So, I was playing a game the other day against this new Chaos Dragon. My opponent flew the thing over me, (rear facing me after) then shot me with the torrent. Now, I was somewhat in a disagreement with him about him doing this, as the weapon is on the front. But then on closer inspection, the torrent rule does just say, within 12” of the weapon. I did let him do it, as it kinda follows the rules for FMC’s & Flyers.

Just wondering if anyone has anything else to say about this...?
Also, really don’t like the dragon as a model.

If the dragon was facing directly away from your unit, sounds like it was some illegal shooting.

There are two things to keep in mind when firing a Heldrake or any unit like it:

1) the model's Line of Sight
(Ref. pgs 8, 12 & especially 16, left side, Out of Sight rules)

2) the weapon's firing arc (pg 72)



The model's Line of Sight can be loosely stated to be 180 degrees forward, or from its "eyes". This is also called TLOS.

The weapon's firing arc depends on its mounting style, and is specific to vehicle models. The Heldrake itself has a hullmounted weapon which is located in the mouth, facing forward. This gives it a frontal 45 degree firing arc.

Because of the Torrent rule, you can place the narrow end of the template anywhere inside that 45 degree arc and within 12 inches of the Heldrake.

The wide end may therefor be placed over models outside of the 45 degree arc, but that are within the heldrake's 180 degrees TLOS, and those models may be allocated wounds from the shooting attack of the Bale Flamer.

If he was placing the template behind the Heldrake AND outside the 45 degree arc, he was violating both the TLOS rules and the weapon's 45 degree firing arc.

A passing glance at the Torrent rule may tempt players to think they can place the template anywhere they want within 12" of the Heldrake's weapon barrel, and though technically true, it will never allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LoS. You still have to obey normal rules for LoS.

Hope this helps.

The think part of the problem is that the Hellhound weapon that functions the same way is turret mounted, giving 360 degrees of fire. People might have a little confusion there.

If the weapon is described as hull mounted then it's open/shut. If it's not listed, then you look at the weapon and draw a logical conclusion. Shooting it out of the dragon's ass seems a little suspect...

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
The think part of the problem is that the Hellhound weapon that functions the same way is turret mounted, giving 360 degrees of fire. People might have a little confusion there.

If the weapon is described as hull mounted then it's open/shut. If it's not listed, then you look at the weapon and draw a logical conclusion. Shooting it out of the dragon's ass seems a little suspect...

DoW

Check my sig bro

 Boneblade wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
The think part of the problem is that the Hellhound weapon that functions the same way is turret mounted, giving 360 degrees of fire. People might have a little confusion there.

If the weapon is described as hull mounted then it's open/shut. If it's not listed, then you look at the weapon and draw a logical conclusion. Shooting it out of the dragon's ass seems a little suspect...

DoW

Check my sig bro

Thanks for this dude. I read your quote under your post, & actually thought you were the bloke I was playing.... as his names John.

Nice one. Seemed a bit moody at the time.

Haha and thus the world gets a little smaller. But only because of the irony of a randomly chosen generic name used on an internet forum matching an actual person. Thankfully, I'm not really John. Nor would I try to poop a Bale Flamer template on anything behind my Heldrake.. it's just not polite.

 Boneblade wrote:
The Heldrake itself has a hullmounted weapon which is located in the mouth, facing forward. This gives it a frontal 45 degree firing arc.

Where in the rules does it say a neck is a hull mount? I'd think the body would be the hull. A neck/head looks a lot more like a turret to me. You know, most things can swivel their neck.

Kevlar wrote:

 Boneblade wrote:
The Heldrake itself has a hullmounted weapon which is located in the mouth, facing forward. This gives it a frontal 45 degree firing arc.

Where in the rules does it say a neck is a hull mount? I'd think the body would be the hull. A neck/head looks a lot more like a turret to me. You know, most things can swivel their neck.

Might increase the firing arc, but not as far as 360

Kevlar wrote:

 Boneblade wrote:
The Heldrake itself has a hullmounted weapon which is located in the mouth, facing forward. This gives it a frontal 45 degree firing arc.

Where in the rules does it say a neck is a hull mount? I'd think the body would be the hull. A neck/head looks a lot more like a turret to me. You know, most things can swivel their neck.

The neck and head are not the weapon. The barrel of the gun is the weapon. It cannot swivel or pivot, and is CLEARLY not a pintle mounted weapon. Therefor, it must be hull mounted. By trying to claim the dragon can swivel or pivot it's neck (though cool) you are inserting house rules that extend its firing arc.

Ha, I didn't even see your sig. I only wish a conversation like that was only ever a joke...

To be honest, I'd be pretty comfortable giving it a similar arc to the ass-cannon (ha!) on the top of a Stormraven. Anything around 150-170 degrees wouldn't be too crazy.

DoW

I'm not familiar with the assault cannon on a storm raven but if it's hull mounted and otherwise cannot move 170 degrees would be very lenient. In the case of the Heldrake, at any rate, 45 is plenty. In combination with the torrent rule the bale flamer can still hit quite a lot and do plenty of damage. About the only targets excluded, in fact, are ones directly behind the model.

 Boneblade wrote:
I'm not familiar with the assault cannon on a storm raven but if it's hull mounted and otherwise cannot move 170 degrees would be very lenient. In the case of the Heldrake, at any rate, 45 is plenty. In combination with the torrent rule the bale flamer can still hit quite a lot and do plenty of damage. About the only targets excluded, in fact, are ones directly behind the model.

Not true. Anything out of the 45 degree arc cannot be wounded, even if you can/must legally place the template there.

Just like any other template, it must be placed in it's proper arc. Downside Templates can only be used while hovering IIRC.
Should have just Vector Striked

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Just like any other template, it must be placed in it's proper arc. Downside Templates can only be used while hovering IIRC.
Should have just Vector Striked

You can shoot Templates while Zooming - there's nothing restricting that.
And the goal would be to Vector Strike and flame the same unit.

 Boneblade wrote:
I'm not familiar with the assault cannon on a storm raven but if it's hull mounted and otherwise cannot move 170 degrees would be very lenient. In the case of the Heldrake, at any rate, 45 is plenty. In combination with the torrent rule the bale flamer can still hit quite a lot and do plenty of damage. About the only targets excluded, in fact, are ones directly behind the model.

The SR Ass-cannon isn't hull mounted but has a section of the aircraft that precludes it from rotating approximately 80 degrees to either side. It certainly cannot shoot behind itself, regardless of the mounting, due to the construction of the vehicle.

The leniency I would give the Heldrake is because unless it's specifically described as hull mounted, we all know you must look at the model to determine the arc of fire. If that's the case, given that it has a flexible, dragon-like neck, I would be willing to allow it a little extra flexibility.

Besides, there is a 100% chance one of my Vendetta pilots will put a lascannon down its gullet next turn

DoW

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Just like any other template, it must be placed in it's proper arc. Downside Templates can only be used while hovering IIRC.
Should have just Vector Striked

You can shoot Templates while Zooming - there's nothing restricting that.
And the goal would be to Vector Strike and flame the same unit.

Yar, misinterpreted Vector Strike. Saw "counts as already firing one weapon" applied it to a vehicle with only one weapon.

Ugh need to re-read all rules for fliers ...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Boneblade wrote:
I'm not familiar with the assault cannon on a storm raven but if it's hull mounted and otherwise cannot move 170 degrees would be very lenient. In the case of the Heldrake, at any rate, 45 is plenty. In combination with the torrent rule the bale flamer can still hit quite a lot and do plenty of damage. About the only targets excluded, in fact, are ones directly behind the model.

Not true. Anything out of the 45 degree arc cannot be wounded, even if you can/must legally place the template there.

Go ahead and quote the actual rule stipulating this, if you don't mind. Model LoS and weapon firing arc are different things.



Edit: To expand on my position and use actual rules...

Scenario: Heldrake is firing his weapon at a squad of Devastators. The nearest model of the target unit is approximately 47 degrees off center of the direction the Heldrake is facing.

TLOS rules: model must be able to see at least one model in the target unit to target them. (SATISFIED) (pg 8)

Vehicle Weapon Line of Sight: Instead of drawing a direct line between the barrel of the Heldrake's weapon and the devastator, use the Torrent rule to legally place the narrow end of the template within 12" of the weapon's barrel and inside a 45 degree arc. (SATISFIED) (pg 72 & Torrent)

Allocating Wounds: The firing model, Heldrake, can see one or more models in the squad of Devastators as defined by TLOS on pg 8. Therefor wounds as a result of the shooting attack may be allocated to any visible models in the target unit. (Ref. Pg 16, Out of Sight rules)


-----

To further clarify.. because of the Torrent rules, it is perfectly legal to place the narrow end of the template right beneath the mouth of the Heldrake and attempt to "hit" units behind or directly beneath the Heldrake. The only thing preventing a player from actually doing this in a game is the fact that the Pg 16 Out of Sight rules expressly prohibit the allocation of wounds to models which are not visible to the firing unit.

Nowhere does it stipulate that models must be within the firing arc of a vehicle mounted weapon to count as "visible" to the firing unit. This is where the distinction between a weapon's firing arc and the firing unit's TLOS becomes important.

The same logic applies perfectly for hitting models outside of the Hull-mounted weapons 45 degree arc, except that they may frequently be visible to the firing unit and therefor do not engage the Out of Sight rules on Pg 16. Lacking that, please quote a rule somewhere which prohibits the Heldrake from legally placing a template as per the Torrent rules and then allocating wounds as per the normal LoS shooting rules.

Didn't they just FAQ it that templates can kill things the firing model could not see? I know this was for deviating small blast templates, but this is YMDC after all....

 Phazael wrote:
Didn't they just FAQ it that templates can kill things the firing model could not see? I know this was for deviating small blast templates, but this is YMDC after all....

You are referring to:

Q: Can blast markers hit a model that is not in the attacker’s line of
sight if they do NOT scatter? (p33)
A: Yes, as long as the target enemy model for the blast
weapon is within the firer’s line of sight.


Unfortunately, this is not for Template weapons.

 DogOfWar wrote:
The think part of the problem is that the Hellhound weapon that functions the same way is turret mounted, giving 360 degrees of fire. People might have a little confusion there.

If the weapon is described as hull mounted then it's open/shut. If it's not listed, then you look at the weapon and draw a logical conclusion. Shooting it out of the dragon's ass seems a little suspect...

DoW

is the head a turret or part of the hull. It certainly looks like the head can swivvle a bit.

The dragon can see in a 45 degree arc from it's gun, it cannot flame things behind it unless one of the models in the unit is in sight.

 juraigamer wrote:
The dragon can see in a 45 degree arc from it's gun, it cannot flame things behind it unless one of the models in the unit is in sight.

Be careful.

The Bale Flamer weapon has a 45 degree firing arc.

The "Dragon", being the Heldrake model, has a LOS which is entirely based on TLOS rules / drawn from the eyes.

 Boneblade wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
The dragon can see in a 45 degree arc from it's gun, it cannot flame things behind it unless one of the models in the unit is in sight.

Be careful.

The Bale Flamer weapon has a 45 degree firing arc.

The "Dragon", being the Heldrake model, has a LOS which is entirely based on TLOS rules / drawn from the eyes.

Actually the eyes don't matter as it is a vehicle and vehicles draw LoS directly from the weapon and fire arc.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Boneblade wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
The dragon can see in a 45 degree arc from it's gun, it cannot flame things behind it unless one of the models in the unit is in sight.

Be careful.

The Bale Flamer weapon has a 45 degree firing arc.

The "Dragon", being the Heldrake model, has a LOS which is entirely based on TLOS rules / drawn from the eyes.

Actually the eyes don't matter as it is a vehicle and vehicles draw LoS directly from the weapon and fire arc.

You are trying to state that all vehicles have a LoS which is strictly limited to their weapon's firing arcs. Not only is that not true, it's not stated anywhere in the rules.

Lets consider Dreadnaughts. I remember these cuddly fellas from 5th, when they used to blow up my own rhinos.

A Dreadnaught is a vehicle which is also a Walker. In the shooting phase, Walkers pivot on the spot to aim their guns at the target. This is done AFTER declaring the target.

But wait.

The Dreadnaught's weapons are described specifically to have a 45 degree horizontal arc of fire. What happens if the target unit is outside that 45 degrees? Suspiciously, the walker still pivots to the unit and THEN fires. If the Walker, being a Vehicle, could only draw LoS through its weapon's firing arcs, it would be unable to pivot against any target outside of the 45 degree arc (because it could not see them and therefor cannot initiate a shooting attack against a model that is not in it's LOS).


A vehicle's LOS is not determined by its weapon's firing arc. The weapon's LOS is determined by the weapon's firing arc.

 Boneblade wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Boneblade wrote:
I'm not familiar with the assault cannon on a storm raven but if it's hull mounted and otherwise cannot move 170 degrees would be very lenient. In the case of the Heldrake, at any rate, 45 is plenty. In combination with the torrent rule the bale flamer can still hit quite a lot and do plenty of damage. About the only targets excluded, in fact, are ones directly behind the model.

Not true. Anything out of the 45 degree arc cannot be wounded, even if you can/must legally place the template there.

Go ahead and quote the actual rule stipulating this, if you don't mind. Model LoS and weapon firing arc are different things.

*SNIP*

Page 72 describes how vehicle LoS is treated, Hell drakes weapons appear to be hull mounted under those rules.

Page12 handles targeting for LoS.

Page 16 tells us we cannot allocate wounds to models out of LoS

Now, you can place the flamer template so the narrow end is within the LoS and the wider end is out but your never going to wound anything outside of your LoS as per the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Boneblade wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
The dragon can see in a 45 degree arc from it's gun, it cannot flame things behind it unless one of the models in the unit is in sight.

Be careful.

The Bale Flamer weapon has a 45 degree firing arc.

The "Dragon", being the Heldrake model, has a LOS which is entirely based on TLOS rules / drawn from the eyes.

The distinction makes no difference for either of its weapon options, or any vehicle for that matter. The weapons LoS is the vehicles because its the only thing LoS is used for with Vehicles.

In your scenario Bausk, the Dreadnaught could not pivot to face a target outside of it's weapons 45 degree arc.

Let's try it like this.

Pg 72

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at their target and then trace the line of sight from each weapon's mounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models." If they can be seen, the vehicle may fire.

If they cannot be seen, in a traditional situation, that particular weapon cannot fire.

However...

Pg 43, Torrent

"When firing a weapon with this special rule, place the template so that the narrow end is within 12" of the weapon and the wide end is no closer to the weapon than the narrow end. The weapon is then treated like any other Template weapon."

Torrent weapons have a special rule as to how they are fired and how they may be placed. This over rides the normal rules as to how they fire. The Template may then be legally placed with the narrow end inside the 45 degree arc and within 12" of the weapon, and the wide end over models that are outside the 45 degree arc.

Again, the model's LOS is not determined by the firing arc of its weapon. This is never stated in the rules. Refer to the Walkers for an example of a situation where the vehicle's LOS is greater than its weapon's arc of fire. (And a reason for which the vehicle uses LoS for other than firing a specific weapon, in direct contradiction to your statement that vehicle LOS is never used for anything else).

Pg 16, Out of Sight rules only stipulate that wounds cannot be allocated to model's that are outside of the FIRING UNITS LoS. This is the only entry in the rules prohibiting the allocation of wounds in a shooting attack (that I currently know of). The other LOS rules deal with whether or not the unit is eligible to fire the weapon at all, which is covered neatly in the Torrent rule.

Find permission to trace LoS to any point on the vehicle other than the weapon.
If you can do that, you can shoot behind you.

What youre missing is that vehicles do NOT have LOS outside of their weapons arcs

They really dont

Which is why they FAQ'd the CHaos dread to remind you of this, by pointing out that fire frenzy only hit anything within the 2 45 degree fire arcs from the arm weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What youre missing is that vehicles do NOT have LOS outside of their weapons arcs

They really dont

Which is why they FAQ'd the CHaos dread to remind you of this, by pointing out that fire frenzy only hit anything within the 2 45 degree fire arcs from the arm weapons.

Do you have a link to the old FAQ for the old codex in the old edition of the game, Nosferatu? Not that's it is necessarily relevant here. . hmm. But I'm still curious, because IIRC, that FAQ was more along the lines of the dreadnaught would not pivot to shoot a friendly model, and therefor had to target something that was already in it's weapon's LOS.

 Boneblade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What youre missing is that vehicles do NOT have LOS outside of their weapons arcs

They really dont

Which is why they FAQ'd the CHaos dread to remind you of this, by pointing out that fire frenzy only hit anything within the 2 45 degree fire arcs from the arm weapons.

Do you have a link to the old FAQ for the old codex in the old edition of the game, Nosferatu? Not that's it is necessarily relevant here. . hmm. But I'm still curious, because IIRC, that FAQ was more along the lines of the dreadnaught would not pivot to shoot a friendly model, and therefor had to target something that was already in it's weapon's LOS.

No, they FAQed it to say that you check LoS then pivot, which is what the Frenzy rule required.
There is nothing in the Walker rules that requires the shooting phase pivot to be towards a unit it can "see", just to face its target.
Have you found permission for a vehicle to check LoS other than from its guns yet?

rigeld2 wrote:
Find permission to trace LoS to any point on the vehicle other than the weapon.
If you can do that, you can shoot behind you.

Not trying to advocate for shooting behind the Heldrake. That is out of the model's LoS.

I'm advocating that the Heldrake may allocate wounds with its Template on models that are outside of the 45 degree firing arc of the hullmounted Bale Flamer.

Also, the rules for firing a Torrent weapon are spelled out with extreme clarity on Pg 43. The rules for selecting a valid target for a shooting attack is likewise explained on Pg 8.

 Boneblade wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Find permission to trace LoS to any point on the vehicle other than the weapon.
If you can do that, you can shoot behind you.

Not trying to advocate for shooting behind the Heldrake. That is out of the model's LoS.

I'm advocating that the Heldrake may allocate wounds with its Template on models that are outside of the 45 degree firing arc of the hullmounted Bale Flamer.

Also, the rules for firing a Torrent weapon are spelled out with extreme clarity on Pg 43. The rules for selecting a valid target for a shooting attack is likewise explained on Pg 8.

So you haven't yet? Then you'll accept that you can/must place the template in a way that will leave the weapons LoS and cause the Put of Sight rule on page 16 to be invoked, right?

And the rules for "out of sight" on page 16 are equally specific. If you have a wound pool where only models out of LOS are left, then the wound pool empties.

There is only ONE way for a vehicle to check LOS, and that is from its weapons.

If you are out of LOS of its weapons, you cannot have a wound allocated, RAW

Note: torrent onlyt specifies how you generate hits, not how you allocate wounds from the wound pool that results. There is no conflict here

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And the rules for "out of sight" on page 16 are equally specific. If you have a wound pool where only models out of LOS are left, then the wound pool empties.

There is only ONE way for a vehicle to check LOS, and that is from its weapons.

If you are out of LOS of its weapons, you cannot have a wound allocated, RAW

Note: torrent onlyt specifies how you generate hits, not how you allocate wounds from the wound pool that results. There is no conflict here

The Torrent rule specifies how you fire a weapon with the Torrent rule. This includes how to legally place it within the weapon's firing arc. So, even according to the "against" arguments in this thread, a Torrent weapon may be legally placed in all kinds of whacky ways.

You are correct that it does not specify how to allocate wounds from the resulting wound pool.

That leaves (to my mind) a question of whether or not the Vehicle has any Line of Sight other than the Firing Arc of its weapons. You say no. I say yes.


----

I'm back at the Dreadnaught.

Pg 84, left side


"When firing a Walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees)."

This sentence reads to me... nominate a target unit within LoS. Pivot to that unit. Then fire any valid weapons.

I can see how this might be interpreted to mean

Ex: "Target a unit that falls within the 45 degree arc of fire of any of the Dreadnaught's weapons. Then pivot the Dreadnaught, thus ensuring that all of its weapons are allowed to fire."

But it doesn't specify that. It just tells you to pivot to that unit, which is part of the shooting attack, which requires LoS that may be outside of the current firing arc of the Dreadnaught's weapons. This implies to me the Vehicle may determine Line of Sight in a way other than using it's weapon's firing arcs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Boneblade wrote:
In your scenario Bausk, the Dreadnaught could not pivot to face a target outside of it's weapons 45 degree arc.

*SNIP*

Well no, Page 84 under walkers specifcally allows for that exception provided they are not immobilised.

 Boneblade wrote:

Let's try it like this.

Pg 72

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at their target and then trace the line of sight from each weapon's mounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models." If they can be seen, the vehicle may fire.

If they cannot be seen, in a traditional situation, that particular weapon cannot fire.

However...

Pg 43, Torrent

"When firing a weapon with this special rule, place the template so that the narrow end is within 12" of the weapon and the wide end is no closer to the weapon than the narrow end. The weapon is then treated like any other Template weapon."

Torrent weapons have a special rule as to how they are fired and how they may be placed. This over rides the normal rules as to how they fire. The Template may then be legally placed with the narrow end inside the 45 degree arc and within 12" of the weapon, and the wide end over models that are outside the 45 degree arc.

Again, the model's LOS is not determined by the firing arc of its weapon. This is never stated in the rules. Refer to the Walkers for an example of a situation where the vehicle's LOS is greater than its weapon's arc of fire. (And a reason for which the vehicle uses LoS for other than firing a specific weapon, in direct contradiction to your statement that vehicle LOS is never used for anything else).

Pg 16, Out of Sight rules only stipulate that wounds cannot be allocated to model's that are outside of the FIRING UNITS LoS. This is the only entry in the rules prohibiting the allocation of wounds in a shooting attack (that I currently know of). The other LOS rules deal with whether or not the unit is eligible to fire the weapon at all, which is covered neatly in the Torrent rule.

Again, walkers are an exception to the rule technically, but they aren't as well. You still draw LoS from the weapon, it still has the same fire arc but you are allowed to pivot the walker so the weapon has LoS.

Nothing you have said counters the fact you cannot allocate wounds to models outside of LoS. Nor does it change the fact that a vehicles LoS is determined on a weapon to weapon basis.

You're inserting the LoS requirement on the pivot. It doesn't exist in the rules.
And as Bausk said, you still haven't cited a rule allowing a vehicle to draw LoS from anything but a weapon.

 Boneblade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And the rules for "out of sight" on page 16 are equally specific. If you have a wound pool where only models out of LOS are left, then the wound pool empties.

There is only ONE way for a vehicle to check LOS, and that is from its weapons.

If you are out of LOS of its weapons, you cannot have a wound allocated, RAW

Note: torrent onlyt specifies how you generate hits, not how you allocate wounds from the wound pool that results. There is no conflict here

The Torrent rule specifies how you fire a weapon with the Torrent rule. This includes how to legally place it within the weapon's firing arc. So, even according to the "against" arguments in this thread, a Torrent weapon may be legally placed in all kinds of whacky ways.

You are correct that it does not specify how to allocate wounds from the resulting wound pool.

That leaves (to my mind) a question of whether or not the Vehicle has any Line of Sight other than the Firing Arc of its weapons. You say no. I say yes.


----

I'm back at the Dreadnaught.

Pg 84, left side


"When firing a Walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees)."

This sentence reads to me... nominate a target unit within LoS. Pivot to that unit. Then fire any valid weapons.

I can see how this might be interpreted to mean

Ex: "Target a unit that falls within the 45 degree arc of fire of any of the Dreadnaught's weapons. Then pivot the Dreadnaught, thus ensuring that all of its weapons are allowed to fire."

But it doesn't specify that. It just tells you to pivot to that unit, which is part of the shooting attack, which requires LoS that may be outside of the current firing arc of the Dreadnaught's weapons.

Except your infering something that is not there. ITs just an exception to the rule that makes a vehicle act 'Like' an infantry model. The LoS os still based on the weapon your just allowed to pivot the walker so it is in LoS.

Boneblade - yes, it allows you to place the template out of LOS. Never disagreed with that

It does not allow you to bypass the rules on page 16. If it did, you would have posted where it SPECIFICALLY allows you to allocate *wounds* to models out of LOS. Can you do this?

Can you also find rules allowing you to draw LOS for vehicles without doing so from their weapons? You have bene asked for this a number of times, and have yet to actually do so.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're inserting the LoS requirement on the pivot. It doesn't exist in the rules.
And as Bausk said, you still haven't cited a rule allowing a vehicle to draw LoS from anything but a weapon.

It's interesting how we have come almost full circle.

Let's think about what it means to conduct a Shooting Attack with any model.

Pg 12

Nominate a Unit to Shoot, and Choose a Target.

under Choose a Target... we have

Line of Sight

"To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight (see pg 8). If no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen."

For a Walker to fire any of it's weapons, it has to first Choose a Target which falls within it's Line of Sight. This MUST happen BEFORE it makes the Pivot movement, otherwise it's not done "when firing the weapons". So either the Walker has a Line of Sight greater than the sum of its weapon's firing arcs, or it can never pivot to fire at a model which falls outside of those arcs.

^I'm not inserting a LoS requirement. LoS is a prerequisite to the Walker's ability to declare that it is firing at a unit (and subsequently pivot).


Line of Sight on Pg 8 essentially refers to guesswork WYSIWYG / from the eyes / etc. It also, magically according to all of you, does not apply to Vehicles (although it never actually says this).

Again - find rules allowing you to draw LOS on a vehicle from anything other than its weapons. If you cannot do so, you cannot continue your argument as it fails utterly

 Boneblade wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're inserting the LoS requirement on the pivot. It doesn't exist in the rules.
And as Bausk said, you still haven't cited a rule allowing a vehicle to draw LoS from anything but a weapon.

It's interesting how we have come almost full circle.

Let's think about what it means to conduct a Shooting Attack with any model.

Pg 12

Nominate a Unit to Shoot, and Choose a Target.

under Choose a Target... we have

Line of Sight

"To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight (see pg 8). If no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen."

For a Walker to fire any of it's weapons, it has to first Choose a Target which falls within it's Line of Sight. This MUST happen BEFORE it makes the Pivot movement, otherwise it's not done "when firing the weapons". So either the Walker has a Line of Sight greater than the sum of its weapon's firing arcs, or it can never pivot to fire at a model which falls outside of those arcs.

^I'm not inserting a LoS requirement. LoS is a prerequisite to the Walker's ability to declare that it is firing at a unit (and subsequently pivot).


Line of Sight on Pg 8 essentially refers to guesswork WYSIWYG / from the eyes / etc. It also, magically according to all of you, does not apply to Vehicles (although it never actually says this).

Page 84 says that the pivot comes before checking range and LoS. Since you don't check LoS until after the pivot, LoS cannot be a prerequisite as you're asserting.
Page 72 talks about Vehicles and line of sight. It only ever talks about tracing line of sight from a vehicles weapons.
Have you found permission for a vehicle to trace LoS from the hull?

 Boneblade wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're inserting the LoS requirement on the pivot. It doesn't exist in the rules.
And as Bausk said, you still haven't cited a rule allowing a vehicle to draw LoS from anything but a weapon.

It's interesting how we have come almost full circle.

Let's think about what it means to conduct a Shooting Attack with any model.

Pg 12

Nominate a Unit to Shoot, and Choose a Target.

under Choose a Target... we have

Line of Sight

"To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight (see pg 8). If no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen."

For a Walker to fire any of it's weapons, it has to first Choose a Target which falls within it's Line of Sight. This MUST happen BEFORE it makes the Pivot movement, otherwise it's not done "when firing the weapons". So either the Walker has a Line of Sight greater than the sum of its weapon's firing arcs, or it can never pivot to fire at a model which falls outside of those arcs.

^I'm not inserting a LoS requirement. LoS is a prerequisite to the Walker's ability to declare that it is firing at a unit (and subsequently pivot).


Line of Sight on Pg 8 essentially refers to guesswork WYSIWYG / from the eyes / etc. It also, magically according to all of you, does not apply to Vehicles (although it never actually says this).

And again the rules for shooting with walkers are an exception with a procedure. The target could be behind the walker and it may pivot to have its weapons be in LoS of it. Exceptions are not the rule, they are exceptions to them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again - find rules allowing you to draw LOS on a vehicle from anything other than its weapons. If you cannot do so, you cannot continue your argument as it fails utterly

Pg 8. The Vehicle is a model, not a weapon.

Pg 72, the Vehicle's Weapon drawing line of Sight, specifically states "when firing the vehicle's weapon." Weapon weapon weapon weapon.

As we've established, Torrent allows you to fire said Weapon in a special way, including with the template overlapping models which may or may not be within the weapon's normal Arc of Fire.

The ONLY other thing to check at this point is to determine whether you can allocate wounds to models which are within the MODEL'S Line of Sight. The answer, by the way, is yes. (Because it does not specify that they must be within the weapon's Line of Sight, or that the Model's (Vehicles) Line of Sight is magically restricted to its weapons firing arcs).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Boneblade - yes, it allows you to place the template out of LOS. Never disagreed with that

It does not allow you to bypass the rules on page 16. If it did, you would have posted where it SPECIFICALLY allows you to allocate *wounds* to models out of LOS. Can you do this?

Can you also find rules allowing you to draw LOS for vehicles without doing so from their weapons? You have bene asked for this a number of times, and have yet to actually do so.

It allows you to place some of it out of LoS, only a bit of the narrow end must be in LoS. Its like placing a blast template (as the torrent rules state it is) you have to place the narrow end within range and LoS. Much like fireing frag missiles from a typhoon, you can't place them out of LoS or range, but they can scatter out of these conditions.

EDIT: My bad, not like a blast template. You are right.

 Boneblade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again - find rules allowing you to draw LOS on a vehicle from anything other than its weapons. If you cannot do so, you cannot continue your argument as it fails utterly

Pg 8. The Vehicle is a model, not a weapon.

Pg 72, the Vehicle's Weapon drawing line of Sight, specifically states "when firing the vehicle's weapon." Weapon weapon weapon weapon.

As we've established, Torrent allows you to fire said Weapon in a special way, including with the template overlapping models which may or may not be within the weapon's normal Arc of Fire.

The ONLY other thing to check at this point is to determine whether you can allocate wounds to models which are within the MODEL'S Line of Sight. The answer, by the way, is yes. (Because it does not specify that they must be within the weapon's Line of Sight, or that the Model's (Vehicles) Line of Sight is magically restricted to its weapons firing arcs).

Page 72 defines a vehicles Arc of Sight as its weapons possible lines of sight.
There is no other definition on how to measure LoS to a vehicle.
By your argument, vehicles have a 360 LoS? Where are you tracing LoS to?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Boneblade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again - find rules allowing you to draw LOS on a vehicle from anything other than its weapons. If you cannot do so, you cannot continue your argument as it fails utterly

Pg 8. The Vehicle is a model, not a weapon.

Pg 72, the Vehicle's Weapon drawing line of Sight, specifically states "when firing the vehicle's weapon." Weapon weapon weapon weapon.

As we've established, Torrent allows you to fire said Weapon in a special way, including with the template overlapping models which may or may not be within the weapon's normal Arc of Fire.

The ONLY other thing to check at this point is to determine whether you can allocate wounds to models which are within the MODEL'S Line of Sight. The answer, by the way, is yes. (Because it does not specify that they must be within the weapon's Line of Sight, or that the Model's (Vehicles) Line of Sight is magically restricted to its weapons firing arcs).

Page 72 defines a vehicles Arc of Sight as its weapons possible lines of sight.
There is no other definition on how to measure LoS to a vehicle.
By your argument, vehicles have a 360 LoS? Where are you tracing LoS to?

I guess in his world they all have turrets... *shrug*

EDI: theres a point, a russ with a hull mount and a turret must obvoiously be able yo fire that hull Lascannon behind it because the turret has a 360 arc for sure. (add sarcasm)

 Bausk wrote:


I guess in his world they all have turrets... *shrug*

In my world, a Model is a Model, even if that Model happens to also be a Vehicle. There is no language stating otherwise. Under normal conditions, a Vehicle with a Hull Mounted weapon cannot fire at anything outside of its 45 degree arc. In fact, even with the Torrent rule, the narrow end of the template must remain within said 45 degree arc. However, there is nothing anywhere saying that the wide end has to be within the arc.

It becomes a problem of operations, because you are trying to act as if general Line of Sight rules do not apply to vehicles whatsoever based on the description of how to fire a vehicle's weapons. A Vehicle is not it's weapons, it is a Vehicle, which is also a Model.

 Bausk wrote:


EDI: theres a point, a russ with a hull mount and a turret must obvoiously be able yo fire that hull Lascannon behind it because the turret has a 360 arc for sure. (add sarcasm)

The Russ can declare it is firing at the unit behind it all it wants to. Because the model itself has line of sight to that unit. What you determine next is whether or not the weapon has Line of Sight to that unit (as per pg 72). Except, in the case of the Heldrake, you also consider Torrent rules when firing the weapon.

 Boneblade wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


I guess in his world they all have turrets... *shrug*

In my world, a Model is a Model, even if that Model happens to also be a Vehicle. There is no language stating otherwise. Under normal conditions, a Vehicle with a Hull Mounted weapon cannot fire at anything outside of its 45 degree arc. In fact, even with the Torrent rule, the narrow end of the template must remain within said 45 degree arc. However, there is nothing anywhere saying that the wide end has to be within the arc.

It becomes a problem of operations, because you are trying to act as if general Line of Sight rules do not apply to vehicles whatsoever based on the description of how to fire a vehicle's weapons. A Vehicle is not it's weapons, it is a Vehicle, which is also a Model.

If you read my posts I state that the narrow end must be within but the wide end does not have to be. You get those hits but excess wounds NEVER carry over that LoS line unless its done with Look out sir. A vehicle models LoS is based only on its weapons, on a weapon to weapon basis. Much like a squad, you determine what weapons can fire based on each 'model' but in this case its done with each weapon.

General LoS rules, in fact all LoS rules apply to vehicles but they apply in a specific manner. The rules for the walkers are an exception that allows them to pivot so they have LoS, its not the model or weapons LoS that allows them to pivot or choose the target but this exception to those rules.

Trying to state anything to the contrary is inaccurate to the rules.

 Boneblade wrote:

In my world, a Model is a Model, even if that Model happens to also be a Vehicle. There is no language stating otherwise. Under normal conditions, a Vehicle with a Hull Mounted weapon cannot fire at anything outside of its 45 degree arc. In fact, even with the Torrent rule, the narrow end of the template must remain within said 45 degree arc. However, there is nothing anywhere saying that the wide end has to be within the arc.

Not a single person has suggested otherwise.

It becomes a problem of operations, because you are trying to act as if general Line of Sight rules do not apply to vehicles whatsoever based on the description of how to fire a vehicle's weapons. A Vehicle is not it's weapons, it is a Vehicle, which is also a Model.

Please answer the question you've been asked multiple times: Where are the rules for measuring LoS from a vehicle?
The general LoS rules are on page 8. The Vehicle specific LoS rules are on page 72. Page 70 says that vehicles do not use the same rules as "creatures of flesh and blood" -obvious fluff for "non-vehicles". Therefore the general rules for LoS do not apply to vehicles.

 Boneblade wrote:
[

 Bausk wrote:


EDI: theres a point, a russ with a hull mount and a turret must obvoiously be able yo fire that hull Lascannon behind it because the turret has a 360 arc for sure. (add sarcasm)

The Russ can declare it is firing at the unit behind it all it wants to. Because the model itself has line of sight to that unit. What you determine next is whether or not the weapon has Line of Sight to that unit (as per pg 72). Except, in the case of the Heldrake, you also consider Torrent rules when firing the weapon.

100% Awesome. well except the fact you missed that I was being sarcastic but anyway. The walker rule is the exception as stated too many times and the torrent rule is treated like any other template weapon Narrow end nearest to the barrel and wide end further away.

Its not brain science.... or rocket surgery for that matter.

 Bausk wrote:


And again the rules for shooting with walkers are an exception with a procedure. The target could be behind the walker and it may pivot to have its weapons be in LoS of it. Exceptions are not the rule, they are exceptions to them.

A walker's ability to pivot after it declares a shooting attack is an exception.

A Walker's ability to declare it is shooting at a model within its Line of Sight is not an exception.

If the target was behind the Walker, it would have to declare a shooting attack at a model that is out of it's weapons 45 degree firing arcs.

It MUST declare this shooting attack in order to be "firing its weapons", and to declare the shooting attack in the first place, the unit has to be within Line of Sight.

The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

 Boneblade wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


And again the rules for shooting with walkers are an exception with a procedure. The target could be behind the walker and it may pivot to have its weapons be in LoS of it. Exceptions are not the rule, they are exceptions to them.

A walker's ability to pivot after it declares a shooting attack is an exception.

A Walker's ability to declare it is shooting at a model within its Line of Sight is not an exception.

If the target was behind the Walker, it would have to declare a shooting attack at a model that is out of it's weapons 45 degree firing arcs.

It MUST declare this shooting attack in order to be "firing its weapons", and to declare the shooting attack in the first place, the unit has to be within Line of Sight.

I think you mean as you declare the shooting attack - as the rule says "when" not "after".
And yes, you can declare a shooting attack against any unit you want. If they're out if LoS it's an invalid target and you don't fire. Walkers pivot as they declare so that doesn't happen.

Should I ask the question again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevlar wrote:
The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

I would never give it 360 - 120-180 maybe, but maybe not.

rigeld2 wrote:


I would never give it 360 - 120-180 maybe, but maybe not.

Well it is certainly a different mounting than a hull mounted gun on say a chimera. I wonder how hard it would be to chop the neck up and give it full articulation to see what its TLOS is.

 Boneblade wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


And again the rules for shooting with walkers are an exception with a procedure. The target could be behind the walker and it may pivot to have its weapons be in LoS of it. Exceptions are not the rule, they are exceptions to them.

A walker's ability to pivot after it declares a shooting attack is an exception.

A Walker's ability to declare it is shooting at a model within its Line of Sight is not an exception.

If the target was behind the Walker, it would have to declare a shooting attack at a model that is out of it's weapons 45 degree firing arcs.

It MUST declare this shooting attack in order to be "firing its weapons", and to declare the shooting attack in the first place, the unit has to be within Line of Sight.

Its not declaring anything, its allowed to pivot before declaring. Technically its allowed to pivot and then decide not to shoot.

Kevlar wrote:
The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

Head is part of its hull, reguardless of the heads theoretical range of movement. It is a hull mounted weapon, its arc is 45 degrees and that all she wrote. I could model a chaos pred with daemonic possession and mount its sponson weapons on tenticles, its arc of fire for those weapons would remain the same.

 Bausk wrote:

Head is part of its hull, reguardless of the heads theoretical range of movement. It is a hull mounted weapon, its arc is 45 degrees and that all she wrote. I could model a chaos pred with daemonic possession and mount its sponson weapons on tenticles, its arc of fire for those weapons would remain the same.

The head isn't part of the hull. The head is the weapon.

Kevlar wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Head is part of its hull, reguardless of the heads theoretical range of movement. It is a hull mounted weapon, its arc is 45 degrees and that all she wrote. I could model a chaos pred with daemonic possession and mount its sponson weapons on tenticles, its arc of fire for those weapons would remain the same.

The head isn't part of the hull. The head is the weapon.

Really? And where does it say that? The weapon is mounted, specifically, in the mouth and is changed out from the mouth. Anything after the weapon is the vehicle. By your definition I'd claim random movement and direction if I scored a weapon destroyed result because it would destroy its head lol. Also be your assessment a turret is apart of the weapon but its not. The turret on a tank isn't part of the weapon its apart of the tank, that's why you can draw LoS to it...fething warp, some people.

Okay.

Because the interpretation of the Dreadnaught pivot rule may be different than what I originally considered, lets drop it. I'm not sure whether the intention was to allow dreadnaught's to target units that are outside of its Line of Sight, or to allow it to target units inside ONE of it's weapons Line of Sight and therefor pivot to include ALL of its weapons. One scenario has the dreadnaught with a 360 line of sight, awarded by being a Model according to Pg 8. The other dictates that the Dreadnaught is a vehicle, and therefor its eyes are its weapons and their respective firing arcs.


So I present you this:


The Armless Dreadnaught Theory.

I have Timmy the Dreadnaught. In an unlucky shooting phase, Timmy loses both of his arms to Weapon's Destroyed results. Being a dreadnaught, any weapons Timmy may have had are also destroyed.

But, Timmy has 3 hullpoints! Yay! Timmy is still alive.

In the next turn, Timmy is ready for some pay back. Some of the nasty model's that helped blow off his arms are right in front of him, and Timmy wants to charge in and beat them all to a pulp. They are 3" inches away from Timmy, directly in front of him.

But wait.. Timmy can't assault them anymore, because he has no more arm-eyes!

Pg 20, left side.
"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit it cannot see."

So suddenly, a Dreadnaught that has no inherent Line of Sight (from being a model, Pg 8) is prohibited from even declaring a charge because Timmy-haters have said that his only eyes are his weapons and their firing arcs. It wouldn't even matter if Timmy was a Hellbrute, and had an angry face in the middle of his torso with its own eyes.

So.. I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem right to me. But lets clear up a few loose strings before we do anything else.

Hey! Wait! If Timmy was a normal Dreadnaught, those only have 2 Attacks on their profile. When a dreadnaught loses an arm, it would be reduced to 0 attacks! What then?

Well, technically, it might not be a very good idea for Timmy to charge anything. But that doesn't mean he can't. Zero Characteristic rules for the "Attacks" characteristic only states he cannot swing in close combat, not that he can't engage in one. Furthermore, he gets +1 attacks on the charge, anyways. (Ref. Pg 3, Zero-level Characteristics). And that's ignoring the fact Timmy, or Timmy wannabes, might have more than just 2 attacks on the profile.


Edit: Nevermind, I found the answer to this. Pg 84. Loses the bonus attacks.. Doesn't mention if this is included in the profile or can be reduced below the profile / to 0, though.
And actually.. now that I'm trying to find it.. I don't even see the part where losing a weapon reduces his attacks on the profile? Huh.

Losing an arm doesn't reduce his attacks.
And you're right, he'd be unable to charge.

Have you found the answer to the question that's been asked multiple times?

rigeld2 wrote:
Losing an arm doesn't reduce his attacks.
And you're right, he'd be unable to charge.

Have you found the answer to the question that's been asked multiple times?

You're incessant repetition of the same question without bothering to directly answer any of the suggestions I've made to try and attempt to address the question is entirely unproductive.

Timmy is a Dreadnaught, which is a Vehicle. Even without his Arms, there is no rule stipulating that Timmy should be unable to charge, UNLESS you insert a rule specifying that he has no Line of Sight other than those gained through his WEAPONS (even when you are talking about a phase & charge action unrelated to FIRING any of those weapons).

I think in that, if not so much with the Pivot question, I've managed to find an interesting situation where a Dreadnaught seems to possess Line of Sight outside of the context of its shooting weapons. And a Dreadnaught, being a Vehicle, could only gain that Line of Sight one way. By being a MODEL and therefor gaining Line of Sight through the normal, plain-as-day rules on Pg 8.

----

Let me expand that in a different way. According to your version, a Vehicle has Line of Sight only as granted through Pg 72.

Timmy would NEVER be able to charge, because he is NEVER allowed to fire his weapons in the Assault phase, and is therefor NEVER allowed to determine Line of Sight from those weapons during the Assault phase.

Pg 72
"When firing a vehicle's weapons," blah blah blah.

Dreadnought comparisons don't really apply as walkers have much different rules than standard vehicles.

 Boneblade wrote:
Okay.

Because the interpretation of the Dreadnaught pivot rule may be different than what I originally considered, lets drop it. I'm not sure whether the intention was to allow dreadnaught's to target units that are outside of its Line of Sight, or to allow it to target units inside ONE of it's weapons Line of Sight and therefor pivot to include ALL of its weapons. One scenario has the dreadnaught with a 360 line of sight, awarded by being a Model according to Pg 8. The other dictates that the Dreadnaught is a vehicle, and therefor its eyes are its weapons and their respective firing arcs.


So I present you this:


The Armless Dreadnaught Theory.

I have Timmy the Dreadnaught. In an unlucky shooting phase, Timmy loses both of his arms to Weapon's Destroyed results. Being a dreadnaught, any weapons Timmy may have had are also destroyed.

But, Timmy has 3 hullpoints! Yay! Timmy is still alive.

In the next turn, Timmy is ready for some pay back. Some of the nasty model's that helped blow off his arms are right in front of him, and Timmy wants to charge in and beat them all to a pulp. They are 3" inches away from Timmy, directly in front of him.

But wait.. Timmy can't assault them anymore, because he has no more arm-eyes!

Pg 20, left side.
"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit it cannot see."

So suddenly, a Dreadnaught that has no inherent Line of Sight (from being a model, Pg 8) is prohibited from even declaring a charge because Timmy-haters have said that his only eyes are his weapons and their firing arcs. It wouldn't even matter if Timmy was a Hellbrute, and had an angry face in the middle of his torso with its own eyes.

So.. I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem right to me. But lets clear up a few loose strings before we do anything else.

Hey! Wait! If Timmy was a normal Dreadnaught, those only have 2 Attacks on their profile. When a dreadnaught loses an arm, it would be reduced to 0 attacks! What then?

Well, technically, it might not be a very good idea for Timmy to charge anything. But that doesn't mean he can't. Zero Characteristic rules for the "Attacks" characteristic only states he cannot swing in close combat, not that he can't engage in one. Furthermore, he gets +1 attacks on the charge, anyways. (Ref. Pg 3, Zero-level Characteristics). And that's ignoring the fact Timmy, or Timmy wannabes, might have more than just 2 attacks on the profile.

And actually.. now that I'm trying to find it.. I don't even see the part where losing a weapon reduces his attacks on the profile? Huh.

You're fun.

As stated on page 72, when vehicle fire weapons they use the weapons LoS, not the models. The model still has a LoS, but in the instance for firing its weapons its superseded by the weapons LoS instead. The walker would still be able to charge. As the weapons LoS is the only consideration when you fire a weapon, like say a bale flamer, then its LoS is used for all shooting rules, not the models.

The whole point to the pivot rule, and pretty much all the exceptions the walkers have like being able to fire an overwatch, is to emulate a infantry model while still allowing enemy's to have a definitve facing then they come to shoot at it. It loses an attack only if its a bonus attack from an addtional close combat weapon. if it loses the original close combat weapon it only loses the weapons rules, not an attack.

 Boneblade wrote:
Pg 20, left side.
"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit it cannot see."

Huh, I guess I should stop charging with my Wraithlord then. It is even more useless now as not only can it not shoot, it can't charge either. OC Wraithlords aren't vehicles....wait a sec, my War Walkers have pilots, surely they could see the unit right in front of them, right?

Page 72 also defines "Arc of Sight" which is not traced along a weapon.

You keep coming up with situations that have odd interactions, but haven't yet cited a rule nor defended your assertion that a Heldrake would not be able to see behind it using your interpretation.

Please do so.

 Bausk wrote:


You're fun.

As stated on page 72, when vehicle fire weapons they use the weapons LoS, not the models. The model still has a LoS, but in the instance for firing its weapons its superseded by the weapons LoS instead. The walker would still be able to charge. As the weapons LoS is the only consideration when you fire a weapon, like say a bale flamer, then its LoS is used for all shooting rules, not the models.

Thank you.

So, the Vehicle has its own Line of Sight, as described on Pg 8.

When firing the Bale Flamer, I wholeheartedly agree with you - its in the Shooting phase, and you use the weapon's own Arc of Fire to determine it's Line of Sight. This is completely fair. If it were a normal weapon without any extra special rules, and no target were available within 45 degrees, that would be the end of our long, hard story.

But the Bale Flamer is a Torrent weapon. As such, and as previously established in this thread, it can generate "hits" on models outside of the 45 degree firing arc. So what's left?

Pg 16, Out of Sight.

"If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible models in the target unit."

Nowhere does it say that it must be within the line of sight of the weapon's firing arc, OR that when considering a Vehicle in the context of a shooting attack, it can only "see" units as determined by the weapon-in-question's Firing Arc.

Pg 72 directly addresses how to fire the weapon. Then you consider Torrent, and generating Hits and Wounds to fill the Wounds Pool.

Then, you consider Pg 8 and 16 to determine whether or not it is valid to allocate wounds to models within YOUR models Line of Sight.

 Boneblade wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


You're fun.

As stated on page 72, when vehicle fire weapons they use the weapons LoS, not the models. The model still has a LoS, but in the instance for firing its weapons its superseded by the weapons LoS instead. The walker would still be able to charge. As the weapons LoS is the only consideration when you fire a weapon, like say a bale flamer, then its LoS is used for all shooting rules, not the models.

Thank you.

So, the Vehicle has its own Line of Sight, as described on Pg 8.

When firing the Bale Flamer, I wholeheartedly agree with you - its in the Shooting phase, and you use the weapon's own Arc of Fire to determine it's Line of Sight. This is completely fair. If it were a normal weapon without any extra special rules, and no target were available within 45 degrees, that would be the end of our long, hard story.

But the Bale Flamer is a Torrent weapon. As such, and as previously established in this thread, it can generate "hits" on models outside of the 45 degree firing arc. So what's left?

Pg 16, Out of Sight.

"If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible models in the target unit."

Nowhere does it say that it must be within the line of sight of the weapon's firing arc, OR that when considering a Vehicle in the context of a shooting attack, it can only "see" units as determined by the weapon-in-question's Firing Arc.

Pg 72 directly addresses how to fire the weapon. Then you consider Torrent, and generating Hits and Wounds to fill the Wounds Pool.

Then, you consider Pg 8 and 16 to determine whether or not it is valid to allocate wounds to models within YOUR models Line of Sight.

You can generate hits, roll to wound and they can even fail their saves. But you can't allocate unsaved wounds outside of LoS, which is the weapons LoS when dealing with shooting attacks reguardless if its a torrent weapon or not. The only allocation of wounds outside of LoS occur with Look out sir and, because its technically not from the weapon, barrage weapons.

 Bausk wrote:

 Boneblade wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


You're fun.

As stated on page 72, when vehicle fire weapons they use the weapons LoS, not the models. The model still has a LoS, but in the instance for firing its weapons its superseded by the weapons LoS instead. The walker would still be able to charge. As the weapons LoS is the only consideration when you fire a weapon, like say a bale flamer, then its LoS is used for all shooting rules, not the models.

Thank you.

So, the Vehicle has its own Line of Sight, as described on Pg 8.

When firing the Bale Flamer, I wholeheartedly agree with you - its in the Shooting phase, and you use the weapon's own Arc of Fire to determine it's Line of Sight. This is completely fair. If it were a normal weapon without any extra special rules, and no target were available within 45 degrees, that would be the end of our long, hard story.

But the Bale Flamer is a Torrent weapon. As such, and as previously established in this thread, it can generate "hits" on models outside of the 45 degree firing arc. So what's left?

Pg 16, Out of Sight.

"If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible models in the target unit."

Nowhere does it say that it must be within the line of sight of the weapon's firing arc, OR that when considering a Vehicle in the context of a shooting attack, it can only "see" units as determined by the weapon-in-question's Firing Arc.

Pg 72 directly addresses how to fire the weapon. Then you consider Torrent, and generating Hits and Wounds to fill the Wounds Pool.

Then, you consider Pg 8 and 16 to determine whether or not it is valid to allocate wounds to models within YOUR models Line of Sight.

You can generate hits, roll to wound and they can even fail their saves. But you can't allocate unsaved wounds outside of LoS, which is the weapons LoS when dealing with shooting attacks reguardless if its a torrent weapon or not. The only allocation of wounds outside of LoS occur with Look out sir and, because its technically not from the weapon, barrage weapons.

The weapon's Line of Sight, as defined on page 72

IS DIFFERENT

Than the model's Line of Sight, as defined on Pg 8.

Pg 16, Out of Sight rules, refers to the FIRING UNIT.

Pg 72 describes how you fire the weapon, not how you allocate wounds.

Let's take a break:

Page 8 is overruled by page 70. As I've said before.
And you still haven't answered the question of where the rule is that tells you how to draw LoS with a vehicle.

Please do so.

In 6th, by strict RAW, dreadnoughts can not charge. This is because you can not charge models out of LoS, and vehicles are not allowed to draw LoS outside of the shooting phase.

Vehicles cannot assault. They can perform a special tank shock move which is done differently than a charge. Walkers are granted the permission to charge by the special rules for walkers.

That aside, the walker issue seems moot in regards to the torrent weapon firing issue.

I don't have the new CSM dex but does it specifically state that it's a hull mounted weapon?

If it's specifically stated to be hull mounted then yes it has a 45 degree LOS from the mouth, though I'd still be inclined to say the FAQ ruling on blast markers inflicting wounds out of LOS would also pertain to torrent templates though RAW doesn't specifically allow it.

The codex doesn't say either way.

 martian_jo wrote:
Vehicles cannot assault. They can perform a special tank shock move which is done differently than a charge.

Why was this included? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand...

Weapons with no listed mounting are subject to the limits of the model. I second the motion for someone to cut the neck up and make it fully articulated to solve this issue. +40,000 internets to anyone who accomplishes this feat.

Also I would like to suggest that until this FAQed (if ever) if you're running a Helldrake you consult with your opponent (or TO) before shooting as to what the LOS should be, rolling off if you can't come to a mutual resolution.

Edit:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 martian_jo wrote:
Vehicles cannot assault. They can perform a special tank shock move which is done differently than a charge.

Why was this included? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand...

In retrospect you're right. Included out of my own sense of completeness while trying to get rid of the Dread mess.

 martian_jo wrote:
Weapons with no listed mounting are subject to the limits of the model. I second the motion for someone to cut the neck up and make it fully articulated to solve this issue. +40,000 internets to anyone who accomplishes this feat.

Also I would like to suggest that until this FAQed (if ever) if you're running a Helldrake you consult with your opponent (or TO) before shooting as to what the LOS should be, rolling off if you can't come to a mutual resolution.

Than a fully articulated neck would be MFA? Oh joy to the person that asks what LOS will be at our local shop. 30 minute speech about why aren't dwarves in 40k and he'll just wind up asking me what I think >.<

I would say it has 90deg being a neck an all,

Boneblade - again, page 70 tells you to ignore the rules for non-vehicle models. So yes, RAW a dreadnought can NEVER charge.

Does this silly RAW mean you get to pretend it has 360 LOS in general? No. Not at all.

So, again, you have no rules support, none, allowing you to allocate wounds to models outside of the weapons firing arc

And, given that neither the assembly nor gluing has causing the model to be fixed for firing arc, but the design of the model itself, this firing arc is a hull mount

 DeathReaper wrote:
In 6th, by strict RAW, dreadnoughts can not charge. This is because you can not charge models out of LoS, and vehicles are not allowed to draw LoS outside of the shooting phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Boneblade - again, page 70 tells you to ignore the rules for non-vehicle models. So yes, RAW a dreadnought can NEVER charge.

Does this silly RAW mean you get to pretend it has 360 LOS in general? No. Not at all.

So, again, you have no rules support, none, allowing you to allocate wounds to models outside of the weapons firing arc

And, given that neither the assembly nor gluing has causing the model to be fixed for firing arc, but the design of the model itself, this firing arc is a hull mount

Reads all relevant pages;

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS
72 states when firing a vehicles weapons we use the weapons LoS, so only when we are firing weapons are we using these rules.
and page 84 lists walkers as being able to assault and be assaulted like infantry

Now I don't read anywhere in these rules that we are to assume the LoS of a walker is anything but from its 'model eye' view unless its firing a weapon. Am I missing where it says walkers and vehicles must always use the weapons LoS or is it just used when they are firing a weapon?

 Bausk wrote:

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS

Not true. 70 says that all the rules before it are for non-vehicles, and the rules for vehicles are contained in that section.
Therefore the LoS rules on page 8 do not pertain to vehicles.

"Such vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood - that's why their rules have been compliled in this section"

Means page 8 does not apply, as vehicles have their own rules, self contained unless explicitly stated otherwise

MarkyMark wrote:
I would say it has 90deg being a neck an all,

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS

Not true. 70 says that all the rules before it are for non-vehicles, and the rules for vehicles are contained in that section.
Therefore the LoS rules on page 8 do not pertain to vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Such vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood - that's why their rules have been compliled in this section"

Means page 8 does not apply, as vehicles have their own rules, self contained unless explicitly stated otherwise

One; It does not state that 'All the rules before do not apply'

Two; Page 8 does not state that it is for a flesh and blood model or a vehicle model, just that it applies to models. They still follow all the rule before with the exceptions and amendments listed in the vehicle section They still move, just a bit differently. They still shoot, just with slightly amended rules. Some still assault, and they assault just like infantry if they do but with some differences because it has no toughness or wounds.

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS

Not true. 70 says that all the rules before it are for non-vehicles, and the rules for vehicles are contained in that section.
Therefore the LoS rules on page 8 do not pertain to vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Such vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood - that's why their rules have been compliled in this section"

Means page 8 does not apply, as vehicles have their own rules, self contained unless explicitly stated otherwise

One; It does not state that 'All the rules before do not apply'

Two; Page 8 does not state that it is for a flesh and blood model or a vehicle model, just that it applies to models. They still follow all the rule before with the exceptions and amendments listed in the vehicle section They still move, just a bit differently. They still shoot, just with slightly amended rules. Some still assault, and they assault just like infantry if they do but with some differences because it has no toughness or wounds.

"their rules have been compiled in this section." That looks, to me, like the rules for vehicles are in that section. Looking outside that section for rules related to vehicles without being told to isn't correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

8 states you use the 'models eye' view, any model can do that and its pedantic to presume they literally mean the model needs eyes to draw LoS.
70 has nothing to do with page 8s use of LoS

Not true. 70 says that all the rules before it are for non-vehicles, and the rules for vehicles are contained in that section.
Therefore the LoS rules on page 8 do not pertain to vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Such vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood - that's why their rules have been compliled in this section"

Means page 8 does not apply, as vehicles have their own rules, self contained unless explicitly stated otherwise

One; It does not state that 'All the rules before do not apply'

Two; Page 8 does not state that it is for a flesh and blood model or a vehicle model, just that it applies to models. They still follow all the rule before with the exceptions and amendments listed in the vehicle section They still move, just a bit differently. They still shoot, just with slightly amended rules. Some still assault, and they assault just like infantry if they do but with some differences because it has no toughness or wounds.

"their rules have been compiled in this section." That looks, to me, like the rules for vehicles are in that section. Looking outside that section for rules related to vehicles without being told to isn't correct.

Just like the rules for units other than infantry are covered in an earlier section, they still use all the rule before just differently or with alterations listed. Vehicles get their own fuller section because the change is more radical, they have a base unit type change to vehicle (which covers the stat line change on the very same page) and expanded unit types listed there after. To say they don't use a single rule from before page 70, which again it does not say, is madness as they would not follow the rules for turns or phases. They don't roll to wound can't or hit because those rules are covered before page 70.

The biggest issue I have is your assertion that its an absolute statement that precludes the rules before rather than a an additive statement covering how do deal with vehicles in the rules before. Your inferring that everything that came before has no bearing, which could not be because they could not actually participate in a turn as they don't have and can't use rules for a turn, player or game.

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

"their rules have been compiled in this section." That looks, to me, like the rules for vehicles are in that section. Looking outside that section for rules related to vehicles without being told to isn't correct.

Just like the rules for units other than infantry are covered in an earlier section, they still use all the rule before just differently or with alterations listed. Vehicles get their own fuller section because the change is more radical, they have a base unit type change to vehicle (which covers the stat line change on the very same page) and expanded unit types listed there after. To say they don't use a single rule from before page 70, which again it does not say, is madness as they would not follow the rules for turns or phases. They don't roll to wound can't or hit because those rules are covered before page 70.

The biggest issue I have is your assertion that its an absolute statement that precludes the rules before rather than a an additive statement covering how do deal with vehicles in the rules before. Your inferring that everything that came before has no bearing, which could not be because they could not actually participate in a turn as they don't have and can't use rules for a turn, player or game.

Compiled means that the rules have been collect and put in this section. That would be looking outside of that section would result in finding the original rule that was copied into the vehicle section, or that you're looking at rules that don't apply to vehicles.

As for dreadnoughts not being able to charge, I don't know what you're talking about. Mine have eyes.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Dreadnoughts/DARK-ANGELS-VENERABLE-DREADNOUGHT.html

-Matt

 Bausk wrote:

Just like the rules for units other than infantry are covered in an earlier section, they still use all the rule before just differently or with alterations listed. Vehicles get their own fuller section because the change is more radical, they have a base unit type change to vehicle (which covers the stat line change on the very same page) and expanded unit types listed there after. To say they don't use a single rule from before page 70, which again it does not say, is madness as they would not follow the rules for turns or phases. They don't roll to wound can't or hit because those rules are covered before page 70.

You should read the Vehicle rules - they cover shooting rules.

The biggest issue I have is your assertion that its an absolute statement that precludes the rules before rather than a an additive statement covering how do deal with vehicles in the rules before. Your inferring that everything that came before has no bearing, which could not be because they could not actually participate in a turn as they don't have and can't use rules for a turn, player or game.

Do unit types take turns, or do players?

HawaiiMatt wrote:
As for dreadnoughts not being able to charge, I don't know what you're talking about. Mine have eyes.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Dreadnoughts/DARK-ANGELS-VENERABLE-DREADNOUGHT.html

-Matt

Good luck drawing Line of Sight to anything on the ground with that thing.

Bausk - so you are ignoring "compiled" then. And the part where it says they dont use the rules for flesh and blood models

In fact you are saying the entire sentence can be ignored. Bad argument there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - so you are ignoring "compiled" then. And the part where it says they dont use the rules for flesh and blood models

In fact you are saying the entire sentence can be ignored. Bad argument there.

No, I just disagree that it an absolute statement. The statement is as easily interpreted, and better interpreted, as; "The complied rules for vehicles - as they are different to units before it and here's how." rather than; The compiled rules for vehicles - Just ignore everything before it."

Just as anything that's not infantry has further rules that are added to, expanded on or replace the standardised infantry unit. As vehicles are more different they need a base unit alteration on the general vehicle rules from page 70 onwards to the first specific vehicle unit type. This does not change the basic rules for models, regardless what type of model it is, but it does alter them where listed.

I'm so glad this discussion of Torrent weapons has somehow ended up in a pedantic debate about a sentence in the vehicle section, especially because it has nothing to do with the topic. YMDC is fun. lol

Kevlar wrote:
The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

I agree with this statement except that I would be more inclined to limit the arc to 180. There's no way I can even fathom a 'hull mounted' ruling.

 Lordhat wrote:

Kevlar wrote:
The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

I agree with this statement except that I would be more inclined to limit the arc to 180. There's no way I can even fathom a 'hull mounted' ruling.

See I go with the Bale Flamer is mounted on a Really neat and nifty looking front end of a Flying Vehicle. Even though it's a daemon, and everything else, take into account where everything else is on the model, feet, wings, etc. If it were able to move even a bit I feel it may make the a 90 from a 45. Although I find that even a stretch.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

Kevlar wrote:
The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

I agree with this statement except that I would be more inclined to limit the arc to 180. There's no way I can even fathom a 'hull mounted' ruling.

See I go with the Bale Flamer is mounted on a Really neat and nifty looking front end of a Flying Vehicle. Even though it's a daemon, and everything else, take into account where everything else is on the model, feet, wings, etc. If it were able to move even a bit I feel it may make the a 90 from a 45. Although I find that even a stretch.

It is a horrible model in any case.