Hey, so I finally got round to assembling the helbrute from my DV box and noticed something.
It's power fist may be incorporated with a combi bolter or heavy flamer.
It's power fist is helpfully pointing 90+ degrees away from where his multi-melta is pointing.

Does this mean he can't ever fire both weapons at the same target?

Is the power fist arm treated like say a turret and thus enjoy a wider firing arc?

Or does one have to stick the weapon on the power fist so it points in a sympathetic direction to the multi-melta and look stupid.

By normal assembly you can not shoot both weapons at the same target as they face different directions.

I would house rule it for friendly games, and ask the TO in any tournaments.

Your helbrute from the DV box does not come with those weapons, so there's actually no problem here.

You could just model it like a fw dread with the weapon on the main body. That wouldn't be too wild.

 DeathReaper wrote:
By normal assembly you can not shoot both weapons at the same target as they face different directions.

I would house rule it for friendly games, and ask the TO in any tournaments.

This.

The model is in a heroic pose, saying that it can't move its arms is because of this heroic pose is like saying the dv liby can't shoot in a direction because it's arm is facing forward, consider it an abstraction and use the standard dread as a guide on where it can aim

It's actually different considering Infantry trace LoS differently from vehicles, but don't let the rules get in the way or anything.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's actually different considering Infantry trace LoS differently from vehicles, but don't let the rules get in the way or anything.

Vehicle Weapons and LOS second paragraph, First sentence.

Assume weapons can freely swivel.

The hellbrute has about 3-4 points where it could articulate.

OP: Ignore the illustrations and read the rules; 45* is not the Be all-end all for all weapon mountings, they swivel where they look like they should be able to(or where they actually can)

The weapon mounted in the hand? Yes, I assume that weapon can swivel.

Find permission to swivel the arm - that's not the Flamer or bolter, but the arm.

rigeld2 wrote:
The weapon mounted in the hand? Yes, I assume that weapon can swivel.

Find permission to swivel the arm - that's not the Flamer or bolter, but the arm.

People made similar judgements about the heldrake being unable to move its neck. So your 45 degree arc is a bit limited.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The weapon mounted in the hand? Yes, I assume that weapon can swivel.

Find permission to swivel the arm - that's not the Flamer or bolter, but the arm.

People made similar judgements about the heldrake being unable to move its neck. So your 45 degree arc is a bit limited.

And, as I believe I said in the latest Heldrake thread, RAW it's 45 but in a friendly game I'd give more than that.
Just like I said above.

Wait I thought walkers acted as infantry and held a 360 degree arc

Nevie wrote:
Wait I thought walkers acted as infantry and held a 360 degree arc

Walkers are vehicles. P.84 has a section detailing how they shoot.

Arms would normally be able to turn through an arc. Similar to sponsons, really. You can only declare a target that's within the 45" arc of either gun, but once you declare a target the walker pivots toward it, and fires all weapons which can come to bear.

I agree that makes sense, but I don't see where that's in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
The weapon mounted in the hand? Yes, I assume that weapon can swivel.

Find permission to swivel the arm - that's not the Flamer or bolter, but the arm.

Yeah, see; you need to read the rule, it is the weapon Mounting that gets swiveled, not the barrels.

Their is exactly permission to shoot at where the hand could point.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The weapon mounted in the hand? Yes, I assume that weapon can swivel.

Find permission to swivel the arm - that's not the Flamer or bolter, but the arm.

Yeah, see; you need to read the rule, it is the weapon Mounting that gets swiveled, not the barrels.

Their is exactly permission to shoot at where the hand could point.

BRB page 72 wrote:In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings.

The gun swivels on the mounting - the mounting does not swivel. Pot, kettle? The condescending tone is working for you though - keep at it.

There's no permission to move the arm - only permission to move the gun.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The weapon mounted in the hand? Yes, I assume that weapon can swivel.

Find permission to swivel the arm - that's not the Flamer or bolter, but the arm.

Yeah, see; you need to read the rule, it is the weapon Mounting that gets swiveled, not the barrels.

Their is exactly permission to shoot at where the hand could point.

Right, but only within its 45 degree arc.

Have to love dynamic poses on models with limited arcs of fire. What was GW thinking?

Kevlar wrote:
Have to love dynamic poses on models with limited arcs of fire. What was GW thinking?

They weren't thinking anything, the dark vengeance helbrute does not come with any other weapons other than the powerfist and melta. The DV helbrute is not the final model and it was intended for use only with dark vengeance boxset rules and/or the loadout it comes with.

Some of you rule lawyers really suck the fun out of this game. How is it that an arm cannot move to point a weapon? The model has an arm mounted weapon; the arm appears to be able to aim that weapon along the same general aiming arc most arms tend to enjoy. Ergo: a weapon mounted on that arm may be aimed at targets within the general arc that the arm appears to be able to cover (assumed to be a 45 degree arc aligned with the front facing of the model).

I swear you Nay-Sayers are the bane of the hobby.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Some of you rule lawyers really suck the fun out of this game. How is it that an arm cannot move to point a weapon?

Because the permissive ruleset tells us what we can do, the arm is not able to move to point, because the rules do not tell us we can move the arm.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The model has an arm mounted weapon; the arm appears to be able to aim that weapon along the same general aiming arc most arms tend to enjoy. Ergo: a weapon mounted on that arm may be aimed at targets within the general arc that the arm appears to be able to cover (assumed to be a 45 degree arc aligned with the front facing of the model).

I swear you Nay-Sayers are the bane of the hobby.

SJ

The underlined is HIWPI, but it is not actually the RAW. again because of the permissive ruleset.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Some of you rule lawyers really suck the fun out of this game. How is it that an arm cannot move to point a weapon? The model has an arm mounted weapon; the arm appears to be able to aim that weapon along the same general aiming arc most arms tend to enjoy. Ergo: a weapon mounted on that arm may be aimed at targets within the general arc that the arm appears to be able to cover (assumed to be a 45 degree arc aligned with the front facing of the model).

I swear you Nay-Sayers are the bane of the hobby.

SJ

Please read YMDC tenet #4: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253853.page and note the the default position in this forum is to argue RAW, not "how it should be played". The former can be argued, the latter is just personal preference.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Some of you rule lawyers really suck the fun out of this game. How is it that an arm cannot move to point a weapon? The model has an arm mounted weapon; the arm appears to be able to aim that weapon along the same general aiming arc most arms tend to enjoy. Ergo: a weapon mounted on that arm may be aimed at targets within the general arc that the arm appears to be able to cover (assumed to be a 45 degree arc aligned with the front facing of the model).

I swear you Nay-Sayers are the bane of the hobby.

Yes, by all means fling vitriol at the people pointing out why a current model doesn't fit the rules it's written for, rather than blaming the company who thinks that their game doesn't have to have a tight ruleset because they are a 'model company' first...


This isn't a problem of 'rules lawyers' sucking the fun out of the game. It's just a poorly designed model that can't do what it should have been designed to do. Certainly not the first time GW have released a model that doesn't actually fit their own rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Some of you rule lawyers really suck the fun out of this game. How is it that an arm cannot move to point a weapon? The model has an arm mounted weapon; the arm appears to be able to aim that weapon along the same general aiming arc most arms tend to enjoy. Ergo: a weapon mounted on that arm may be aimed at targets within the general arc that the arm appears to be able to cover (assumed to be a 45 degree arc aligned with the front facing of the model).

I swear you Nay-Sayers are the bane of the hobby.

Yes, by all means fling vitriol at the people pointing out why a current model doesn't fit the rules it's written for, rather than blaming the company who thinks that their rules system doesn't have to have a tight ruleset because they are a 'model company' first...


This isn't a problem of 'rules lawyers' sucking the fun out of the game. It's just a poorly designed model that can't do what it should have been designed to do. Certainly not the first time GW have released a model that doesn't actually fit their own rules.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the model fits "exactly" what it was intended for. A power fist, and a melta. It was designed for the dark vengeance rules, originally.

A "helbrute" model is not even available on the website at this moment.

The arguement that the hellbrute model was only ever intended for the DV set fails when you open up the 6th edition csm codex and find several painted DV hellbrutes within its pages. :/

 BarBoBot wrote:
The arguement that the hellbrute model was only ever intended for the DV set fails when you open up the 6th edition csm codex and find several painted DV hellbrutes within its pages. :/

Yep, and they are all modeled with a multi-melta and power fist.

 BarBoBot wrote:
The arguement that the hellbrute model was only ever intended for the DV set fails when you open up the 6th edition csm codex and find several painted DV hellbrutes within its pages. :/

Fails at what? It's a hellbrute. It's got a multi melta. What exactly is your problem with it?

 BarBoBot wrote:
The arguement that the hellbrute model was only ever intended for the DV set fails when you open up the 6th edition csm codex and find several painted DV hellbrutes within its pages. :/

That doesn't mean anything, it was the only model available when the codex was in production.

The necron codex doesn't even have models for some guys and a few don't even have a fluff picture.

Honestly, using the helbrute from dark vengeance is no different than using terminators from AoBR box set and complaining they didn't all come with missile launchers or whatever.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
The arguement that the hellbrute model was only ever intended for the DV set fails when you open up the 6th edition csm codex and find several painted DV hellbrutes within its pages. :/

Fails at what? It's a hellbrute. It's got a multi melta. What exactly is your problem with it?

I have no issue with the hellbrute... I'm not sure how you got that from what I said....

Kevin said the DV helbrute is only intended for use in a DV scenario, not intended for use as a CSM hellbrute model. I disagree with that completely.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Kevin said the DV helbrute is only intended for use in a DV scenario, not intended for use as a CSM hellbrute model. I disagree with that completely.

The DV Helbrute doesn't have the option for swapping out/adding in weapons.
Meaning its only use outside DV is as a baseline Helbrute.

 BarBoBot wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
The arguement that the hellbrute model was only ever intended for the DV set fails when you open up the 6th edition csm codex and find several painted DV hellbrutes within its pages. :/

Fails at what? It's a hellbrute. It's got a multi melta. What exactly is your problem with it?

I have no issue with the hellbrute... I'm not sure how you got that from what I said....

Kevin said the DV helbrute is only intended for use in a DV scenario, not intended for use as a CSM hellbrute model. I disagree with that completely.

You're welcome to disagree, but I wasn't meaning that he can't be used with CSM armies. But giving him weapons and such that the model itself did not come with and then complaining about the model being a "fail" is just...not copacetic.

The model came with the dark vengeance box set, the DV box set came with it's own rules, the new CSM dex wasn't out when the DV box was released. So, I stand by my statement that this helbrute model was not modeled to be a standard helbrute for use in normal 40k games. Yes, it CAN be used, but that was not what it was released for. It's not part of the standard CSM model line.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Some of you rule lawyers really suck the fun out of this game. How is it that an arm cannot move to point a weapon?

Because the permissive ruleset tells us what we can do, the arm is not able to move to point, because the rules do not tell us we can move the arm.

So my furioso dread can only shoot straight forward because its guns are mounted on its arms and its arms can't swivel?





Edited for grammar.

45 degree arc, like every dread.

 Phiasco II wrote:
So my furioso dread can only shoot straight forward because its guns are mounted on its arms and its arms can swivel?

Walkers are an exception to the normal vehicle fire arc rules... Regardless of how their weapons are mounted, they have a 45 degree arc horizontally and vertically.

I suppose you could shoulder mount his bolter so that it's pointing in the right direction.

 insaniak wrote:

 Phiasco II wrote:
So my furioso dread can only shoot straight forward because its guns are mounted on its arms and its arms can swivel?

Walkers are an exception to the normal vehicle fire arc rules... Regardless of how their weapons are mounted, they have a 45 degree arc horizontally and vertically.

Are hellbrutes not a walker then?

 Phiasco II wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Phiasco II wrote:
So my furioso dread can only shoot straight forward because its guns are mounted on its arms and its arms can swivel?

Walkers are an exception to the normal vehicle fire arc rules... Regardless of how their weapons are mounted, they have a 45 degree arc horizontally and vertically.

Are hellbrutes not a walker then?

45 degree arcs horizontally and vertically from the weapon mounting.

Then what's wrong with assuming the hellbrutes arm is simply at the other extreme of that 45* of rotation walkers are allowed rather the the normal straight forward most walkers have their arms rested at? Seems very simple to me.

Because you don't measure the 45 degrees from the arm - you measure it along the barrel of the weapon.

That and the fact that it'd be hard to remember every time and it still wouldn't get what the OP wanted - both weapons firing at a single target.

In all honesty how often are you gonna care about firing the storm bolter? If you're engaging armour chances are the storm bolter won't be able to scratch it anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because you don't measure the 45 degrees from the arm - you measure it along the barrel of the weapon.

That and the fact that it'd be hard to remember every time and it still wouldn't get what the OP wanted - both weapons firing at a single target.

Correction: You measure from the mount, along the weapon barrel. You do not measure from the barrel.

So, for an arm mounted weapon, where is the weapon mount? The arm, of course. You would in fact be measuring from where the arm is mounted, along the weapon barrel.

SJ

 Crablezworth wrote:
In all honesty how often are you gonna care about firing the storm bolter? If you're engaging armour chances are the storm bolter won't be able to scratch it anyway.

It matters if you are firing at infantry or MCs. Not every army takes tanks, and when they do they aren't always in range. The other weapon might just be a heavy flamer also.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because you don't measure the 45 degrees from the arm - you measure it along the barrel of the weapon.

That and the fact that it'd be hard to remember every time and it still wouldn't get what the OP wanted - both weapons firing at a single target.

Correction: You measure from the mount, along the weapon barrel. You do not measure from the barrel.

So, for an arm mounted weapon, where is the weapon mount? The arm, of course. You would in fact be measuring from where the arm is mounted, along the weapon barrel.

From it's mounting along the barrel. A you measure from where the gun is mounted - the base of the gun. The base of the gun is not the shoulder of the arm.

Did 6th edition take out the wording regarding weapons that are glued down or posed and such? Why is this even an issue?

Hellbrute: That! I want to shoot that! Arm, what are you doing?!
Arm: Hey, what's that? Is that a bird over there?
Hellbrute: We can go that way later. Focus for a minute!
Arm: No! I want to go that way.

So are we assuming that the arm doesn't move? The gun I can agree with to an extent that it wouldn't move too much, but that arm would definately be able to point forward.

What if I modeled it with the arm facing forward? Is that modeling for advantage?

And shouldn't you be playing as what the model is vice how it's actually modeled? If I were to use a modified dread as a Hellbrute with the the arm pointing forward like a normal dread, would that be ok?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So are we assuming that the arm doesn't move?

Well this is a forum for rules debates, not necessarily how it should be played.
And the arm isn't the weapon mount. It's the mount that the weapon mount is mounted on (not easy to say out loud). And the rules don't allow for that to move.

 grendel083 wrote:
And the arm isn't the weapon mount. It's the mount that the weapon mount is mounted on (not easy to say out loud). And the rules don't allow for that to move.

I understand where you're coming from and I know the perspective if from RAW. It really is odd that they left out arms mounted weapons when making rules for walkers.

But I'm just asking if someone used a model other than the DV hellbrute, like an old chaos dread. Since the actual model, DV Hellbrute, is posed in such a way, you'd have to play it as the arm mounted weapons couldn't hit the same target as the other side's weapon.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Hellbrute: That! I want to shoot that! Arm, what are you doing?!
Arm: Hey, what's that? Is that a bird over there?
Hellbrute: We can go that way later. Focus for a minute!
Arm: No! I want to go that way.

You crafted a narrative!

I guess my problem with the DV helbrute is it is modeled to be more organic but still follows rigid walker rules.

On the plus side if a new helbrute model is released it will probably be more old-school in it's posing. Or it will be nigh unusable.

PolecatEZ wrote:
Did 6th edition take out the wording regarding weapons that are glued down or posed and such? Why is this even an issue?

It's an issue because the arm is pointing sideways.

Assuming that the weapon can move through its allowed arc even though the weapon physically can't doesn't help in this situation, because the arm is at roughly 90 degrees to the model's front, and the weapon only has a 45 degree fire arc. There is simply no way that a ranged weapon mounted on the model's powerfist can shoot to the model's front, unless it's glued on there sideways.

Well, Walkers are vehicles, and still follow all vehicle rule except where noted differently under the Walker entry. On page 72, 3rd paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentence: "On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the mpdel 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."

So, the question boils down to the word "mounting". The hard-liners here seem to consider the how the weapon is attached to the model to be its "mounting", which means that if the arm is pointed down the weapon can only be aimed down. Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

Game Workshop has given specific permission for arm mounted weapon to used in the game. They created the mount, gave use rules to use the model, and have stated that the model may use the weapons legally purchased for it via its army list entry. Rules as Practical point to the arm being able to swing as an arm should, allowing the weapon to be used as it has been given permission to be used. Per the rules I quoted, we can assume the weapon can be moved into the correct position, and therefore may be used as if it was in the correct position.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, Walkers are vehicles, and still follow all vehicle rule except where noted differently under the Walker entry. On page 72, 3rd paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentence: "On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the mpdel 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."

So, the question boils down to the word "mounting". The hard-liners here seem to consider the how the weapon is attached to the model to be its "mounting", which means that if the arm is pointed down the weapon can only be aimed down. Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

Game Workshop has given specific permission for arm mounted weapon to used in the game. They created the mount, gave use rules to use the model, and have stated that the model may use the weapons legally purchased for it via its army list entry. Rules as Practical point to the arm being able to swing as an arm should, allowing the weapon to be used as it has been given permission to be used. Per the rules I quoted, we can assume the weapon can be moved into the correct position, and therefore may be used as if it was in the correct position.

SJ

This.

I like the use of the word 'practical'. Lets use our heads people, and not for being a$$hats. Use your common sense and stop rules lawyering. I can't believe that people would argue that because the arm is modeled pointing sideways that its firing arc is centered in that direction. COMMON SENSE people, please use it.
stepping down now

 Phiasco II wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, Walkers are vehicles, and still follow all vehicle rule except where noted differently under the Walker entry. On page 72, 3rd paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentence: "On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the mpdel 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."

So, the question boils down to the word "mounting". The hard-liners here seem to consider the how the weapon is attached to the model to be its "mounting", which means that if the arm is pointed down the weapon can only be aimed down. Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

Game Workshop has given specific permission for arm mounted weapon to used in the game. They created the mount, gave use rules to use the model, and have stated that the model may use the weapons legally purchased for it via its army list entry. Rules as Practical point to the arm being able to swing as an arm should, allowing the weapon to be used as it has been given permission to be used. Per the rules I quoted, we can assume the weapon can be moved into the correct position, and therefore may be used as if it was in the correct position.

SJ

This.

I like the use of the word 'practical'. Lets use our heads people, and not for being a$$hats. Use your common sense and stop rules lawyering. I can't believe that people would argue that because the arm is modeled pointing sideways that its firing arc is centered in that direction. COMMON SENSE people, please use it.
stepping down now

As most will tell you, just because someone argues a certain rule, they don't necessarily play that way.

HJ what you say is true, but in reality I really feel its counter productive.

Basically, I found dakka while searching for a rule that I was confused about.

When I read my first YMDC thread I was looking for an answer about how the rule was supposed to be played, and I assumed that the answers given were just that... How it SHOULD be played. The reality, however, is that most of the regular posters in YMDC don't ague the position as they feel it was intended, but rather a strict RAW, even when RAW is clearly wrong.

Those same regulars will openly admit from time to time that even though they argue for strict RAW, its not how they would actually play it.

I know that now, but even though many of the regulars state they argue for RAW even though they wouldn't play that way, there are so many players that come to the YMDC section not looking for hardline RAW at all costs but rather how it was meant to be... I feel that there are alot of people that don't realize YMDC isn't meant for HIWPI and end up using a WAAC interpretation in a friendly game environment... And that's not fun for anyone.

If the weapon is mounted on the forearm of the model, we assume from that point it can swivel 45 left/right and up/down as stated in the rules.

We then need to make further assumptions as to the range of motion regarding the other arm joints (shoulder and elbow joints), as there are no rules for this listed.

Larger weapon set-ups (TL AC and LC, for example) may supercede the elbow joints and possibly even the shoulder joint, being directly attached to the main body of the model. Even this should allow the 45 degree lateral traverse as well as a much wider range up-down pivot.

The Hellbrute has clearly retained the shoulder joint on his multi-melta arm, so he at least has that additional mobility adding to the 45 degrees of the weapon rules. Wrist mounted weapons would have the advantage of a full (organic looking) shoulder and elbow joint, in addition to the 45 degree weapon mounting.

This being said, I don't think GW is ever going to dignify this with a FAQ bullet, so the argument is moot.

 BarBoBot wrote:

I know that now, but even though many of the regulars state they argue for RAW even though they wouldn't play that way, there are so many players that come to the YMDC section not looking for hardline RAW at all costs but rather how it was meant to be... I feel that there are alot of people that don't realize YMDC isn't meant for HIWPI and end up using a WAAC interpretation in a friendly game environment... And that's not fun for anyone.

There are only a couple of those guys, they just like to post 50 times in a single thread. It doesn't take long to realize who to ignore but you are right it can be confusing for a new reader.

 BarBoBot wrote:
HJ what you say is true, but in reality I really feel its counter productive.

Basically, I found dakka while searching for a rule that I was confused about.

When I read my first YMDC thread I was looking for an answer about how the rule was supposed to be played, and I assumed that the answers given were just that... How it SHOULD be played. The reality, however, is that most of the regular posters in YMDC don't ague the position as they feel it was intended, but rather a strict RAW, even when RAW is clearly wrong.

Those same regulars will openly admit from time to time that even though they argue for strict RAW, its not how they would actually play it.

I know that now, but even though many of the regulars state they argue for RAW even though they wouldn't play that way, there are so many players that come to the YMDC section not looking for hardline RAW at all costs but rather how it was meant to be... I feel that there are alot of people that don't realize YMDC isn't meant for HIWPI and end up using a WAAC interpretation in a friendly game environment... And that's not fun for anyone.

I understand your frustration. The problem lies with your assumption that you could read 1-2 threads and know how the community works. This is why the stickies exist. To learn from a community you must understand how they work - the stickies document that arguments are by default RAW.

@ BarBoBot: Plus, if you do not ask for how we think it should be played or HIWPI then we will give a RAW answer.

If you need a "How it should this be played" answer, then we will let you know "How it should this be played" along with the actual RAW if the RAW and the "How it should this be played" do not match.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

The problem with this definition is that it goes completely against the idea that walker weapons only have a 45 degree arc, as the arm is clearly capable of a much wider arc of movement.

This would have a spill-back effect on other walkers. If you're going to argue that the Hellbrute can fire a weapon with a 45 degree fire arc at something that is at 90 degrees to the direction the weapon is facing, then you're going to have to allow every other dreadnought to also fire sideways.

Which is clearly wrong, since walkers have a very strictly defined 45 degree fire arc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phiasco II wrote:
I can't believe that people would argue that because the arm is modeled pointing sideways that its firing arc is centered in that direction.

Yes, in a game that relies on the physical position of the model to determine its fire arc, it is just unbelievable that people would use the physical position of the model to determine its fire arc.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

The problem with this definition is that it goes completely against the idea that walker weapons only have a 45 degree arc, as the arm is clearly capable of a much wider arc of movement.

This would have a spill-back effect on other walkers. If you're going to argue that the Hellbrute can fire a weapon with a 45 degree fire arc at something that is at 90 degrees to the direction the weapon is facing, then you're going to have to allow every other dreadnought to also fire sideways. Which is clearly wrong, since walkers have a very strictly defined 45 degree fire arc.

There is no "strictly defined 45 degree arc", please go back and read the wording in the BRB. They are assumed to go 45 degree from "the mounting", strictly defined as where the weapon is attached to the model. The remainder of the model (including joints of the arms, legs, etc) is NOT defined anywhere in the rules. Previous editions have said things like "if it looks like the model can do it, it can". The arm is clearly capable of a wider range of movement, and then the 45 degree mounting helps to fine tune that aim. As was stated in the previous post, the GW models for various weapons for the different dreadnaught models have differing mobility, from direct attachment to the model (missile launcher, for example) to wrist mounting (underslung storm bolter, for example). The missile launcher would be subject to the very hard "45 degree" angle rule, being very fixed to the main body with no intervening joint, while the wrist mount would be 45 degrees from wherever the wrist could reasonably swing.

Again, there are NO rules definitions at all regarding the way walker arms can function and move in this edition. There is absolutely no way to argue for or against the OP using strictly RAW.

There really is - find rules allowing you to assume the arm moves.

There's no way to make a "reasonable" definition of how it moves. Rifledreads, for example. Can their arms flip and shoot behind them? Can nor al arm dreads flip at the shoulder? Why or why not?

Since you ignored the portion of my post where I quoted the rules allowing the arm to swing, I'd suggest you re-read pg 72, 3rd paragraph,

SJ

It wasn't ignored. It was already pointed out earlier in the thread why it doesn't apply.

Walker weapons only have a 45 degree arc. It doesn't matter how far it looks like the arm can move, the weapon has a 45 degree arc, because it is mounted on a walker.

As above. In 5th and 6th there is no allowance for a walker weapons to move more than 45 degrees, and no rule allowing the arm to have any bearing on the situation.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Since you ignored the portion of my post where I quoted the rules allowing the arm to swing, I'd suggest you re-read pg 72, 3rd paragraph,

I ignored nothing.
Why are you asserting that the entire arm is the mounting? You don't move your shoulder to point your wrist in a different direction, do you?

"When firing a Walker's WEAPONS, pivot the Walker on the spot so that the guns are aimed at the target (assume that WEAPONS mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees). Range is measured from the WEAPON itself and line of sight is measured from the mounting point of the WEAPON and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles."

I would say the important term in the rules is "weapon". For a dreadnought, the arm is the weapon. If a weapon destroyed is rolled on the damage table, the entire arm is destroyed, not just the bolter/flamer. And, as the arm is the weapon, the mounting for the weapon would be the shoulder.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
For a dreadnought, the arm is the weapon.

It's really not. The arm is not a Storm Bolter. People remove arms when they're destroyed because it's convenient, not because the arm is the weapon.

Forgive me; I shouldn't have said arm.

The chaos codex says that Helbrute has
Wargear:
Multi-Melta
Powerfist

So the powerfist is the weapon. And that a powerfist can incorporate either a combi-bolter or heavy flamer.

Again, a weapon destroyed destroys the fist, which as the bolter/flamer in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And people don't remove arms when the bolter is destroyed; they remove the bolter when the fist is destroyed.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
So the powerfist is the weapon. And that a powerfist can incorporate either a combi-bolter or heavy flamer.

Again, a weapon destroyed destroys the fist, which as the bolter/flamer in it.

Right, so the mounting for the power fist is the wrist. The mounting for the bolter/flamer is the Power Fist. So you measure from the mounting point (the fist) and along the barrel.
You still have absolutely zero permission to "move" the arm at the shoulder, and in fact you're agreeing that the 45 degree angle is measured from the mounting of the gun - meaning it's pointing off to the side on the Helbrute.

Could you point the rules to me to say that the mounting for the power fist is the wrist and not the shoulder. As far as I know, there is no reason, as far as the rules go, to say the mounting is one or the other. So I am going by the model since I know of no rules other wise.

I agree that the gun is mounted on the fist. However, the rules don't say measure along the gun's mounting; it says to measure along the weapon's mounting, and I still stick with the weapon being the power fist, itself.

And let's say that the power fist is mounted on the wrist. And let's say that you measure from the gun's mounting. Then, you should be able to swivel the fist 45 deg on it's mounting, and then swivel the flamer another 45 deg on it's mounting.

But this brings up an interesting question: If the flamer is mounted on the power fist, is it technically not mounted on the walker? Because the rules state that only weapons mounted on the walker can swivel.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Could you point the rules to me to say that the mounting for the power fist is the wrist and not the shoulder. As far as I know, there is no reason, as far as the rules go, to say the mounting is one or the other. So I am going by the model since I know of no rules other wise.

And on the model - is the fist attached to the shoulder or the wrist?

I agree that the gun is mounted on the fist. However, the rules don't say measure along the gun's mounting; it says to measure along the weapon's mounting, and I still stick with the weapon being the power fist, itself.

So the gun isn't a weapon?

And let's say that the power fist is mounted on the wrist. And let's say that you measure from the gun's mounting. Then, you should be able to swivel the fist 45 deg on it's mounting, and then swivel the flamer another 45 deg on it's mounting.

No, you have permission to swivel the gun on it's mounting. You don't have permission to swivel the mounting and the gun.

"Fist" is the rule. Is your "Fist" attached at the shoulder or your wrist?

THe weapon is the Storm Bolter / Flamer. It is attached to *another* weapon. You may contend differently, but that isnt what the rule actually states.

Going by precedents set by dreadnought models? I would say the fist is attached to the shoulder.

The gun isn't a weapon as far as weapon destroyed is concerned. You don't destroy the flamer and then destroy the fist.

The rules say "assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees". The powerfist being a weapon, why can't it swivel?

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Going by precedents set by dreadnought models? I would say the fist is attached to the shoulder.

What model does that?
I don't know of a single one.

The gun isn't a weapon as far as weapon destroyed is concerned. You don't destroy the flamer and then destroy the fist.

Um. Except you can. If you kill the power fist, the flamer goes, but you can kill the flamer and leave the power fist.

The rules say "assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees". The powerfist being a weapon, why can't it swivel?

Because it's not shooting? The flamer is.

1) Nope, the fist is attached to the arm which attaches to the shoulder, using the actual models.
2) Yes it is. You may not have spotted this in 6th ed yet, but in 6th edition there is no rule that states you destroy both anylonger. For weapon destroyed it is 100% a weapon - prove it isnt.
3) The flamer is the weapon you are shooting, so you get to swivel that - from its mounting, which is the fist. This has been repeated a few times this thread already, I suggest you reread it.

I concede. I accept your arguments (other than that the fist is attached to the wrist, but since it can't swivel it is a mute point).

However, Nosferatu1001, suggesting that I reread the forum because it has been mentioned several times that the flamer itself swivels does nothing. If I am disagreeing with that point, it doesn't matter how many times it was said in the forum. When trying to convince somebody, I'd suggest trying to give an argument other than rereading the forum.

aww just when I was going to point out the flamer/combi-bolter is "incorporated" into the powerfist, so the Fist IS the weapon and can therefor swivel.

I asked you to reread the thread, where it has been proven more than once that it is the weapon that swivels, and the flamer is the weapon. Not the forum as a whole. You can disagree however stating a position with no rules support, when the contrary rules support has been given more than once, suggests you havent read the thread which comes across as rude.

It would be either the gun is incorporated into fist, in which case the fist can swivel but the gun can't.
-or-
The gun is mounted on the fist, in which case the gun can swivel but the fist can't.

Both of these lead to the same result.

rigeld2 wrote:

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Going by precedents set by dreadnought models? I would say the fist is attached to the shoulder.

What model does that?
I don't know of a single one.

Apologies, I don't know how to make the picture smaller.
Official Chaos Dreadnaught model, though I suppose you could say it's not a Hellbrute.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
It would be either the gun is incorporated into fist, in which case the fist can swivel but the gun can't.
-or-
The gun is mounted on the fist, in which case the gun can swivel but the fist can't.

Both of these lead to the same result.

Not really.

There is no basis on which to assume the mounting for a powerfist on a walker is the wrist.


Remember that it is a vehicle not a human. It doesn't have "wrists." The powerfist could be the whole arm up to the "elbow" joint or the whole arm is itself.

It is apparelty all based on the model, since there is no helbrute with a storm bolter(combibolter), you have to convert the existing one. While doing that you can point the storm bolter any way you like, but if you want to fire it and the other gun, make sure it points within 90 degrees of the other gun (45+45=90)

Quanar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Going by precedents set by dreadnought models? I would say the fist is attached to the shoulder.

What model does that?
I don't know of a single one.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/437534-Picture%20uploaded%20to%20prove%20a%20point%20only.html
Apologies, I don't know how to make the picture smaller.
Official Chaos Dreadnaught model, though I suppose you could say it's not a Hellbrute.

Correct - note that the wrist doesn't mount to the shoulder - at best it's the elbow.

I'm a little puzzled as to just what all the argument over the wrist vs shoulder mounting is supposed to accomplish.

Given that the arm is sticking out more or less straight sideways, either interpretation makes no difference to whether or not the weapon can swivel to point forwards when it has a defined 45 degree fire arc...

Wow... talk about over-complicating a situation... this isn't the Middle East.

Anyways, simple solution: nomjnate a place on the base as the front of the model. Then, the firing arcs wold be based 90° off to the right and left of that point.

/thread.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Wow... talk about over-complicating a situation... this isn't the Middle East.

Anyways, simple solution: nomjnate a place on the base as the front of the model. Then, the firing arcs wold be based 90° off to the right and left of that point.

/thread.

The whole thing is just dumb though. They should have just said dreads shoot like normal infantry. 360 degrees. Just make them av 12 all around, never understood why they made them av 10 in the back. It isn't like the back has less plating than the front.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm a little puzzled as to just what all the argument over the wrist vs shoulder mounting is supposed to accomplish.

Given that the arm is sticking out more or less straight sideways, either interpretation makes no difference to whether or not the weapon can swivel to point forwards when it has a defined 45 degree fire arc...

Given the position of the arm, the further back you go from the wrist the more visibility you have, i.e firing arc. Think of it as zooming in or out on a camera lens.

So perhaps this can help illustrate it.

Say you have a Hellbrute near the top of the hill still facing slightly up the hill and wants to shoot at a unit just barely on the other side of the hill.

If the firing arc is determined by the "wrist" mounting, chances are good that the Hellrute will not be able to "see" the enemy. However if the mounting point is the "elbow" or "shoulder" then the LOS is increased significantly.

Just use your own arm as an example. Position your arm, same as the Hellbrute, now move just your hand at the wrist, then keep your hand straight but move your arm at the elbow. See the difference?

I would like to note that just because a point is repeated in a forum, it does not mean that the point is correct. The hang up of the hardliners is the rule defining firing arcs for weapons mounted on a walker. The folks pointing out the rules supporting the arm assembly moving are being ignored because it goes against the hardliners "position" (pun intended).

In the end, a storm bolter mounted to a dreadnought power fist has been given permission to be used by GW. It is only the hardliners on this forum that state differently. I guess it is up to you, the players seeking wisdom on this issue, to make their own call. The hardliners are being too stuck in their interpretation of the rules to admit they have tunnel vision on this issue.

The vehicle rules as written give us permission to assume a vehicle's weapons are capable of being aimed within the boundaries of the way the weapon is modeled. If you mount a storm bolter to the power fist of the Helbrute, the rules as written do support the arm moving to allow aiming of the weapon. Just because the hardliners are ignoring this fact doesn't mean the rules to support it are missing.

To the OP and anyone else reading this thread, please remember that GW has given you permission to use the options available to each unit in your army. The rules to use those options are guidelines to assist with understanding how to use those options in a game. GW has given specific permission to assume a model can move to achieve its designed goals, within the limits of what the model appears to able to accomplish. In the case of the Helbrute, it is within reason to assume the arm can be pointed forward to cover a 45 degree firing arc, thus allowing the storm bolter mounted to the power fist to be aligned to its target. This assumption is fully support in the vehicle rules (walkers are vehicles, after all).

I've said my peace. The hardliners are wrong in their assumption that the rules as written should be used to limit your options rather than expand upon them. Good luck with the thread. I'm out.

SJ

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Anyways, simple solution: nomjnate a place on the base as the front of the model. Then, the firing arcs wold be based 90° off to the right and left of that point.

Where are you getting 90 degrees from?

Kevlar wrote:... never understood why they made them av 10 in the back. It isn't like the back has less plating than the front.

Er... clearly it does... otherwise it wouldn't have lower armour.

40k-noob wrote:Given the position of the arm, the further back you go from the wrist the more visibility you have, i.e firing arc. Think of it as zooming in or out on a camera lens.

Yes, I'm aware of that. On a 1-inch long arm, it makes minimal difference, and still doesn't allow a weapon mounted along the arm to point to the walkers front when it only has a 45 degree fire arc.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I would like to note that just because a point is repeated in a forum, it does not mean that the point is correct. The hang up of the hardliners is the rule defining firing arcs for weapons mounted on a walker. The folks pointing out the rules supporting the arm assembly moving are being ignored because it goes against the hardliners "position" (pun intended).

They really aren't being ignored. They aren't valid because they have no rules support.

The vehicle rules as written give us permission to assume a vehicle's weapons are capable of being aimed within the boundaries of the way the weapon is modeled. If you mount a storm bolter to the power fist of the Helbrute, the rules as written do support the arm moving to allow aiming of the weapon. Just because the hardliners are ignoring this fact doesn't mean the rules to support it are missing.

False. There is no rules support. None has been cited. Please stop being insulting.

To the OP and anyone else reading this thread, please remember that GW has given you permission to use the options available to each unit in your army. The rules to use those options are guidelines to assist with understanding how to use those options in a game. GW has given specific permission to assume a model can move to achieve its designed goals, within the limits of what the model appears to able to accomplish. In the case of the Helbrute, it is within reason to assume the arm can be pointed forward to cover a 45 degree firing arc, thus allowing the storm bolter mounted to the power fist to be aligned to its target. This assumption is fully support in the vehicle rules (walkers are vehicles, after all).

It's actually not. Cite the page and paragraph to support your assertion. Just saying "It's there!" isn't enough.

I've said my peace. The hardliners are wrong in their assumption that the rules as written should be used to limit your options rather than expand upon them. Good luck with the thread. I'm out.

The rules can only expand options - because by default you can do nothing. You have to be allowed to do things - and nothing in the rules allows you to assume the arm moves.

Please don't come in and insult "the hardliners" because you disagree.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I would like to note that just because a point is repeated in a forum, it does not mean that the point is correct. The hang up of the hardliners is the rule defining firing arcs for weapons mounted on a walker. The folks pointing out the rules supporting the arm assembly moving are being ignored because it goes against the hardliners "position" (pun intended).

In the end, a storm bolter mounted to a dreadnought power fist has been given permission to be used by GW. It is only the hardliners on this forum that state differently. I guess it is up to you, the players seeking wisdom on this issue, to make their own call. The hardliners are being too stuck in their interpretation of the rules to admit they have tunnel vision on this issue.

The vehicle rules as written give us permission to assume a vehicle's weapons are capable of being aimed within the boundaries of the way the weapon is modeled. If you mount a storm bolter to the power fist of the Helbrute, the rules as written do support the arm moving to allow aiming of the weapon. Just because the hardliners are ignoring this fact doesn't mean the rules to support it are missing.

To the OP and anyone else reading this thread, please remember that GW has given you permission to use the options available to each unit in your army. The rules to use those options are guidelines to assist with understanding how to use those options in a game. GW has given specific permission to assume a model can move to achieve its designed goals, within the limits of what the model appears to able to accomplish. In the case of the Helbrute, it is within reason to assume the arm can be pointed forward to cover a 45 degree firing arc, thus allowing the storm bolter mounted to the power fist to be aligned to its target. This assumption is fully support in the vehicle rules (walkers are vehicles, after all).

I've said my peace. The hardliners are wrong in their assumption that the rules as written should be used to limit your options rather than expand upon them. Good luck with the thread. I'm out.

SJ

Just calling people discussing RAW hardliners a bunch of times isn't debating the rules.. Poeple have told you, several times that this is a place for debating the rules as they are written. It has zero bearing on how reasonable or unreasonable anyone here is in an actual game. Wit that said, RAW the model it cant really shoot due to the model being badly designed. It's perfectly possible that in some incarnation of the chaos codex the helbrute and chaos dread were two different things and the helbrute may have justs been a monstrous creature at the time the mode was designed, however, now that it is a vehicle, it has very specific rules about fire arcs. If you want to convert an old chaos dread as a helbrute so that there are no rules issues to contend with, more power to you.

RAW it's screwed, if I were playing you I would suggest we pretend its mounted facing forward, I wouldn't really care BUT if you started pretending the arm could orient itself in any direction because... magic, we'd have a problem.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The folks pointing out the rules supporting the arm assembly moving are being ignored because it goes against the hardliners "position" (pun intended).

It's not being ignored because it goes against the argument. It's being ignored because it's a backwards way of looking at the rules.

The general rules for vehicles tell us to look at how the weapon mount moves to determine the fire arc of the weapon.
Walkers have their own rules for determining the fire arc of their weapons: They have a 45 degree fire arc.

The more specific rule takes precedence. So walker weapons have a 45 degree fire arc, regardless of how far the mounting looks like it can move.

In the end, a storm bolter mounted to a dreadnought power fist has been given permission to be used by GW. It is only the hardliners on this forum that state differently.

Nobody in this thread has said that a weapon mounted on the power fist can not be used.

The issue is simply that if you are using the Hellbrute model, a weapon mounted on the power fist is not going to be able to fire at the same target as the melta arm. Not because people are being 'hardliners' but simply because that's the way the rules currently work.

The vehicle rules as written give us permission to assume a vehicle's weapons are capable of being aimed within the boundaries of the way the weapon is modeled. If you mount a storm bolter to the power fist of the Helbrute, the rules as written do support the arm moving to allow aiming of the weapon. Just because the hardliners are ignoring this fact doesn't mean the rules to support it are missing.

Then what, exactly, do you think the point is of the rules telling us that walker weapons have a 45 degree arc?

But wouldn't using a Chaos dread with a power fist and combi-bolter/heavy flamer facing forward be modeling for advantage then, since the actual model is clearly aiming in a separate direction?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
But wouldn't using a Chaos dread with a power fist and combi-bolter/heavy flamer facing forward be modeling for advantage then, since the actual model is clearly aiming in a separate direction?

Since MFA is a player convention and not a rules requirement, and since the DV Brute doesn't even have a combi/flamer to begin with, and since you're well into HYWPI instead of RAW...

No, it wouldn't be.

I've seen plenty of models not come with the equipment they are allowed to take. GW has always encouraged making conversions and modeling equipment. I'm not sure why people keep mentioning that.

The official model made by GW can take a power fist with a combi-bolter or heavy flamer. The official model's firing arc prevents the weapon from targeting the same unit as the weapon on the other arm. Making a model that would allow it to hit one unit with both weapons goes against what the rules limit the official model to. MFA.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I've seen plenty of models not come with the equipment they are allowed to take. GW has always encouraged making conversions and modeling equipment. I'm not sure why people keep mentioning that.

The official model made by GW can take a power fist with a combi-bolter or heavy flamer. The official model's firing arc prevents the weapon from targeting the same unit as the weapon on the other arm. Making a model that would allow it to hit one unit with both weapons goes against what the rules limit the official model to. MFA.

Throw out all your Chaos Dreadnaughts then. They don't exist anymore.

Jokes on you. I never had any to begin with.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I've seen plenty of models not come with the equipment they are allowed to take. GW has always encouraged making conversions and modeling equipment. I'm not sure why people keep mentioning that.

The official model made by GW can take a power fist with a combi-bolter or heavy flamer. The official model's firing arc prevents the weapon from targeting the same unit as the weapon on the other arm. Making a model that would allow it to hit one unit with both weapons goes against what the rules limit the official model to. MFA.

Nope, the official model doesnt have those weapons, so you have no clue how that model should have them mounted.

My Tau Devilfish has no SMS, yet clearly I can place them on the model.

CSM come with no heavy weapons, but can clearly take them.

And I know exactly where to mount the heavy flamer. It's mounted onto the power fist, just like its described.

Do you mount the gun pointing "down" the powerfist, or perpendicular to it? You have no model to dictate this, so you have no reason to call "MFA" based on that alone

You're trying to equate converting a model to include a weapon option it doesn't come with to putting two sponson mounted weapons on the same side to get a shooting benefit.

Regardless - at this point you're trying to argue MFA which is 100% a player convention. Since allowing a conversion would also be up to your opponent, talk to your opponent first. RAW, the arm doesn't move.

Erm, not at all. As I pointed out, twice now, you dont actually *know* how a hellbrute stock model (DV) should have a flamer mounted, because the model doesnt come with one.

We know how non-hellbrute models have them mounted, but that isnt the same thing.

My point, which you are missing, is you are crying "MFA" based on no firm basis.

I hate to really ask these questions, but...

Firstly: Suppose I were to take a Hellbrute model and fix it up so that the joints were fully articulate and able to move (within reason.) Would this be able to shoot at anything that the army could be pointed at plus or minus the 45 degree swivel for walker weapons?
If so, would this also allow any out-of-the-box Hellbrute to shoot in the same fashion as it would be analogous to turning a glued-down turret or pintle or what have you.
If not, please explain.

Secondly: How would an ork player go about building a model for which there is no precedent (such as a Mekboy Junka which I believe has no official model) be able to make a model which would be legal and agreeable to most people(i.e. Not have claims of modeling for advantage thrown at it)?

So we have no idea on how to mount something to a power fist, even though there are countless examples of arm mounted weapons. Again, plenty of models don't get shown with all their options. But that's not what I'm arguing.

RAW the arm doesn't move and the arm is facing the wrong direction. I agree with that. But if you're doing something to get around rules... Then how is that not MFA?

Even if it is a player convention. I happen to be a player, so I guess I'm right then.

 ShadowMageAlpha wrote:
Firstly: Suppose I were to take a Hellbrute model and fix it up so that the joints were fully articulate and able to move (within reason.) Would this be able to shoot at anything that the army could be pointed at plus or minus the 45 degree swivel for walker weapons?

No - you have no permission to move the arm during the game.

If so, would this also allow any out-of-the-box Hellbrute to shoot in the same fashion as it would be analogous to turning a glued-down turret or pintle or what have you.
If not, please explain.

No, it wouldn't be analogous. You took a design (what you're actually supposed to base a glued down turret on) and modified it - meaning it's no longer as designed.

Secondly: How would an ork player go about building a model for which there is no precedent (such as a Mekboy Junka which I believe has no official model) be able to make a model which would be legal and agreeable to most people(i.e. Not have claims of modeling for advantage thrown at it)?

I'm not familiar with that model at all, so I'll use the Tyranid codex as an example.
Tervigons, before the most recent release, didn't have models. Since the profile is 6T 6W and a 3+ save which is identical to a Trygon, everyone assumed a large 120mm oval base. Most people started with a Carnifex and then bulked it up (trying to use the official artwork for scale).
Mycetic Spores still don't have models. Something with approximately the size and shape of a Drop Pod would be fine 99% of the time.
Doom of Malantai - a Zoanthrope on steroids.
Parasite of Mortrex - Shrike with the appropriate biomorphs.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
RAW the arm doesn't move and the arm is facing the wrong direction. I agree with that. But if you're doing something to get around rules... Then how is that not MFA?

This isn't the official Hellbrute model. It's the DV Hellbrute model - meaning it's *A* Hellbrute model with a specific pose.

Even if it is a player convention. I happen to be a player, so I guess I'm right then.

You're right that it could be considered MFA? Yes, absolutely. Literally every conversion used anywhere could be considered MFA.
That doesn't mean a reasonable person would think so, however.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So we have no idea on how to mount something to a power fist, even though there are countless examples of arm mounted weapons. Again, plenty of models don't get shown with all their options. But that's not what I'm arguing.

RAW the arm doesn't move and the arm is facing the wrong direction. I agree with that. But if you're doing something to get around rules... Then how is that not MFA?

Even if it is a player convention. I happen to be a player, so I guess I'm right then.

No, you have no specific idea of the only way it can be mounted, which is what youre arguing. Just because other, non-hellbrute models have guns mounted in X way does not mean that all guns must be mounted in X way without exception. You are making a bad logical leap there

rigeld2 wrote:
This isn't the official Hellbrute model. It's the DV Hellbrute model - meaning it's *A* Hellbrute model with a specific pose.

Why does coming in the DV box make it not an official Hellbrute model?

 insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
This isn't the official Hellbrute model. It's the DV Hellbrute model - meaning it's *A* Hellbrute model with a specific pose.

Why does coming in the DV box make it not an official Hellbrute model?

Thank you! This has been tossed around several times and it's completely absurd... How can anyone say that a model released by GW and featured in the codex pictures isn't an official model???

 insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
This isn't the official Hellbrute model. It's the DV Hellbrute model - meaning it's *A* Hellbrute model with a specific pose.

Why does coming in the DV box make it not an official Hellbrute model?

It's an official Hellbrute model. It is not *the* official one.

Which really has no bearing on anything else in the thread.

How do we know that the helbrute model doesn't havr a weapon in the power fist? Maybe that's what the gaping maw in its hand is?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's an official Hellbrute model. It is not *the* official one.

There is only one 'official' Hellbrute model. That by definition makes it 'the' official model.

 insaniak wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Anyways, simple solution: nomjnate a place on the base as the front of the model. Then, the firing arcs wold be based 90° off to the right and left of that point.

Where are you getting 90 degrees from?

If the head is facing forward at 12 o'clock, then the positions of the arms would be based from 3 and 9 o'clock.

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. Wouldn't it be simpler to just assume that the weapons' fire arcs are determined from the shoulder directly forwards?

 insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
This isn't the official Hellbrute model. It's the DV Hellbrute model - meaning it's *A* Hellbrute model with a specific pose.

Why does coming in the DV box make it not an official Hellbrute model?

So I can use the tyranids from Space Hulk then and call them "official"? Until the model is released and sold on the GW website in the army section it belongs to it is no more official than forgeworld models.

It's simply an official GW model, but it is not the model that they will release for the army (nor was it ever, as it came out before the codex). The dark vengeance box set was, for all intents and purposes, its own game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
This isn't the official Hellbrute model. It's the DV Hellbrute model - meaning it's *A* Hellbrute model with a specific pose.

Why does coming in the DV box make it not an official Hellbrute model?

It's an official Hellbrute model. It is not *the* official one.

Which really has no bearing on anything else in the thread.

This is somewhat true, except the thread is revolved around using this model in a 40k game with equipment it was never meant to come with on the model and arguing about it being modeled improperly when it's really being used improperly. *Shrug*

 Kevin949 wrote:
So I can use the tyranids from Space Hulk then and call them "official"?

Is Space Hulk sold as a part of the Warhammer 40000 game?

Until the model is released and sold on the GW website in the army section it belongs to it is no more official than forgeworld models.

Sorry, what? I think you're missing a few words there somewhere.

It's simply an official GW model, but it is not the model that they will release for the army (nor was it ever, as it came out before the codex).

The old Ork Trukk was released for Gorkamorka well before it was included in the 3rd edition Ork Codex. It was still the 'official' trukk for quite a few years.

The dark vengeance box set was, for all intents and purposes, its own game.

Based on what?

 insaniak wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
So I can use the tyranids from Space Hulk then and call them "official"?

Is Space Hulk sold as a part of the Warhammer 40000 game?

Until the model is released and sold on the GW website in the army section it belongs to it is no more official than forgeworld models.

Sorry, what? I think you're missing a few words there somewhere.

It's simply an official GW model, but it is not the model that they will release for the army (nor was it ever, as it came out before the codex).

The old Ork Trukk was released for Gorkamorka well before it was included in the 3rd edition Ork Codex. It was still the 'official' trukk for quite a few years.

The dark vengeance box set was, for all intents and purposes, its own game.

Based on what?

Well, space hulk wasn't a great example but the mini's "could" still be used for 40k as they are as official as the ones from dark vengeance.

No, I'm not missing any words in there. I just can't think of a better way to put it.

Well, good for the ork trukk. I highly doubt GW is going to force players to buy a 100 dollar box set to get one miniature. Also orks are notorious for making up their own shiz.

Based on the fact it comes with it's own rules and such. Yes, you can use them in normal 40k but they are by no means the normal models (as I've yet to see official production run models be "snap fit" models).

Unfortunately GW is trying to do with privateer press does with it's two player box sets but because 40k is a much more malleable system as far as models are concerned, you run into these kinds of issues.

That's odd. My CSM codex has pictures of the hellbrute from DV but they labeled it just as a Helbrute. Must be a typo.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Well, space hulk wasn't a great example but the mini's "could" still be used for 40k as they are as official as the ones from dark vengeance.

Space Hulk is a completely stand-alone game in the 40K universe that just happens to use minatures that are the same size.
Dark Vengeance is the 40K starter set.

Not even remotely the same thing.

I highly doubt GW is going to force players to buy a 100 dollar box set to get one miniature.

They expected Ork players to buy the last starter set to get Deffkoptas...

Based on the fact it comes with it's own rules and such.

The what now?

It comes with the Warhammer 40000 rulebook.

(as I've yet to see official production run models be "snap fit" models).

They've been selling various boxes of snap fit models for 40K and Fantasy for some years now.

Unfortunately GW is trying to do with privateer press does with it's two player box sets but because 40k is a much more malleable system as far as models are concerned, you run into these kinds of issues.

Again, the what now?

GW was doing two-player starter sets before Privateer Press existed.


But this is all veering waaay off topic. The simple fact is that a couple of people are creating a distinction (that these 40K models arre 'official' while these [/i]other[/i] 40K models are not) out of whole cloth... and even if it were true, it has no bearing on how that model functions in the game.

Right as of this minute, the DV Hellbrute is the only Hellbrute model we have. The Hellbrute model that we currently have runs into LOS issues if you give it a ranged weapon on the powerfirst arm, and so requires some form of rules-bending to operate correctly in game.

How we got from there to arguing over whether or not models are official because they can be assembled without glue is completely beyond me.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
That's odd. My CSM codex has pictures of the hellbrute from DV but they labeled it just as a Helbrute. Must be a typo.

Huh, my codex has no images for some of my models...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Well, space hulk wasn't a great example but the mini's "could" still be used for 40k as they are as official as the ones from dark vengeance.

Space Hulk is a completely stand-alone game in the 40K universe that just happens to use minatures that are the same size.
Dark Vengeance is the 40K starter set.

Not even remotely the same thing.

I highly doubt GW is going to force players to buy a 100 dollar box set to get one miniature.

They expected Ork players to buy the last starter set to get Deffkoptas...

Based on the fact it comes with it's own rules and such.

The what now?

It comes with the Warhammer 40000 rulebook.

(as I've yet to see official production run models be "snap fit" models).

They've been selling various boxes of snap fit models for 40K and Fantasy for some years now.

Unfortunately GW is trying to do with privateer press does with it's two player box sets but because 40k is a much more malleable system as far as models are concerned, you run into these kinds of issues.

Again, the what now?

GW was doing two-player starter sets before Privateer Press existed.


But this is all veering waaay off topic. The simple fact is that a couple of people are creating a distinction (that these 40K models arre 'official' while these [/i]other[/i] 40K models are not) out of whole cloth... and even if it were true, it has no bearing on how that model functions in the game.

Right as of this minute, the DV Hellbrute is the only Hellbrute model we have. The Hellbrute model that we currently have runs into LOS issues if you give it a ranged weapon on the powerfirst arm, and so requires some form of rules-bending to operate correctly in game.

How we got from there to arguing over whether or not models are official because they can be assembled without glue is completely beyond me.

Yes, I know, like I said it was a bad example.

Starter set or boxed set with different armies? They expect necron players to buy warriors to get scarabs.

Yes, it does come with the 40k rulebook. It also comes with it's own rules specific for the DV set. Did you get the package?

Boxes of, yes. Actual production run models that aren't "special case"? Not that I've seen, personally. Not recently anyway.

Hey, great, they did it first...doesn't mean they did it right or that their game is conducive to it.

Yes, it is, in that this topic shouldn't have really existed in the first place. Or at least not become such a huge deal considering the helbrute in question is not meant to be run with options, else it would have come with them (and here comes the "but this didn't!" counter-point).

 Kevin949 wrote:
Starter set or boxed set with different armies? They expect necron players to buy warriors to get scarabs.

So now you're making my argument for me?

Yes, it does come with the 40k rulebook. It also comes with it's own rules specific for the DV set. Did you get the package?

It comes with a booklet with condensed rules to get people started. GW have been doing that since 2nd edition. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest that this made the starter set a completely separate game.

Boxes of, yes. Actual production run models that aren't "special case"? Not that I've seen, personally. Not recently anyway.

Ah. So we're applying made-up distinctions again. Fair enough.

Hey, great, they did it first...doesn't mean they did it right or that their game is conducive to it.

I have no idea what your point even is here.

Yes, it is, in that this topic shouldn't have really existed in the first place. Or at least not become such a huge deal considering the helbrute in question is not meant to be run with options, else it would have come with them (and here comes the "but this didn't!" counter-point).

Well, I won't bother making that counter point since you already did. I'll just reiterate the point that we only have one Hellbrute model, and the unit in the codex has options that need to be represented on the model if you take them.

The fact that the model doesn't originally come with those options has no bearing on the matter. Otherwise we're back to the ridiculous discussion from a few months back where people were insisting that Captains and Assault Sergeants were the only Marines who can legally use power axes...

 insaniak wrote:
Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. Wouldn't it be simpler to just assume that the weapons' fire arcs are determined from the shoulder directly forwards?

Because an entire page of "where are his shoulders?" is proving again that common sense can't be relied upon in this community...

There was no 'entire page' arguing where his shoulders are. Just people arguing over whether or not the shoulders should be allowed to pivot...

Which would seem an opportune moment to point out yet again that the fact that people are arguing in order to determine the actual RAW in this situation has no bearing on hw reasonable they would be when discussing how to actually play it on the table.

But by all means stick with the hyperbole if it makes you feel better.

Where is the RAW issue? Is it that difficult for people to imagine a world where minis look cool and some common sense would prevail over the gnashing teeth over how dumb it was to sculpt a model that isn't clearly pointing in the direction of its target? There is no RAW about it. Bottom of page 84 in the BRB seems pretty clear.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Where is the RAW issue? Is it that difficult for people to imagine a world where minis look cool and some common sense would prevail over the gnashing teeth over how dumb it was to sculpt a model that isn't clearly pointing in the direction of its target?

It's not hard to imagine that world at all. Unfortunately, it's not the world that GW created with their rules.

In practice, most players will glue their extra weapons on, and when it comes time to draw LOS at something won't even stop and think about the fact that the weapon isn't actually pointing in the right direction. And so long as their opponent has no issue with that, it won't be a problem.

The purpose of discussions like this isn't to make the game crappier for those trying to play it. It's just to foster a better understanding of the actual rules. How people apply that is up to them.

I guess this brings up the unwritten, Rule of Cool.

The world of rules GW wrote also includes relying too much upon the intelligence and judgement of the players. When they spend hours whinging on the internets because the model doesn't look in the right direction is probably not what they intended.

I swear, in my gaming group, people who would split already split hairs like this are rarely invited back.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The world of rules GW wrote also includes relying too much upon the intelligence and judgement of the players. When they spend hours whinging on the internets because the model doesn't look in the right direction is probably not what they intended.

While this may be the case. They are the rules provided, and again we're talking about RAW here not HIWPI .

Not sure where the difference lies in this case. Its not like the helbrute model has a turret on the top and is 12 inches tall. Its just like every other dreadnought, it just looks cooler.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The world of rules GW wrote also includes relying too much upon the intelligence and judgement of the players. When they spend hours whinging on the internets because the model doesn't look in the right direction is probably not what they intended.

The 'everyone intelligent would agree with me' slope is a rather treacherous one to step out onto without appropriate footwear.

Nobody in this thread is whinging, with the possible excpetion of your continuing railing against the lack of intelligence displayed by those you disagree with. Again, the point of threads like this is simply to discuss the rules. In this specific instance, it's to discuss the fact that the rules and the model those rules are for don't go together particularly well.

Jumping into that discussion and insisting that everyone should just play it your way regardless of what the rules say, and if they don't they're clearly horrible people and lacking in intelligence and common sense is not productive.

By all means, discuss how you think it should work. But try to accept that the fact that people are pointing out that the rules don't work in a given situation doesn't mean that they won't be amenable to finding a reasonable workaround. All it means is that they think the rules as they currently stand don't work in that particular situation.

The allowance for the DV Hellbrute to move it's arm IS provided in the rulebook as far as I am concerned.

It's titled "The most important rule" and is found on pg 4.

** Ok fine, while I'm at "breaking the rules" .. this thread has put the nail in the coffin for coming to Dakkadakka for any kind of rules clarifications. **

Rorschach9 wrote:
The allowance for the DV Hellbrute to move it's arm IS provided in the rulebook as far as I am concerned.

It's titled "The most important rule" and is found on pg 4.

YMDC Tenets wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

rigeld2 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
The allowance for the DV Hellbrute to move it's arm IS provided in the rulebook as far as I am concerned.

It's titled "The most important rule" and is found on pg 4.

YMDC Tenets wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

There is no other rule for this issue. So I guess the entire debate is pointless.

So you just feel like ignoring the rules that have been cited in this thread?

As above. The actual, 100% clear with no debates on them rules have been provided - and yet to be rebutted. Just a lot of people upset that people actually know and apply the rles...

 insaniak wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Starter set or boxed set with different armies? They expect necron players to buy warriors to get scarabs.

So now you're making my argument for me?

Yes, it does come with the 40k rulebook. It also comes with it's own rules specific for the DV set. Did you get the package?

It comes with a booklet with condensed rules to get people started. GW have been doing that since 2nd edition. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest that this made the starter set a completely separate game.

Boxes of, yes. Actual production run models that aren't "special case"? Not that I've seen, personally. Not recently anyway.

Ah. So we're applying made-up distinctions again. Fair enough.

Hey, great, they did it first...doesn't mean they did it right or that their game is conducive to it.

I have no idea what your point even is here.

Yes, it is, in that this topic shouldn't have really existed in the first place. Or at least not become such a huge deal considering the helbrute in question is not meant to be run with options, else it would have come with them (and here comes the "but this didn't!" counter-point).

Well, I won't bother making that counter point since you already did. I'll just reiterate the point that we only have one Hellbrute model, and the unit in the codex has options that need to be represented on the model if you take them.

The fact that the model doesn't originally come with those options has no bearing on the matter. Otherwise we're back to the ridiculous discussion from a few months back where people were insisting that Captains and Assault Sergeants were the only Marines who can legally use power axes...

It's more fun making the arguments for people.

I'm not saying it's a separate game, not really separate from 40k anyway. I'm saying it is it's own "thing". Like, how Star Wars monopoly is still Monopoly but it doesn't have the same stuff for the base game.

It's not a made up distinction, not really anyway. I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying to mean snap-fit models aren't "official". That's not exactly what I'm saying, I'm saying that snap-fit models appear to be a "special case" scenario that GW has created. They have created these one-off models that are simple to put together for intro hobbyist but obviously do not allow for the malleable nature of the game.

My point is that which I stated above. They created a box set to start or expand armies with models that don't allow any options. Completely counter-productive to their game.

Your counter point wouldn't have any merit if you had made it, since the DV Helbrute is not sold as a chaos dreadnought boxed mini. Thus complaining that a model that came out prior to the codex, didn't have any options, but is attempted to be used in a standard game type with options the model itself was never intended to have, is ridiculous. It does have bearing though, as this model is not it's own separate thing. I don't know anything about your other mentioned scenario (nor do I want it to be brought up here, as to stay on track) however.

Do not misunderstand what I mean by all this though, I'm not saying that someone couldn't take the wargear listed. No, I'd allow people to proxy (within reason) their models or some such other thing. I'm simply saying that complaining about the models position not allowing the effective use of wargear it's not intended to be modeled with is silly.

Kevlar wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Wow... talk about over-complicating a situation... this isn't the Middle East.

Anyways, simple solution: nomjnate a place on the base as the front of the model. Then, the firing arcs wold be based 90° off to the right and left of that point.

/thread.

The whole thing is just dumb though. They should have just said dreads shoot like normal infantry. 360 degrees. Just make them av 12 all around, never understood why they made them av 10 in the back. It isn't like the back has less plating than the front.

umm actually it is. The legs, body, and arms have less plating on the back. Also the power plant appears to be back there, and it is likely vulnerable.

 Kevin949 wrote:
They have created these one-off models that are simple to put together for intro hobbyist but obviously do not allow for the malleable nature of the game.

Which is exactly the problem. Hence the discussion here.

With the arrival of the new codex we were only given that model for the Helbrute. So lacking a more advanced kit with options, that's the Helbrute model that people have to work with. If it's not suitable for the role, then that's a problem.

So the old metal dreadnought with all those included options is no longer a valid model?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So the old metal dreadnought with all those included options is no longer a valid model?

Is it a Helbrute, or a Dreadnought model?

Silly stuff I know. Mind you I'd always let you use the dread.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So the old metal dreadnought with all those included options is no longer a valid model?

It's a valid model if you have it, sure.

It appears to be no longer available through GW, though.

People seem to be ignoring this:

BYB pg 84:
"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 ipvoting in the shooting phase does not count as moving..."

No, that has been cited a couple of times. I'm not sure what relevance you think it has, or which side of the discussion you're on.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that has been cited a couple of times. I'm not sure what relevance you think it has, or which side of the discussion you're on.

It was cited once before. I missed that post, went back and saw it now.

 nolzur wrote:
People seem to be ignoring this:

BYB pg 84:
"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 ipvoting in the shooting phase does not count as moving..."

Yes... and when you have two weapons that are perpendicular to each other, that each have a 45 degree fire arc, how exactly does that help?

 nolzur wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that has been cited a couple of times. I'm not sure what relevance you think it has, or which side of the discussion you're on.

It was cited once before. I missed that post, went back and saw it now.

Quoted once before, cited multiple times.
You still haven't said what relevance you think people are ignoring.