeed, place the line anywhere
If you place it out of LOS then you cannot allocate any wounds

The latter rule doesnt, in any way, prevent you from placing the line anywhere you like.

As Nos said there.

What page does that rule appear in the rulebook?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What page does that rule appear in the rulebook?

P16, out of sight.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What page does that rule appear in the rulebook?

P16, out of sight.

Agreed, no conflict from Codex - BRB.

I'm sorry your death ray has to play by the rules?

From looking at the model it actually looks like a turret mounted weapon to me. The reason for this is it is attached to the underside of the flyer with an orb and the only other things runnning to it from the ship are what look to be hoses or cables both of which are flexible.

Gravmyr wrote:
From looking at the model it actually looks like a turret mounted weapon to me. The reason for this is it is attached to the underside of the flyer with an orb and the only other things runnning to it from the ship are what look to be hoses or cables both of which are flexible.

By that argument, Dreadnoughts, Defilers, and many others could turn around to fire behind them, even when immobilized, because their upper bodies and/ or arms look "turret mounted".

Oh it's definitely turret mounted. I'm looking at the model now as I type this.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Oh it's definitely turret mounted. I'm looking at the model now as I type this.

As am I. It is 100% hull mounted, and the only single time turret is mentioned is in the fluff.

It is definitely, 100% a hull mount. At no point does it look like it can turn.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Oh it's definitely turret mounted. I'm looking at the model now as I type this.

I'd love to hear why you say so, good sir.

Take a look at the model and you can see for yourself.

This thread kinda reminds me of the stormraven turret rumble.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a look at the model and you can see for yourself.

Took a look, yep appears to be hull mounted.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a look at the model and you can see for yourself.

Yep, hull mounted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a look at the model and you can see for yourself.

Yep, hull mounted.

What makes your assumption about how it is mounted the correct one?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a look at the model and you can see for yourself.

Yep, hull mounted.

What makes your assumption about how it is mounted the correct one?

Can it rotate? Even assuming the actual mount could, doesn't it have cables that go up inside the craft?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a look at the model and you can see for yourself.

Yep, hull mounted.

What makes your assumption about how it is mounted the correct one?

Can it rotate? Even assuming the actual mount could, doesn't it have cables that go up inside the craft?

I don't have the model in hand, I don't actually even own one, so that's why I'm asking. The text about the Doom Scythe says's it's turret mounted, so the burden of proof seems to be on the hull mounted side to prove that it isn't a turret.

The fluff says its turret mounted. The rules say to look at the model. The model, as I recall, can't rotate because of cables coming out of it into the craft and the TL Tesla Destructors on either side of it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I don't have the model in hand, I don't actually even own one, so that's why I'm asking. The text about the Doom Scythe says's it's turret mounted, so the burden of proof seems to be on the hull mounted side to prove that it isn't a turret.

Not exactly.

Fluff on the Night Scythe has a single mention that its Tesla Destructor are turrets - there's no mention anywhere in the Doom Scythe's fluff that the Death Ray is Turret Mounted. (or did I miss something?)

Furthermore, it's always dangerous to take Fluff as rules. Fluff of several weapons say they "kill with the merest scratch". Does that mean they ID anything they hit, prior to wounding?

Additionally - not counting the Death Ray argument, are there any turret mounted guns in the game that actually can't rotate on the model? A serious question - my perception is strongly that vehicle models themselves represent the "mounting" of a weapon. Hull mounted guns are obvious. The LoS of Sponson mounted guns is based entirely on how far they can move on the model itself. Turrets, in my experience, can always turn on the model to show they are turrets, and to depict their range and LoS.

I mean, even the Stormtalon's turret can actually turn.

The fluff says its turret mounted. The rules say to look at the model. The model, as I recall, can't rotate because of cables coming out of it into the craft and the TL Tesla Destructors on either side of it.

Pg 72... 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 case when it matters assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45o. even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that.


Whether it can or not seems to be less important that whether it looks like it should be able to.

Right. And I listed why it doesn't look like it should be able to.

The death ray sits on the bottom of the hull. I don't think anyone can really say its not counts as a turret. Of course the reverse is also true as well.

Fragile wrote:

The fluff says its turret mounted. The rules say to look at the model. The model, as I recall, can't rotate because of cables coming out of it into the craft and the TL Tesla Destructors on either side of it.

Pg 72... 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 case when it matters assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45o. even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that.


Whether it can or not seems to be less important that whether it looks like it should be able to.

From how it looks on the model it's not meant to move an inch. Either R or L.

Why do you say that? Just curious.

I find it more Similar to the Hull Mounted Multi-Laser on the Vendetta, than to the Turret Mounted Multi-laser on the Chimera.

It in no way looks like a turret weapon from any model I've seen, definitely not a pintle-mounted weapon.

So based off of what I've seen from all the models I've owned/used/drooled over I'd say it's Hull mounted.

Maybe GW will FAQ it.

Maybe this will help?


(for what it's worth, it looks like a turret to me too)

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1600092a
( there is a 3d composite image here; you can spin the doom-scythe around and view it from all angles. it's pretty nifty!)

I would think that GW would have said in the rulebook if it's a turret mount though. I mean, most every weapon in other codices say if they are turret/pintle/hull. I don't know why it didn't just say in our book but considering every other weapon we have on our vehicles is hull mounted I don't see why this would be any different.

Actually it's not uncommon for the rules-text on a vehicles' weapons to not list the type they are; presumably the model itself is enough of a guide in most cases. I was skimming the grey knight codex for example and found many more weapons with no such listing than I did listings which specifically indicate what type of mount is used. (and of course pretty much none of the necron ones have the mount listed)

I believe we are told to 'pretend' that the gun can move in it's mounting even if it literally can't: "... on some models it will actually be impossible to literalIy move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model has been assembled... ...players should assume that the guns on the vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings..."

Question is, does that small mount-shaped assembly on the top of the deathray constitute a 'mount' of some sort?

There's no way the cables could prevent it from rotating.

It looks alot like the FW TL-Lascannon upgrades for the Vendetta model. Which is Hull mounted.

Dozer Blades wrote: There's no way the cables could prevent it from rotating.

I agree. The two flexible-looking cables and a small round (mount-like?) pillar near the back of the deathray are the only places it is attached to the bottom of the hull.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There's no way the cables could prevent it from rotating.

Going from a mechanical perspective, Those lil wires will prevent it from spinning. They're more than likely the Power for the gun, if it was meant to Spin freely it would be located above the swivel point and ran inside of the joint.

 Neorealist wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote: There's no way the cables could prevent it from rotating.

I agree. The two flexible-looking cables and a small round (mount-like?) pillar near the back of the deathray are the only places it is attached to the bottom of the hull.

Sure they're flexible looking. That doesn't mean they give enough for 360 degree movement.
The mount like pillar gives it some traversal, sure - but there's no way it's 360.
And isn't that picture missing one of the TL Teslas (specifically the one closest to the camera)?

Edit: yes, the picture in this thread is missing a TL Tesla that's definitely hull mounted... Which means its not possible to traverse past the tesla guns.

I believe the nightscythe (and by logical extension the doomscythe given it has the same chassis) are described as having the dual tesla destuctor barrels on a turret; the only way this would work is if the 'entire' underslung gun assembly on the bottom swiveled around? Sadly that does not appear to be borne out by how the model is put together; at least in the case of the tesla weapons themselves. (they're affixed to the hull and have no clearance to swing left and right around where the central axis would be for such a configuration).

rigeld2 wrote:Edit: yes, the picture in this thread is missing a TL Tesla that's definitely hull mounted... Which means its not possible to traverse past the tesla guns.

Sure it could: The crystal apparatus on the front looks like it can tilt downward too so it should fire underneath the tesla barrels just fine, no reason it'd fire 'through' them.

 Neorealist wrote:
Maybe this will help?


(for what it's worth, it looks like a turret to me too)

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1600092a
( there is a 3d composite image here; you can spin the doom-scythe around and view it from all angles. it's pretty nifty!)

From here it does look turret mounted too, i still have doubts it can rotate past the tesla guns as those are quite clearly fixed to the aircraft's hull.

I went to the GW site and viewed the 360 degree pan for the Doomscythe... The Tesla destructors are off a ways on either side from the death ray (symmetrical)... Looks to me like they don't limit swiveling the centrally located death ray.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I went to the GW site and viewed the 360 degree pan for the Doomscythe... The Tesla destructors are off a ways on either side from the death ray (symmetrical)... Looks to me like they don't limit swiveling the centrally located death ray.

I checked it myself, and disagree strongly.

Check this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/454688.page for better images. Judging from those pictures it looks like that even if the Death Ray was turret mounted, it would still not be able to rotate past the obviously hull mounted tesla destructors.

IIRC someone in Dakka actually tested how the Death Ray turns on practice, I'll try to find that thread.

Luide wrote:
Check this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/454688.page for better images. Judging from those pictures it looks like that even if the Death Ray was turret mounted, it would still not be able to rotate past the obviously hull mounted tesla destructors..

That's actually a really nice look to get a good view.

Mechanically, the Death Ray would indeed have trouble moving 180 past the Telsa Destrcutors, and the wires would certainly prevent it from turning 180 degrees. Ironically, the wires look like they would only stretch so far as to allow the Death Ray a 45 degree radius . At very least, even if you assume the mounting of the Death Ray allows it to swivel, the wires would certainly strain and break before it could turn 360.

Additionally, I always thought that that line in the rules regarding static turrets (where it states where in rare occasions the turret has been glued down) referred to how it was built by the player, rather than how the model was designed.

So, if a player glued down their turret, or if they built their model in such a way that prevents it from turning, use these rules, etc.

Not that really helps with any argument, as it's kinda highly subjective :p

That turret, judging from the picture, could likely turn 45 degrees each way, for a 90 degree arc. If the wire weren't there it could turn360 by depressing itself 45 degrees and then turning past the out Tesla destructors.

 Kharrak wrote:

Luide wrote:
Check this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/454688.page for better images. Judging from those pictures it looks like that even if the Death Ray was turret mounted, it would still not be able to rotate past the obviously hull mounted tesla destructors..

That's actually a really nice look to get a good view.

From those pictures, it appears to me that it is intended to be turret mounted.

So you're ignoring the "power lines" and the fact that it's limited by the Tesla guns?

Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

Fragile wrote:
Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

Turrets on models intended to move 360 are always, in my experience, rotatable to show as such - unless the player has glued them in place, or built the model so that it can't fully turn.

And yes, you look at the model to see what type of weapon it is. Does this gun rotate? It does! Well, then it's a turret / sponson / etc.

Again, by your argument, Dreadnoughts and Chaos Defilers could turn around and fire 360 degrees, even when immobilized. Ork walkers could fire behind them when immobilized, because their guns are on ball mounts.

The two large cables attached to the rear of the weapon significantly restrict rotation due to the very short length and location. In order to pivot 180 degrees horizontally from front to rear, there must be enough slack in both cables to allow it to do so. Rotating the weapon to the left, the right rear cable will become taught after a very short distance travelled stopping rotation. Second, the poor design of the cable placement by attaching it on the side of the weapon and not on the top, also restricts horizontal travel as the rear of the weapon will contact the cable after a very short travel as well.

 Kharrak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

Turrets on models intended to move 360 are always, in my experience, rotatable to show as such - unless the player has glued them in place, or built the model so that it can't fully turn.

And yes, you look at the model to see what type of weapon it is. Does this gun rotate? It does! Well, then it's a turret / sponson / etc.

Again, by your argument, Dreadnoughts and Chaos Defilers could turn around and fire 360 degrees, even when immobilized. Ork walkers could fire behind them when immobilized, because their guns are on ball mounts.

Only if you disregard all the other rules for shooting with walkers.

You have to look closely when you believe a Codex rule gives permission to override a BRB rule. The BRB has restrictions to be able to fire a weapon and two of these are a weapon must fire in its arc and must have LOS. Does the Death Ray give specific permission to override both these rules? I believe it does not. The Death Ray rule states you nominate a point anywhere on the battlefield. Does this give specific permission to override a weapon's arc restriction? Or LOS? No, as it would have to specifically state so. Indirect fire specifically addresses giving permission to override LOS as well as GK Astral Aim. I'm sure there are other specific permissions that override LOS, but the Death Ray doesn't state so. "Anywhere" may appear as a permission that overrides both these BRB rules, but it doesn't as it doesn't state the Death Ray "ignores this weapon's arc" and "ignores LOS". Therefore, "anywhere" means "anywhere within the weapon's arc and LOS"

Fragile wrote:
Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

So you're accepting the mount but ignoring the power lines.
It does t appear that it can, because of those power lines. Therefore it can't.

I am pretty sure if its turret mounted it is specified in the rules. Just because it looks one way doesn't mean you can ignore the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

So you're accepting the mount but ignoring the power lines.
It does t appear that it can, because of those power lines. Therefore it can't.

Well I'm not going to argue whether power lines are flexible enough to turn 180 on a plastic toy if it were real. Your mind is set your way, just spam GW with it so they FAQ it.

Yes, because the standard is "does it look like it could turn" - when it doesnt look like it could turn, because it is modelled to not be able to turn, that is the only conclusion you can draw.

Does it look like it can turn? Yes.

Pg 72... 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........

Is there something in the way ? Yes... then....

.......In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings.......

Free to swivel in a ball mounting is free to swivel 360*

Fragile wrote:
Does it look like it can turn? Yes.

Pg 72... 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........

Is there something in the way ? Yes... then....

.......In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings.......

Free to swivel in a ball mounting is free to swivel 360*

No, it doesn't look like it can turn 360 degrees.
A) the TL Teslas are in the way.
B) those power cables you keep ignoring

Also, the design of the model is what makes it not a turret. Not the way it's assembled.
Or are you going to argue that the hull mount on a Leman Russ has a 360 degree pivot also?

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Maybe not, but I've shown that some rules just can't work in a pure RAW sense.

If you are talking about pure RAW, the the Hive Guard Impaler cannon and Tau SMS missiles don't work. They can fire at a unit out of LOS, but they can't allocate wounds to it.
If you are also talking about pure raw, then the Out of Sight rule doesn't apply to vehicles. Thus, if you can somehow hit a vehicle out of LOS, then you can damage it.
Sometimes, you have to make a logical assumption in order to have a particular rule work by RAW. Otherwise it just doesn't and there is no need for that rule in the first place.

Impaller cannons ignore jink and any terrain or effect that gives cover, other than the cover the target is in or touching.
The smart missiles target gets cover for anything they are in, touching, or inbetween, totally different than the impaller.

What is the same is that both of those examples specifically say that they can fire on units out of line of sight.

Seems to me that the initial point on the ground is the target, and must be in line of sight. After that, draw your 3D6" line where ever you want.
Like the scattering blasts, GW hasn't said a word about allocating wounds, even though they list it as a different step in the shooting process.


-Matt

I'm not talking about cover.

Yes, it does say that they (Impaler cannon, SMS, purgation Astral Aim) can fire at a unit out of LOS. However, the rules never say that you can allocate wounds on a unit out of LOS.

What you are doing is assuming that because it can fire without the need for LOS, then you can allocate wounds to them.

The same goes for the death ray. It gives the gun permission to fire out of LOS (if you assume that 45 degree is its arc of LOS) but does not say anything about allocating wounds out of LOS. Basically, you would be making the same "leap of faith" assumption with the death ray as you would those other weapons.

 Kharrak wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
From looking at the model it actually looks like a turret mounted weapon to me. The reason for this is it is attached to the underside of the flyer with an orb and the only other things runnning to it from the ship are what look to be hoses or cables both of which are flexible.

By that argument, Dreadnoughts, Defilers, and many others could turn around to fire behind them, even when immobilized, because their upper bodies and/ or arms look "turret mounted".

No, walkers have their own specific rules for how they fire, which are different from that of a turret just as it is different from that of normal infantry.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I would think that GW would have said in the rulebook if it's a turret mount though. I mean, most every weapon in other codices say if they are turret/pintle/hull. I don't know why it didn't just say in our book but considering every other weapon we have on our vehicles is hull mounted I don't see why this would be any different.

Not really. A lot of the "turrets" - the stormraven, razorbacks, predators and the whirlwind just to name a few - never mentions explicity in the rules that they are turrets.

Brian2000 wrote:
You have to look closely when you believe a Codex rule gives permission to override a BRB rule. The BRB has restrictions to be able to fire a weapon and two of these are a weapon must fire in its arc and must have LOS. Does the Death Ray give specific permission to override both these rules? I believe it does not. The Death Ray rule states you nominate a point anywhere on the battlefield. Does this give specific permission to override a weapon's arc restriction? Or LOS? No, as it would have to specifically state so. Indirect fire specifically addresses giving permission to override LOS as well as GK Astral Aim. I'm sure there are other specific permissions that override LOS, but the Death Ray doesn't state so. "Anywhere" may appear as a permission that overrides both these BRB rules, but it doesn't as it doesn't state the Death Ray "ignores this weapon's arc" and "ignores LOS". Therefore, "anywhere" means "anywhere within the weapon's arc and LOS"

I'm sorry. I don't believe I see the "within the weapon's arc and LOS" after "anywhere" in the weapons description.

And yes, "anywhere" does conflict with "only within the weapon's arc and LOS", but the argument here isn't whether it can or cannot fire only within its arc. The argument here is the allocation of wounds to units hit outside of its arc.


-----------------------------------------------------


This may be a discussion about RAW here, but sometimes in an actual game, going by pure RAW just doesn't work. Sometimes you have to make some assumptions. For example, you are assuming that hive guards, SMS and astral aim by purgation squads can actually allocate wounds to the models they shoot.

Likewise, you are assuming that the Out of Sight rule on p.16 also applies to vehicles and not just units with "Wounds".

If you want to call that "house-ruling", then fine. So be it. Sometimes I play the RAI if the RAW is questionable or open to intepretation.

Otherwise, my death ray can fire at your unit outside of its LOS and although it may not be able to allocate wounds to the unit, it can kill it if that unit is a vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Does it look like it can turn? Yes.

Pg 72... 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........

Is there something in the way ? Yes... then....

.......In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings.......

Free to swivel in a ball mounting is free to swivel 360*

No, it doesn't look like it can turn 360 degrees.
A) the TL Teslas are in the way.
B) those power cables you keep ignoring

Also, the design of the model is what makes it not a turret. Not the way it's assembled.

A. Mounting it on a ball rather than a fixed point shows intent for it to turn, regardless of whether the Teslas are in the way.
B. No power cable would stop something from turning. Those would simply wrap around the pivot. Cables are flexible. Even hydraulic cables on modern heavy machinery is flexible enough to 180*, so those cables are irrelevant.

The design may be bad, but lets face, GW is designing a TOY, not a working spaceship.

Or are you going to argue that the hull mount on a Leman Russ has a 360 degree pivot also?

Irrelevant strawman. But, if you want to post a picture and start a new thread, I will happily post a comment in there for you.

Fragile wrote:
Only if you disregard all the other rules for shooting with walkers.

Walkers rotate in the shooting phase when they fire.

However, if they are immobilized, as I stated, then they are limited to the firing arc of their weapons.

By your arguments, since Ork Walker weapons have a ball joint, they have a 360 degree weapon arc, even when immobilized.

In regards to this constantly quoted piece from the rulebook:

On some models, it will actually 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 into place

I find it surprising so many are jumping to this as irrevocable evidence to prove their cause. I always, and increasingly so rereading it, saw this as a way to get around how players built their models, rather than how models were designed. If you read it as specifying how models are designed, you're opening a massive can of worms in regards to a plethora of other seemingly static weapons in games, that people assumed were hull mounted.

 Kharrak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Only if you disregard all the other rules for shooting with walkers.

Walkers rotate in the shooting phase when they fire.

However, if they are immobilized, as I stated, then they are limited to the firing arc of their weapons.

By your arguments, since Ork Walker weapons have a ball joint, they have a 360 degree weapon arc, even when immobilized.

In regards to this constantly quoted piece from the rulebook:

On some models, it will actually 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 into place

I find it surprising so many are jumping to this as irrevocable evidence to prove their cause. I always, and increasingly so rereading it, saw this as a way to get around how players built their models, rather than how models were designed. If you read it as specifying how models are designed, you're opening a massive can of worms in regards to a plethora of other seemingly static weapons in games, that people assumed were hull mounted.

But you must be aware of the fact that many necron players are "damaged" by the fact that their codex overrules/overruled so many BRB rules. And because of that it seems that they in some wierd way believes much of their stuff to be able to disregard BRB rules without a clear rule/text to support it.

Since no other weapon in the game either have a text which says "you must have LOS to fire it at your target" I just assume that the same BRB rules that works for all other weapons also applies for necron weaponry unless specifically stated that it ignores LOS.

 Kharrak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Only if you disregard all the other rules for shooting with walkers.

Walkers rotate in the shooting phase when they fire.

However, if they are immobilized, as I stated, then they are limited to the firing arc of their weapons.

By your arguments, since Ork Walker weapons have a ball joint, they have a 360 degree weapon arc, even when immobilized.

In regards to this constantly quoted piece from the rulebook:

On some models, it will actually 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 into place

I find it surprising so many are jumping to this as irrevocable evidence to prove their cause. I always, and increasingly so rereading it, saw this as a way to get around how players built their models, rather than how models were designed. If you read it as specifying how models are designed, you're opening a massive can of worms in regards to a plethora of other seemingly static weapons in games, that people assumed were hull mounted.

Again your trying to Strawman. To do those things requires breaking clearly stated rules.

The question is "Is the weapon turret mounted or hull"

The answer is from a rule on Pg 72.

Rigeld thinks it is not and gave his reasons. I think it is and gave mine. Pulling out strawman arguments does nothing to this discussion.

Except the power cables are not long enough to wrap aaround

So the issue is NOT the way the model is *assembled*, but with the way the model is *designed*. those two are very different in meaning.

The power cable is dorsal to the weapon... It has no influence. You're clutching at straws now.

Sigh

The way it is attached to the hull means that, when it tries to spin round they will tighten, preventing it turning any further.

Then you have the Tesla weapons in the way, which will prevent it from rotating past

Finally you have that the only allowance is when a model is assembled such that it cannot move. Not where the model is DESIGNED so that it cannot spin

Not clutching at straws when youre right.

The tesla destructors in no way impede the rotation of the death ray weapon. Your reply regarding the cable... Like I said - clutching for the straws now.

Odd, on my model they definitely would do.

do you have an argument?

I have the model.

I don't need the model.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/475679.page#4770588
The picture in that post clearly shows cables that would prevent turning.

Ha ha, so while away I see this thread has side stepped. It is obvious that there is no rule to overide out of sight so now we have arguments about the mounting? To argue that this is a turret is laughable for all the obvious reasons already pointed out.

"But it has a ball joint?" Yea, so do most joints in the human skeleton, can your elbow free rotate 360 degrees? If so, please see a physician, and fast. Clearly the tesla destructors and the cables prevent it from free rotation.
.........................................................................................................

@jy2- There is no need for RAI here. It worked one way in 5th, now it works another way in 6th. Further more all your examples from other books explicitly state that they fire outside LoS, so the comparison to the language explaining the DR is more damning then redeeming to your argument as it fails to even mention LoS.
YOU can house rule it to shoot 24" if you want but we are trying to address this by the book here.

-It has a 45 arc LoS

-It can only allocate wounds to models in LoS

-Use your shots wisely

It is not laughable. To read the poor response against it shows how weak is their position.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It is not laughable. To read the poor response against it shows how weak is their position.

You're misunderstanding the cables that are being referenced - I can tell because you mentioned the dorsal ones.
Those aren't the ones I'm talking about. At all.
I'm talking about the ones on the side of the gun that go into the hull.
I'm sorry you feel that the position is weak - I'm not sure how better to explain it.
I've posted a picture where the cable is plainly visible. In it it's the black cable on the side, not the silver dorsal cables.

I have the model. I am having realiy hard time believing you would support that... I encourage everyone following this thread to take a good long hard look at the model. What you're saying carries absolutely no weight in my opinion.

Here's a much clearer view:


If that gun rotated, it would tear those cables right out.

Edit: Even without the cables, if it could rotate it would be lucky to move 45* before it hit the tesla cannons (you can see this even more clearly on the pic on page 4). There's no way that gun can rotate.

Cables are flexible which can't be accounted for with the plastic kit.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Cables are flexible which can't be accounted for with the plastic kit.

Assuming they are flexible (and I was assuming they were), they'd have to stretch at least twice their length just on a 90* rotation. They look flexible, but they don't look like thy can stretch at all, let alone that far.
And what about hitting the tesla cannons? You have the model, you can clearly see it would hit them.

Even stretching, that design couldn't swivel 180 degrees because of the placement of the cables.

rigeld2 wrote:
Even stretching, that design couldn't swivel 180 degrees because of the placement of the cables.

Agreed, not even close.
And that's assuming the tesla cannons aren't there.

The death ray is lower than the tesla destructors... It can easily pass underneath them... Take a side view photo.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The death ray is lower than the tesla destructors... It can easily pass underneath them... Take a side view photo.

No it isn't. Not even close. I thought you said you had the model? Or is this the model you own?

From the thread posted earlier:


Top of the Death Ray is RIGHT between them! It would need a full 1/2 inch to come close to pass them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about the other image posted earlier?


They even had to REMOVE one tesla as it blocked the shot of the Death Ray, because half of its between them! You can see the position on the gun behind it.
There is no way you can own the model and claim it will pass underneath them.

 Red Corsair wrote:

@jy2- There is no need for RAI here. It worked one way in 5th, now it works another way in 6th. Further more all your examples from other books explicitly state that they fire outside LoS, so the comparison to the language explaining the DR is more damning then redeeming to your argument as it fails to even mention LoS.
YOU can house rule it to shoot 24" if you want but we are trying to address this by the book here.

-It has a 45 arc LoS

-It can only allocate wounds to models in LoS

-Use your shots wisely

Allow me to express my logic a little more clearly.

First of all:

BRB, p.72 wrote:
Vehicles need to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them.

Ok, now how does the death ray work?

Necron codex, p.50 wrote:
To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3D6" of the first. Then, draw a straight line between the 2 points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

Notice that it doesn't say "anywhere within its LOS". It just says anywhere. You understand the difference, right? With the exception that it has to be within 12" range of the gun, anywhere is unrestricted. "Anywhere within its LOS" is restricted and a direct conflict to anywhere.

Ok, I will go under the assumption that the death ray is hull-mounted and has a rather limited 45 degree frontal arc. Now how can you fire the death ray anywhere when you don't have LOS to do so? By the BRB, you can't fire it unless you have LOS but the codex gives you express permission to do so despite the lack of LOS. That just makes no sense, right? Well, in order to make the basic rules work with the codex, you need to make 1 of 2 basic assumptions. And you can do so because in the case of a conflict between the base rules and the codex, the codex-specific rules take precedence.

So in order to fire without LOS (because remember, you are firing the gun outside of your normal field of LOS), you have to make either the assumption that 1) you have LOS to the target with the death ray or 2) you don't need LOS to the target with the death ray.


Ok, I will give it to you that the codex does not tell you how to allocate wounds with the death ray. Which is why I am bringing up these particular units - Tyranid hive guard impaler cannon, Tau SMS missiles and grey knight purgation squad's Astral Aim. Now all 3 of these rules have 2 things in common. First of all, they all give you explicit permission to fire without the need for LOS. Secondly, just like the doom scythe's death ray, none of those 3 gives you express permission to allocate wounds outside of LOS. Then how are people allocating wounds with those units? Through logical assumption that if you don't need LOS to shoot at a target, then you can allocate wounds to them.

Hope you see what I am getting at?

Death ray works the same way. The rules for the death gives you permission to fire outside of its LOS. Thus, you have to assume that either you have LOS or you don't need it. If you assume that you have LOS, then it's easy-peasy. If you assume that you don't need LOS, then you are in the same boat as the hive guards, SMS and Astral Aim. You have to make the same logical assumptions as them. Otherwise, none of the above weapons should be able to wound outside of their LOS by pure RAW. Either they all work or they all don't.

And no, I am not basing my intepretation of the rules on 5th Edition rulings.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Ha ha, so while away I see this thread has side stepped. It is obvious that there is no rule to overide out of sight so now we have arguments about the mounting? To argue that this is a turret is laughable for all the obvious reasons already pointed out.

"But it has a ball joint?" Yea, so do most joints in the human skeleton, can your elbow free rotate 360 degrees? If so, please see a physician, and fast. Clearly the tesla destructors and the cables prevent it from free rotation.

Lol, if you have ball joints for your elbows, you need to see a physician. Try shoulder and hips, both of which have 360 rotation.

It is easy to see from this picture below that the death ray is lower than the Tesla destructors and it's rotation is not impeded by them.


]

Apart from the top of the death ray, which is at the same height as the middle of the destructors barrel.

If you believe that the death ray can swivel past, explain that. You cannot, but try.

Why did GW remove the tesla destructor in their photo? Because otherwise you could not see the death ray, because the teslas cover the upper portion of the death ray.

Your argument tha tthe cables would be "flexible" is irrelevant - they would have to STRETCH to twice their length simply to allow a 90 degree rotation..... which cannot happen because the tesla destructors are in the way

In short your argument comes down to "i have the model", and is belied by a) those who have the model and b) the pictures you posted above which show you are incorrect

Stating that it can't rotate past the Tesla must not ever wear anything on their belt, like a cell phone. Imagine your body is the hull your arm is the Death Ray. A ball joint would allow angled movement not just swivel. As someone else pointed out with the math the limited fire options using it as either a hull mount or a turret is hardly anywhere. Anyone who has seen "Real Genius" has an idea of what the movement of this weapon would be like with the targeting mechanism under the plane. How do we know how any of this works? Maybe the cables are made of Unbelievanium and can freakin be used for bungee jumping and handle the power of a sun running through them. The center of the cable has some type of connection or mechanical doohickey, could that be some type of expansion joint? Like many discussions here this is down to wait for a faq or run it like you want.

As I said - even if they stretch, the gun wouldn't be able to rotate past where the cable is mounted to the hull.

jy2- That is a matter of view do to vague writing, and this is why we need to resort to RAW. I read the anywhere as a very nonspecific term ie they wanted players to be able to place the line at any spot on the battlefield not on a models base but within the obvious restrictions laid out by the shooting rules.
Here is a map marking the location of your final destination, take any route you chose.
-While being a citizen you have basic civil laws in place and obviously you are free to go anywhere in your car while obeying traffic law. Like not driving down one ways, or an the shoulder of the road. Your arguing that in the abcense of restating laws that govern you already that you can ignore them.

Anywhere =/= anywhere outside LoS.

I don't appreciate the giant red letters if you can tell. I heard your argument and it is wrong. The rules tell us it's wrong. Your interpretation is your skewed interpretation, not rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The death ray is lower than the tesla destructors... It can easily pass underneath them... Take a side view photo.

I now pray daily that you are not a civil engineer.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I now pray daily that you are not a civil engineer.

Not relevant. Dont attack a person, attack their argument.

I would tend to agree that this is a fixed gun. The only problem is that it dosent look like any "Hull Mounted" weapon I've ever seen before. It does more resemble a turret weapon than a fixed weapon but then there are the design flaws preventing this. I would say, for the purpose of shooting it could easily have an arc between 45-60'. Its a nice compromise. I think thats the way the model wsa intended as well.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I now pray daily that you are not a civil engineer.

Not relevant. Dont attack a person, attack their argument.

They tried, he ignores it.

I agree with jy2 and I think interpretation is fundamentally sound with good examples given in support such as the Impaler cannon, purgation squad and smart missiles. They can all wound without needing Los.

The problem with that is they all specifically say they ignore LOS rules.

 Red Corsair wrote:
jy2- That is a matter of view do to vague writing, and this is why we need to resort to RAW. I read the anywhere as a very nonspecific term ie they wanted players to be able to place the line at any spot on the battlefield not on a models base but within the obvious restrictions laid out by the shooting rules.
Here is a map marking the location of your final destination, take any route you chose.
-While being a citizen you have basic civil laws in place and obviously you are free to go anywhere in your car while obeying traffic law. Like not driving down one ways, or an the shoulder of the road. Your arguing that in the abcense of restating laws that govern you already that you can ignore them.

Anywhere =/= anywhere outside LoS.

I don't appreciate the giant red letters if you can tell. I heard your argument and it is wrong. The rules tell us it's wrong. Your interpretation is your skewed interpretation, not rule.

If you intepret "anywhere" as "anywhere within its LOS", then we'd just have to agree to disagree.

"Anywhere" is purposefully broad as it was meant to be. The only RAW restriction placed on it is "within the gun's range". If the description did not (and it does not) explicitly restrict it to be "within the gun's LOS" as well, then by RAW there is no restriction on the gun's LOS. Because if you can only fire it within the gun's arc of fire, then that isn't "anywhere" any more.

As for your example above, if you follow pure RAW, then yes, do as you like and drive anywhere. You may get pulled over and arrested but you are still following pure RAW. But all this really illustrates is that the real world operates much differently than the gaming world. Saying that the death ray can fire anywhere "within the gun's LOS" is making your own logical assumptions. That is not the pure RAW of the rule.

Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

Also in the absence of specificity we have to use the core rules set. The death ray doesn't address LoS, therefore we have no choice but to default to the book, this is a matter of games design and rule make up that you seem to be failing to grasp. You need permission to ignore LoS for wound allocation which you have failed to prove.

This forum runs on RAW, in this case it is pretty clear cut. If you want to house rule it where you play that is more then acceptable but for our purposes you are ignoring the facts and are making assumptions using poor examples that actually undermine your point on intentions anyway.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it they way you suggest.

You're making an unfounded assumption that Matt Ward knew when the GK book was being written what the final 6th edition rules were going to be.

It's a 5th edition book. Just like Codex: Necrons.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it they way you suggest.

You're making an unfounded assumption that Matt Ward knew when the GK book was being written what the final 6th edition rules were going to be.

It's a 5th edition book. Just like Codex: Necrons.

But that's also my point why RAI has no place here. I was showing that we can all make unfounded interpretations like jy2 has been.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
It's a 5th edition book. Just like Codex: Necrons.

Alot of people would actually tend to disagree with that, considering the Necrons codex was made at the end of the final tweakings for 6th edition. If you haven't noticed yet they actually have less problems with the new rules than other codecies because alot of people (myself included) belive that the necrons codex wasa actually made for 6th which is why it was so strange to play with in 5th. necrons is the only thing that you can concivably say there was 6th RAI.