This probably gets asked all the time, but I can't see it asked in the first several pages and it's not in the FAQ or codex as far as I can see. What is the arc of fire on the Necron Doom Scythe's Death Ray? I was playing a game and my opponent said it would be a 45 degree arc, but that seems very... limited, especially considering the minimum distance the Doom Scythe has to move, I had a really hard time getting into position to hit anything...

As the model has a hull mounted weapon, it is 45 degrees left right total, and 45 degrees up-down total (22.5 degrees from mid in both cases)

Fair enough, thanks, I'll just have to be very careful with it.

There are very few flyers who's weapons aren't hull mounted.

Yep, most fliers have a fairly restrictive fire arc, and planning ahead you can limit the damage significantly

Apart from the heldrake of course

While the initial point in the 3d6 line for the death ray should be within the arc of the weapon, nothing prohibits you (the firer) from drawing the line in any direction, provided it doesn't cross over any friendly models. Keep that in mind when you're using your killy death ray gun.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
While the initial point in the 3d6 line for the death ray should be within the arc of the weapon, nothing prohibits you (the firer) from drawing the line in any direction, provided it doesn't cross over any friendly models. Keep that in mind when you're using your killy death ray gun.

Exactly. As long as you also keep in mind you can't wound anything touched by the line outside of the firing arc of the weapon.

 Mandor wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
While the initial point in the 3d6 line for the death ray should be within the arc of the weapon, nothing prohibits you (the firer) from drawing the line in any direction, provided it doesn't cross over any friendly models. Keep that in mind when you're using your killy death ray gun.

Exactly. As long as you also keep in mind you can't wound anything touched by the line outside of the firing arc of the weapon.

By what reasoning?

As the weapon appears to be mounted on a gimbal joint, people around these parts (hampton, va) treat it as an underslung turret mount.
Unless I'm missing it, there is no longer a "default" for weapons to be hull mounted unless otherwise described. It's based entirely on what the weapon appears to be, and in this case it is clearly not hull mounted.

Even with this somewhat liberal interpretation it's still not that great, and people generally prefer to run nightscythes instead.

Hull mounted weapon, but it does not select a target. You can draw the line wherever you want within the range restrictions, but any wounds / damaging hits inflicted can only be allocated to models within the 45 degree hull mount line of sight of the weapon / TLTD.

MVBrandt wrote:
Hull mounted weapon, but it does not select a target. You can draw the line wherever you want within the range restrictions, but any wounds / damaging hits inflicted can only be allocated to models within the 45 degree hull mount line of sight of the weapon / TLTD.

Ah, line of sight factors in here. Very true - heldrakes must have ruined my concept of what a flyer's actual LOS really is.

Nothing restricts applying hits to vehicles outside LoS. The "out of sight" rule applies only to wounds.

And glancing/penetrating hits are treated like wounds...

And page number of this is?

Well with many on here declaring it is Hull Mounted I assume they've never seen the model. It is on a ball and socket joint so clearly turret mounted.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well with many on here declaring it is Hull Mounted I assume they've never seen the model. It is on a ball and socket joint so clearly turret mounted.

A mount that can't rotate because the hull is in the way. It's lucky to have 45*.

It can pivot and turn at least 180

 FlingitNow wrote:
It can pivot and turn at least 180

No chance.
The guns on either side stop it rotating. It really is lucky to manage 45*.

Well the one I'm looking at could do 180 conceivably 270.

 Mandor wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
While the initial point in the 3d6 line for the death ray should be within the arc of the weapon, nothing prohibits you (the firer) from drawing the line in any direction, provided it doesn't cross over any friendly models. Keep that in mind when you're using your killy death ray gun.

Exactly. As long as you also keep in mind you can't wound anything touched by the line outside of the firing arc of the weapon.

You can wound models outside of LOS. You just can't apply those wounds to models outside of LOS. This can lead to a limited ability to snipe models from a unit.

Aycee

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It can pivot and turn at least 180

No chance.
The guns on either side stop it rotating. It really is lucky to manage 45*.

The guns do not stop it. If you tilt the gun down a little bit it will clear those guns. The hoses attached to it are what would stop it from rotating.

The Death Ray turrent hangs below the main model. It is in no way restricted from turning in a 360 arc, as the stock model exists. If a Land Raider can fire its side turrets 180, then this thing can certainly do 360. Of course, if you fire the Death Ray outside the front arc, then you are not entitled to fire the Tesla Cannon, so there is that.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well the one I'm looking at could do 180 conceivably 270.

Then you're not looking at a stock Doomscythe.

Deathray is between guns.


Guns either side prevent rotating.


As shown, they're just in the way. Even with extreme tilting.

AND the hoses would stop rotating.
No way can it do 180*, 270* is way beyond unbelievable.
45* is about as good as it can hope for.

As above. Having 2 stock ones myself, and as the pictures show without any doubt, 45 degrees is fairly lucky as far as a fire arc goes.

The pictures really don't do it justice. I have a Scythe I'm in the process of assembling. I can get the neighborhood of 90 degree left to right but not nearly 45 degrees down. I think it's just a poorly modeled weapon and their idea was probably a pintle mount but fell short. Working on getting the tesla painted and mounted so I can make a video.

As for the cables: http://gizmodo.com/5969917/these-wires-can-stretch-800-percent-thanks-to-conductive-metal-goo

Not to hijack the thread but would you say a stormtalon assault cannon counts as one of these 360 degree weapons? I've been playing it that way since the gun spins around. Would this be correct?

A ball joint would swivel instead of rotate. Big difference. It's also the only possible way it could point itself at a line drawn within the parameters players are instructed to draw such a line.

So to clarify... the argument is not that Death Ray has 45 degree LOS because it is hull mounted, but that it has limited LOS due to the placement of weapons that prevent the turret-mounted weapon from physically turning more than 45 degrees?

-Myst

Not quite they are claiming that because it cant spin in a demonstrable way to allow 360 degree LoS that it can't be anything but hull mounted.


I still play mine as pintle mounted as I have already shown my group what I can. The next question I ask is what is the purpose of the spherical attachment points on the tesla if not to move it to allow free range with the Death Ray.

Gravmyr wrote:
Not quite they are claiming that because it cant spin in a demonstrable way to allow 360 degree LoS that it can't be anything but hull mounted.

Not so.
I'm not claiming it's Hull Mounted, Pintle does seem more appropriate. But due to the limitations of the model it can't rotate much more than 45*.
Pintle and Turret doesn't automatically give 360*, if the hull is in the way then this limits firing arc.
A Predator Sponson "could" give 360* arc, if the hull wasn't in the way, which limits it to ~200*

Same here, the mounting on the Deathray could give 360*, but so much is in the way it can't do much more than 45*

Mysticaria wrote:
So to clarify... the argument is not that Death Ray has 45 degree LOS because it is hull mounted, but that it has limited LOS due to the placement of weapons that prevent the turret-mounted weapon from physically turning more than 45 degrees?

Absolutely.
A StormRaven has a turret on top, which would normally give 360* arc, but it can't fully rotate due to the hull.

Pintle and Turret doesn't automatically give 360*, if the hull is in the way then this limits firing arc

And what part of the Hull is exactly getting in the way of the Death Ray. Just curious to what you're actually seeing...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pintle and Turret doesn't automatically give 360*, if the hull is in the way then this limits firing arc

And what part of the Hull is exactly getting in the way of the Death Ray. Just curious to what you're actually seeing...

Not just hull, anything that stops it rotating. I used Hull as a general term as its the most common thing to get in the way.
In this case the two large cannons on either side, and the cables attached to the DeathRay.

What are you judging the chemical composition of the cables to be and what are basing this off of?

If you can prove that they're highly elastic, or have some rule that shows they don't prevent rotation then please supply it.
Until then I'd stick to the rules.

Do weapons normally specify they have to be in los to use, because under the entry for the deathray:

To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range

I find it curious that it specifies range, but not los. Also the use of the word "anywhere" is very curious.

is your assumption that they cannot stretch at all any more valid then the assumption that they do? There is no proof either direction but the assumption that they do not limits what the weapon's rules state. As the rules state anywhere it clearly indicates that they had other thoughts on the mounting.

Gravmyr wrote:
is your assumption that they cannot stretch at all any more valid then the assumption that they do? There is no proof either direction but the assumption that they do not limits what the weapon's rules state. As the rules state anywhere it clearly indicates that they had other thoughts on the mounting.

I'm assuming absolutly nothing.
You know the old saying about assumption.
We could assume that the part of a StormRavens hull that blocks the turret is suppose to fold in and allow the turret to rotate.
We could assume that a dreadnought could flip it's arms and shoot backwards.
Assumption should have absolutly no place in these games. Unless there's a rule that says those cables do not restrict fire arc, then they do.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Do weapons normally specify they have to be in los to use, because under the entry for the deathray:

To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range

I find it curious that it specifies range, but not los. Also the use of the word "anywhere" is very curious.

This is what I was going off when I first played, I thought it meant place the first point anywhere within 12 inches, regardless of where the gun's pointing, then 3d6" to wherever, I thought the gun had full movement, hence you could fire at a weird diagonal even when moving in a straight line.

There are a number of assumptions you are making. The fact that anywhere means nothing. That it is modeled without obvious moving parts means that it doesn't have any. That the tesla are fixed in place and cannot move to allow movement of the Death Ray. That they weren't talking about just such a situation as this when they put it in the rules about assembly not changing the weapons position. You are making a number of assumptions. Show me a single rule that says the way a model is modeled changes how the weapon mounting type works.

I see a rule telling you what the mounting types are but nothing about how the way they model it changes how those mounts work. I then see a rule about how moving the gun may be impossible and to assume you could move it per the mounting type.

There's a difference between how a model is designed and how a model is modeled. You're making the assumption that they're equivalent when they are absolutely not.

Gravmyr wrote:
There are a number of assumptions you are making. The fact that anywhere means nothing. That it is modeled without obvious moving parts means that it doesn't have any. That the tesla are fixed in place and cannot move to allow movement of the Death Ray. That they weren't talking about just such a situation as this when they put it in the rules about assembly not changing the weapons position. You are making a number of assumptions. Show me a single rule that says the way a model is modeled changes how the weapon mounting type works.

I see a rule telling you what the mounting types are but nothing about how the way they model it changes how those mounts work. I then see a rule about how moving the gun may be impossible and to assume you could move it per the mounting type.

So you are quite literally making things up, and then claiming they have rule support?
This isn't even inserting fluff into a rule, there is no background support or rules support.

There's simply no way you can justify "the guns should move out of the way, and the cables are elastic". There's no way to prove this, or even suggest it with background. You can't just make stuff up and say its rules.

I'm going by the model, and the mounting as the rules specify. I'm not going to pretend those cables should be elastic and tangle free.
If there's no rule telling you how something should move, then it doesn't.
Please show some rules supporting your "elastic cable" theory. If not, then for your poor opponents sake, stick to actual rules.

Show me a single rule that says the way a model is modeled changes how the weapon mounting type works.

I'll give you two:
"Line of Sight" p8
"Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight" p72
If the hull is in the way, you can't trace line of sight through it can you?

Neither of those rules can be applied when they designed the weapon to not be able to be turned. You have to go by what the rules for the mounting type is, a stick on a ball mount = pintle mount. You can point to pg 72 all you want and say it says something about changing how weapon mounts work but please quote a line for me. The weapon is modeled as pintle mounted. They cast it in such a way you cannot move the gun therefor we have to use the rule about it being assembled in a way so it cannot move. Please show a single rule that tells you to make assumptions to the limits of such movement. The line tells you to assume they can swivel or rotate freely, if you assume that it would hit something / be blocked by something then you are not assuming it can swivel or rotate freely are you?

So a StormRaven turret can fully rotate 360* then? Despite the hull being in the way?

If the mounting won't rotate, then you assume it does. That doesn't mean you can then ignore every other obstruction. Unless you can show a rule that says otherwise?

This is the same logic as trying to assault out of an "Assault" vehicle that has arrived from reserve.
"But they can assault after disembarking!"
The assault vehicle does say that, but other rules restrict the assault, namely the Reserve rules.

"But it says assume it can freely rotate!"
That doesn't help if other parts of the vehicle would still prevent it from rotating.

Not just the storm raven - predator sponsons, the land raider turret and sponsons, etc...

Gravmyr, the design of the model shows the guns getting in the way of the pintle mount. There is no rule saying that the guns would move, so they don't.

No it is assumptions about things, including mounting type of both weapons, due to poor thinking on GW's part that causes the issue. I look at the tesla and I see guns that can move, why else would they have ball joints on the side. If they can move then the small amount of contact that is made, they dont block LoS at all, could be changed. We make assumptions about models all the time because we have to, how far do the joints on the legs on walkers bend? Unless it's made to actually move like some pintle mounts there is no guaranteed way to judge just what a model can do or can't do. Do you limit attacks on walkers to the back if it looks like something might block it's ability to spin around? I have shown this to every opponent that has had an issue and not one disagreed with my argument. Not a great yard stick but in the end everything about this game is about agreements between players.

I'm still waiting for a rule quote about anything limiting distance of a spin if it's connected. It might be stupid but you are the one saying you need permission to do anything like disregard parts. The rules as written and backed up by the weapons own rules tell us it can target anywhere in range. How can it even target anywhere within the roll if it can't move freely without obstructions?

Looking at the other models what I see is the actual hull blocking them not part of a weapon system that you have to make assumptions about. Can you tell me that you know the intent of the writer and that the Tesla cannot move out of the way and that they didn't want the Death Ray to target anywhere as the rule states? Either way I have presented my arguments. Take them or leave them.

You're also claiming to know the intent of the designer by suggesting they can move out of the way.
I can see the joint on the tesla, there's no way that can move far enough for the Death Ray to freely rotate.
And the rules allow for the weapon to turn to face the target, there is no rule allowing other things to move out of the way first.
Unless you can supply one?
I'm not saying you need a rule to disregard parts, I'm saying you have a rule to move the gun, but no rule to move other parts. If you know of such a rule, please quote it.

Grav - then post a rule that says you can ignore the design of the model, not jsut the construction

As designed it has NO ABILITY to move - as the "Cables" are fixed parts.

When you can find permission to ignore the design of the model, and NOT just the assembly, you can have greater fire arc. Until then, youre stuck at 45 degrees

And again, all you are told to look at to determine a weapon's arc of fire is it's mounting. There is absolutly nothing else in the rule about comparing what might be in the way if it were assembled so that is could move is there? The only rule I can find is to look at the mount and go from there. Pintle mounts have 360 swivel. Done. Where in that rule does it mention examining the model to determine if it could move where you want it beyond looking at the mount?

The rules where it shows a predators arc isnt 360. It cannot shoot through its own hull, as it cannot move that far.

You have seen that part of the rule book?

You are also told to pretend it can move to where you want to point it - buit arent allowed to pretend it is allowed to move through parts of the model.

Or do you have a rules quote to show you are allowed to do so? Page and graph will suffice.

A Predator sponson could easily rotate 360* if the hull didn't get in the way.
By your reasoning, if I glued it in place I could then use the quote to "move freely" and give it a 360* arc, despite the fact that the rest of the model would prevent rotating normally.

To get a little more on topic: If the movement of the death ray is 45 degrees vertically and horizontally, that actually gives an INCREDIBLY limited range of fire. The wording of "anywhere within the weapon's range" would seem to supercede that, in my opinion, since the 45 degree vertical is very, very limiting.

Scarey Nerd wrote:
To get a little more on topic: If the movement of the death ray is 45 degrees vertically and horizontally, that actually gives an INCREDIBLY limited range of fire. The wording of "anywhere within the weapon's range" would seem to supercede that, in my opinion, since the 45 degree vertical is very, very limiting.

Most fliers have the exact same "incredibly limited" arc.
The problem is the Death Ray rules don't say you can ignore LOS/Fire Arc, so you can't allocate wounds if you go outside this arc.

Scarey Nerd wrote:
To get a little more on topic: If the movement of the death ray is 45 degrees vertically and horizontally, that actually gives an INCREDIBLY limited range of fire. The wording of "anywhere within the weapon's range" would seem to supercede that, in my opinion, since the 45 degree vertical is very, very limiting.

Does it state you can allocate wounds outside of LOS? Page and graph

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Scarey Nerd wrote:
To get a little more on topic: If the movement of the death ray is 45 degrees vertically and horizontally, that actually gives an INCREDIBLY limited range of fire. The wording of "anywhere within the weapon's range" would seem to supercede that, in my opinion, since the 45 degree vertical is very, very limiting.

Does it state you can allocate wounds outside of LOS? Page and graph

Hang on, surely the LOS only applies if you were targeting the unit? The rulebook says "If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends." At no point does the Death Ray target the unit, the line just passes over them. (Page 16)

Then you have no permission to allocate wounds at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then you have no permission to allocate wounds at all.

Hang on, what? So by your reasoning, the gun does nothing because no unit is targeted?

What is the sponson-mounted weapon's arc of fire = depends on what the mounting structure allows. What is a pintle-mounted weapon's arc of fire? That's right 360 per pg 72. Is there anything in the section about what to do if it is assembled or glued in a way that prohibits movement that tells you to do anything but go off of the mounting type? There is an illustration of what pintle-mounted arc of fire is and it tells me it's 360. You want to remove your weapons from the sponsons and put them on pintle mounts that is up to you and your opponent. I am going of what page 72 tells me what my arc of fire is. Unless you can find something that tells me to assume that it was free to rotate but is limited if something in the way then I have to go by the actual rules on the page and not assumptions that you should do so. I have pointed out exactly what the rules have said from the sections you continue to point to but the only thing that can be said is that in this game of little men that are frozen in place is that only some of them are required to follow real life rules for movement....... Again do you limit the movement of walkers if they have wires or other parts on the body that would limit turning and therefor limt it's arcs of fire? Virtually every walker can't even come close to the 45 degrees with weapons yet I doubt you do.

Gravmyr wrote:
What is the sponson-mounted weapon's arc of fire = depends on what the mounting structure allows.

Correct.

What is a pintle-mounted weapon's arc of fire? That's right 360 per pg 72.

Actually the answer is the same as above. As with all mountings. The example on p72 happens to be of one with 360* arc.
A Predator mounting is capable of rotating 360*, the gun and hull prevents this though. A Leman Russ also has Sponsons. Again the physical limitations define the arc.

Turrets are also listed on p72 as 360*.
So what is the arc of LandRaider turret? 360*?
A StormRaven Turret? 360?
All the turrets on a Baneblade? All 360*?

And it's still just your assumption that it's Pintle mounted. Is it listed as such?

What other type of mounting would it be then? It's a weapon mounted on a stick that swivels which is the very definition of pintle-mounted.

With the Scythe you are not talking about the mounting structure. You are talking about other parts blocking movement. Still don't see backup for it limiting firing arc just LoS.

Your list of weapons is very intriguing. Why would you bring up mounts on weapons that wouldn't have LoS anyway? Does it matter if you can move it there if you can't draw LoS? With the scythe you are in fact not limiting LoS with the Tesla as the Death Ray would be angled down due to not targeting anything in the air. In the case of tanks do you give them 22.5 degree down angle to hit anything shorter than the height of the gun or do you give them only flat plane and up? There a number of tanks that become much less useful if that is how you are playing it. If the hull or other weapons don't block this for tanks why do you say it should for the Death Ray? How about firing with Dreadnaughts, looking at them few of their weapons can meet the 45 degree horizontal arc without encountering the body with the front or rear of the arm.

45* is the minimum horizontal arc. If a weapon cannon move at all it has a 45* arc. Hence the term Hull Mounted. It's attached to the Hull, not on a mount.
All weapons have 45* vertical arc no matter what the mounting.

Gravmyr wrote:
Still don't see backup for it limiting firing arc just LoS.

Are you suggesting Line of Sight and Fire Arcs are different when it comes to vehicles?

With the Scythe you are not talking about the mounting structure. You are talking about other parts blocking movement.

The Turret on a LandRaider, it's rotation isn't blocked by the mounting structure either.
The mounting structure isn't what is blocking the StormRaven turret.
Just as the mounting structure isn't what blocks the Death Ray. See how they're similar?

Now turrets on p72 are shown as having 360* arc, are you saying a LandRaider turret has 360*?

Yes it does have a 360 firing arc what it does not have is LoS. There isn't anything in the book about firing arcs changing just LoS. Having the 360 firing arc does not in fact change the need for LoS. Just because you have the ability to see something does not mean that you do see it. I can see a house but if a truck or my hood blocks my vision it means I can't look at it. Firing arc is determined solely by mounting type while LoS is determined by looking down the barrel. If they were the same you wouldn't need to turn the weapon toward your target. Turrets and Pintle-mounts are not given a maximum arc of fire they have their arc of fire set to 360 degrees.

As far as the tanks are concerned you didn't answer my question. Where do you start the 45 degree verticle arc, by your limiting of the arc to where the weapon can actually move to then you start it out at the lowest level and move it up from there.

Gravmyr wrote:
As far as the tanks are concerned you didn't answer my question. Where do you start the 45 degree verticle arc, by your limiting of the arc to where the weapon can actually move to then you start it out at the lowest level and move it up from there.

I did answer that, weapons have a 45* vertical arc no matter the mounting. That 22.5* each way. That's on p72.

Yes it does have a 360 firing arc what it does not have is LoS.

Wrong. LOS is traced down the weapon barrel. The weapon must be pointed at the target. If the weapon cannot be pointed at the target because something is preventing it turning, then you can't draw LOS. How much it can turn is it's Fire Arc. Fire arc and LOS are effectively the same thing.

So no, a LandRaider turret does not have 360* fire arc.

There is nothing on pg 72 that says anything along the lines that the 45 degrees starts in the middle though. Just that they have a 45 degree arc. You are adding that. If the weapon cannot point down then that must be where is starts if the model stops it correct? That is what you are saying the the limit of the weapon arc is changed by the model. If there is a building that blocked LoS can you turn the weapon through that area? If you can then clearly firing arc is different from LoS.

To be a turret, the vehicle profile needs to state it, or the actual model needs to rotate like underslung storm talon mount.

Assembled properly, the doom scythe lacks both aspects. I also own one and it's baffling to see people argue otherwise.

Who's saying it's a turret?

Sorry I should have said "360* fire arc".

Gravmyr wrote:
There is nothing on pg 72 that says anything along the lines that the 45 degrees starts in the middle though. Just that they have a 45 degree arc. You are adding that. If the weapon cannot point down then that must be where is starts if the model stops it correct? That is what you are saying the the limit of the weapon arc is changed by the model. If there is a building that blocked LoS can you turn the weapon through that area? If you can then clearly firing arc is different from LoS.

This is moving very off topic.
Fair enough, a model behind a building is in the fire arc but out of line of sight. But that's a different matter.
The hull of a LandRaider stops the turret rotating, and therefore limits the fire arc and LOS.

In regard to vertical movement, it's 45* despite the actual movement of the gun. So your proposal to still use the actual movement of the gun as part of the fire arc isn't following this rule, is it?
True it doesn't say 22.5* each way, but can you think of a fairer way? Your method isn't keeping with this.

Anyway, back on track. The cables and teslas are still limiting the mount from rotating, thus limiting fire arc and LOS.
Still not seen a rule to change this.

You still haven't backed up the idea that you should alter the firing arc based off of estimation. You haven't countered that the rules tell you that the arc is based off of mounting type alone. I'm not seeing a rule to take anything but the mounting type into account.

Gravmyr wrote:
You still haven't backed up the idea that you should alter the firing arc based off of estimation. You haven't countered that the rules tell you that the arc is based off of mounting type alone. I'm not seeing a rule to take anything but the mounting type into account.

The mounting on a Predator Sponson can rotate 360*. The weapon and hull limit the fire arc. This is also on p72.
So yes, things getting in the way does alter fire arc.
Please prove it doesn't.

You are the one making the claim that there is no way for it to rotate. Prove it.

I have a Predator right here.
Nope guns won't go 360*, that's neither lascannons or heavy bolters. The hull is just in the way.
Want photos?

I believe you said we were getting back on topic. Prove that there is no way for the Death Ray to rotate.

Done. See those pictures? The weapons get in the way, as does the "cable" which is a solid mounting linking the model to the hull. If you assume free movement of the mounting, these elements still restrict how far the weapon *could* move

Over to you. Prove you are allowed to pretend parts of the hull DONT restrict fire arc. Page and graph. Now.

Only the cable stops the movement. The gun will rotate around the tesla cannons otherwise.

Not on the model I have it wont. Prove otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Done. See those pictures? The weapons get in the way, as does the "cable" which is a solid mounting linking the model to the hull. If you assume free movement of the mounting, these elements still restrict how far the weapon *could* move

Was just about to say that

Over to you. Prove you are allowed to pretend parts of the hull DONT restrict fire arc. Page and graph. Now.

I think we'd all like the answer to this!

pg 72 "On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

The Death Ray is assembled in such a way that the gun cannot be moved. Check.
The DR can therefor rotate or swivel freely on it's mounting. Check.
Compare the gun and make a judgement based off the model as to where it could be. Missing......
Compare the gun and make a judgement as to it's firing arc based on the model. Missing.....

You are adding a step that is not present in the rules. There are only these two lines to follow if the gun cannot move. To back up the fact that it is a free moving weapon they use anywhere in the rules for the gun. I posted a link myself as well proving that the cables are not the end all and be all proof that you think that they are. You are making an assumption that it would stop the movement when there is as equal a chance that they do not. Going by the limited arc you are advocating you are also negating the wording of the DR's rules are you not? The comparison of what else is on the model also would stop the DR from rotating or swiveling freely would it not? You are told specifically that it can move freely if they have it assembled so that it can't.

I'm still waiting for anything that gives you permission to alter the firing arc from the mountings.

So you're saying if I glue my Predator sponsons in place, I can then assume it has a 360* arc since it cannot be moved?

Does page 72 say they have a 360 degree arc?

So if I glue my Landraider turret in place, I can now claim a 360* arc?
Turrets are listed as 360* on p72.

Certainly. Of course now you have to draw LoS from where it would be.... doesn't your body then block the LoS? This is not the case with LoS from the Doomscythe as the angle is downward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the fact that you would then have to make the case for this not being modeling for advantage but I digress.

Gravmyr wrote:
Certainly. Of course now you have to draw LoS from where it would be.... doesn't your body then block the LoS? This is not the case with LoS from the Doomscythe as the angle is downward.

Wrong. This was shown many times earlier.
The arc of fire is not 360*

Actually it's Arc of Sight, not fire, but never mind.

The weapon cannot be pointed at the target "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight" - p72
This is because the hull prevents it's rotation.

Except in your example you would not be using those rules you would be using the rules for a gun that cannot move. In those rules where is it again that you make any judgement on the arc of sight?

Does it say the mounting can move freely, or does it say mounting, weapon and ignore anything else in the way?
If the mounting moves freely, but the gun would catch on something, preventing you pointing the gun at the target, then what allows you to ignore these obstacles?

Following the rule, if the mounting of the death ray could move freely as the model would seem to intend, would the death ray have 360* rotation? Remember only the mounting is moving freely by that rule...

Actually the gun moves freely on it's mounting. There is no quantifier that would indicate that anything has the ability to inhibit the movement. So where is it that the rule tells you to take anything else into account for fixed weapon due to the above? You can read the rule yourself above and in your BRB but until you find something that inhibits it we are at an impasse.

There is actually no rule currently in this game that allows anything to stop a weapon from turning in it's mounting. It's the physical impediment that stops it. If you just assume it is moving what rule in the entire book are you using to halt this? Is it intelligent to have a game without that rule? Clearly not but in the end as is always pointed out here this is a game of permissions. For checking or altering line of sight in this case there is no permission to do so.

Gravmyr wrote:
There is actually no rule currently in this game that allows anything to stop a weapon from turning in it's mounting. It's the physical impediment that stops it.

You need to point the weapon at the target.
Yes it's a physical requirement.

If the mounting moves freely as intended, but you can't point the gun at the target, then it's out of the Arc of Sight, and cannot be shot at.

A freely moving mounting for a Landraider turret cannot be pointed at a target behind it. That target is out of its Arc of Sight.

If the mounting doesn't move freely, assume it does.

This does not allow you to pretend a glued LandRaider turret can suddenly point at a target behind it.

Now I ask again, assuming the mounting (and as the rule states, only the mounting) of the Death Ray can move freely, can the Death Ray rotate a full 360*?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
Assuming the mounting (and as the rule states, only the mounting) of the Death Ray can move freely, can the Death Ray rotate a full 360*?

Im going to assume your answer is "yes", as it has been this whole thread, so I'll just jump to the next question:

How can it rotate with those two cables attached? They're not part of the mounting so you can't assume they can move freely.

And to answer a previous question that I'm sure you'll ask:

Gravmyr wrote:
What are you judging the chemical composition of the cables to be and what are basing this off of?

C6H7O2(OH)3
Also known as Acetate Cellulose, which I believe is the plastic your model is made from.

You see, no rule says "assume your model is made of elastic alien metal". It's made of plastic.
So even if the mounting was made as a fully moveable mounting, there are still two bits of plastic firmly holding that gun in place. They're not part of the weapon mounting, so you can't assume they can move. You can't leave them off without MFA.

So with a fully moving weapon mount, the Death Ray cannot pivot, rotate or move at all.

Aycee71 wrote:

 Mandor wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
While the initial point in the 3d6 line for the death ray should be within the arc of the weapon, nothing prohibits you (the firer) from drawing the line in any direction, provided it doesn't cross over any friendly models. Keep that in mind when you're using your killy death ray gun.

Exactly. As long as you also keep in mind you can't wound anything touched by the line outside of the firing arc of the weapon.

You can wound models outside of LOS. You just can't apply those wounds to models outside of LOS. This can lead to a limited ability to snipe models from a unit.

Aycee

By that logic, a blast template that scatters over a unit out of LOS cannot allocate wounds to said unit. And the Death Ray is a special template.

As an engineer I can tell you that cables are used in such constructions to allow movement. If the gun was to be immobile then no cables would be necessary and any conduits needed would be fixed on the hull.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

Aycee71 wrote:

 Mandor wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
While the initial point in the 3d6 line for the death ray should be within the arc of the weapon, nothing prohibits you (the firer) from drawing the line in any direction, provided it doesn't cross over any friendly models. Keep that in mind when you're using your killy death ray gun.

Exactly. As long as you also keep in mind you can't wound anything touched by the line outside of the firing arc of the weapon.

You can wound models outside of LOS. You just can't apply those wounds to models outside of LOS. This can lead to a limited ability to snipe models from a unit.

Aycee

By that logic, a blast template that scatters over a unit out of LOS cannot allocate wounds to said unit. And the Death Ray is a special template.

Blasts have rules allowing them to ignore LoS for wound allocation, does the Death Ray?

Gravmyr wrote:
pg 72 "On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

Note this says "free to rotate" - not "free to rotate, and able to move through the hull or other obstructions on the vehicle"

You have entirely, 100% made up the latter. Page and paragraph in the rules, or concede. Now.

Gravmyr wrote:The Death Ray is assembled in such a way that the gun cannot be moved. Check.

False. The Death Ray is designed such that the gun cannot be moved. The difference is subtle, but HAS been pointed out to you now 3 or 4 times.

Gravmyr wrote:The DR can therefor rotate or swivel freely on it's mounting. Check.

It is assumed to be free to rotate, yes. Now find permission for it to be free to rotate THROUGH the model. You cannot find this permission? It cannot do so.

You are conflating "free to rotate" with "free to rotate, regardless of anything being in the way"

UNtil you can actually provide some rules you are stuck.

Gravmyr wrote:Compare the gun and make a judgement based off the model as to where it could be. Missing......
Compare the gun and make a judgement as to it's firing arc based on the model. Missing.....

You know, apart from the part where you are told it can rotate freely ON ITS MOUNTING, not rotate freely REGARDLESS OF THE MODEL.

"On its mounting" limits the statement "rotate freely". The "free" movement explicitly relates only to the ability to rotate on the mounting. It does not say it can freely move regardless of the model - meaning you have no permisison

So in fact, these last two "missings" from you have NEATLY summed up where your argument fails - you do not have permission, it is imissing. So you cannot do it.

So, again.

You can freely rotate on the mounting. You cannot freely rotate as if the model had no obstructions.

Youre done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
As an engineer I can tell you that cables are used in such constructions to allow movement. If the gun was to be immobile then no cables would be necessary and any conduits needed would be fixed on the hull.

As an appeal to authority in a fantasy game set in the year 40,000 you will have to try harder than that.

Your real world experience is worth less than nothing as far as the rules are concerned.

copper.talos wrote:
As an engineer I can tell you that cables are used in such constructions to allow movement. If the gun was to be immobile then no cables would be necessary and any conduits needed would be fixed on the hull.

I have a lot of respect for engineers, a fine profession, no matter the field. However...
Those cables are made of plastic. The rules don't allow for you to pretend they're made of flexible alien robot metal.
You need to physically point the gun at the target. If the gun won't move, you have permission to pretend the mounting will move freely.
Those cables are not part of the mounting. Can you find a rule that lets you pretend that non-mounting parts of the vehicle can move?
If so please quote it.

I like how you have continued to make demands of other posters but have yet to answer most questions I have put forth.
The top two are:
Where is your permission to limit the arc of sight in the section off a weapon not moving?
The section tells you to assume it can move freely it does not give any way to limit that movement. You are making a claim that is should be but have yet to back it up with a quoted rule. What you are saying is that the way you put forth is the way that you do it..... because that is the way you do it. There is no rule to compare the assumed movement to it's assumed path and limit the firing arc. If you can't post a rule telling you to do so all your demands that someone else post a rule are moot. You are doing something not listed in the rules and nullifying the rules for the weapon and ignoring the fact that there are no limitations put on the free movement.
Do you limit the arc if sight of tanks from the point up when the barrel of the weapon can move up but not down due to the way GW has had you assemble it?
If you want to do it evenly you measure the movement it has subtract it from the 45, cut the difference in half and add that to how far to the top and bottom of their existing arc. To do it any other way gives them an advantage that is not granted in the rules. Which also limits the usefulness of tanks the same way you are limiting the usefulness of the Death Ray but i don't see you applying the same level of restriction on them.....
I like how you are saying that we should apply real world physics like limits of movement based on length of cables/hoses and the appearance of blocked rotation but when someone who's job is designing these kind of things points out the flaw in your argument you tell him his expertise doesn't matter.

No, it says it can move freely on its mount

It does not say it can move freely ignoring anything in the way

Until you find that rule, you are done.

Gravmyr wrote:
Where is your permission to limit the arc of sight in the section off a weapon not moving?

That rule allows you to assume the mounting can move freely. Nothing else. Only the mounting. You have to point the gun at the target, or in the case of a weapon that can't move, assume the mounting can move freely. If the mounting moves freely, but another part if the model prevents rotation, then the weapon cannot be pointed at the target, can it?

The section tells you to assume it can move freely

It says the mounting can move freely. Nothing else, but you continue to claim it's a blanket statement on the whole weapon, the hull and everything else

it does not give any way to limit that movement.

If you can't point the gun at the target, it's out of Arc of Sight. There is a physical requirement in the rules. If the mounting won't move, pretend it does. Again, mounting only.

You are making a claim that is should be but have yet to back it up with a quoted rule.

The rules itself supports this, it's been quoted enough.

What you are saying is that the way you put forth is the way that you do it..... because that is the way you do it. There is no rule to compare the assumed movement to it's assumed path and limit the firing arc.

The rule says "assume", are you saying there's no rule that says you must assume, when it says assume?

If you can't post a rule telling you to do so all your demands that someone else post a rule are moot. You are doing something not listed in the rules and nullifying the rules for the weapon and ignoring the fact that there are no limitations put on the free movement.

There is a limitation. You must point the gun at the target to draw LOS. If the mounting won't move freely, assume it does. I feel like this has been mentioned before?
You still suggest this allows you to ignore non-mounting parts of the model. Please quote this rule.

Do you limit the arc if sight of tanks from the point up when the barrel of the weapon can move up but not down due to the way GW has had you assemble it?
If you want to do it evenly you measure the movement it has subtract it from the 45, cut the difference in half and add that to how far to the top and bottom of their existing arc. To do it any other way gives them an advantage that is not granted in the rules. Which also limits the usefulness of tanks the same way you are limiting the usefulness of the Death Ray but i don't see you applying the same level of restriction on them.....

Are you talking about the vertical Arc of Sight again? The book states this is 45*. The actual vertical movement of the weapon is not used. You're talking about using vertical movement to effectively increase the Arc of Sight, or at least position the arc where it's most advantageous to you. This is not what the rule allows.
And the Vertical Arc has nothing to do with the movement of the death ray.

I like how you are saying that we should apply real world physics like limits of movement based on length of cables/hoses and the appearance of blocked rotation but when someone who's job is designing these kind of things points out the flaw in your argument you tell him his expertise doesn't matter.

Real world physics do apply, because you're using an actual model that you're require to move parts of. You can't pass a gun through a wall can you? The rules follow this.
The rules also don't tell you to pretend that a peace of plastic is also alien-elastic-metal.


Now again, the rules allow the assumption that the Death Ray mounting can move freely. The cables are not part of the mounting, and being solid plastic prevent the gun from rotating at all. Do you have an actual rule that contradicts this?

You have not posted a quote ever concerning the comparison you are making. Still waiting.

Gravmyr wrote:
You have not posted a quote ever concerning the comparison you are making. Still waiting.

That you must point the gun at the target?

BRB p72 wrote:When firing a vehicle' weapons, point them at the target and then trace Line of Sight from each weapons' mounting along its barrel

That if the mounting can't move, assume it does? The mounting only, and nothing else?

BRB p72 wrote:Players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings

Combine these two rules. Assuming the mounting of the Death Ray moves freely, how can the weapon point at the target, when parts of the vehicle get in the way? And when the cables still stop it moving at all?

Still waiting for an answer for this, or even a relevant rules quote.

Can it move freely in the mounting using your proposed idea that the cables and anything else inhibits moving?

There is no limitation put on this movement in the cannot move section. You cannot physically move the gun at all if it is fixed. You still haven't pointed out any rule concerning a gun that cannot move. You are still saying that you have to move the gun in essence. It can't. You seem to ignore this restriction when tanks are concerned. Why is it so imperative that you do this with Doomscythes but not tanks? I think maybe you are just a little biased. I have applied my reading both directions but it does appear you are willing to ignore the body of a tank and ignore what movement it already has in terms of movement but as far as the Doomscythe is considered you want to limit it through assumption. You are assuming that if there is another limitation which is not addressed that you can apply it. So again if anything stops movement can it move freely in it's mount?

The mounting is free

The cables attached to the gun, not part of the mounting, do not move freely

Or do you have a rules quote yet?

Gravmyr wrote:
Can it move freely in the mounting using your proposed idea that the cables and anything else inhibits moving?

The cables are not part of the mounting. They have no permision to move freely. Neither are the Teslas. Nor is the Hull. Only the Mounting can move freely.
You're claiming that the rule allows these parts to be ignored, or moved. This is false. There is no rule allowing it.

You cannot physically move the gun at all if it is fixed.

The rule allows you to asssume it can move. The mounting only.

You still haven't pointed out any rule concerning a gun that cannot move.

I've quoted that rule serveral times. Here it is again:
"On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings"

You are still saying that you have to move the gun in essence. It can't.

The rule says you must. If it can't assume the mounting can move freely. If it still can't than it isn't within the Arc of Sight.

You seem to ignore this restriction when tanks are concerned. Why is it so imperative that you do this with Doomscythes but not tanks?

Iv'e not ignored this, I've mentioned it serveral times. I've listed serveral examples of mountings that are limited by the design and construction of the model. The turret on a Landraider cannot point at a target behind it. Nor can the Turret on a StormRaven.

I think maybe you are just a little biased.

Appologise for this commet please.

I have applied my reading both directions but it does appear you are willing to ignore the body of a tank and ignore what movement it already has in terms of movement but as far as the Doomscythe is considered you want to limit it through assumption. You are assuming that if there is another limitation which is not addressed that you can apply it.

I've brought up the body of a tank many many times. Guns cannot rotate if part of the model prevents it. Why is the DoomScythe any different?

So again if anything stops movement can it move freely in it's mount?

The mount is assumed to move freely, what rule lets you ignore other parts of model that get in the way? Parts that are nothing to do with the mount?
If a Landraider turret is glued in place, by your logic I can rotate it through it's own hull and point the weapon at a target behind it. No rule allows this.

Again you are adding a restriction not mentioned. Can it move freely in the mounting if as you ascert the tesla and hoses impede it? It does not limit it to only the mounting moving it says the guns moves freely in it's mount. There is a difference.

It says the mounting may move freely

Prove that applies t anything attached to the Gun. Not the mounting.

Try again. Waiting on your permission to ignore these, and assume "mountings" means "able to pass through matter"

Page and graph please. Your contuinued refusal means I assume you are now stating HYWPI.

Tempted to cut the cables off my Doom Scythe by this point, no coolant system is worth this.

Gravmyr wrote:
Again you are adding a restriction not mentioned. Can it move freely in the mounting if as you ascert the tesla and hoses impede it? It does not limit it to only the mounting moving it says the guns moves freely in it's mount. There is a difference.

The turret on a Landraider cannot point at a target behind it.
If this turret is not glued in place, then the mounting can indeed move freely. It still can't point at a target behind it though.
You're claiming extra freedom that is not in the rule.

And I'm still waiting for an appology from your "biased" comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scarey Nerd wrote:
Tempted to cut the cables off my Doom Scythe by this point, no coolant system is worth this.

We're talking rules here, altering your model is not part of the rules. And in this case is Modeling for Advantage.

Scarey Nerd wrote:
Tempted to cut the cables off my Doom Scythe by this point, no coolant system is worth this.

And the guns as well? Anymore modelling for advantage you would like to do while you are at it, like shortening the stem so it is harder to shoot at it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Scarey Nerd wrote:
Tempted to cut the cables off my Doom Scythe by this point, no coolant system is worth this.

And the guns as well? Any more modelling for advantage you would like to do while you are at it, like shortening the stem so it is harder to shoot at it?

Wow, relax. I was being facetious, I'm not actually going to tamper with the model, I wouldn't be bothered with the hassle for a start. What I meant was everyone in this thread seems to be getting a little heated over this. I thought it would have had a straight forward answer but since it doesn't, I'll just ask people when I play with them how they want me to do it.

Yet it IS a straightforward answer -even if it can move freely on its mountings, its fire arc is *incredibly* limited due to the way the model is designed. As such playing is as Hull Mounted is simplest, and probablya little generous.

Since it is clear that you have made your opinion up despite anything else I'm going to assume that all these posts are just for giggles. I have pointed out why they move freely. You cannot point out anything in the rules for how the gun does move once it is assumed that it does move. You have yet to address my question of does it move freely per the rules if the restrictions you have put forth are viable. The fact that it does not mention that anything else affects it means that moving freely covers all of these conditions. This again is backed up by the use of anywhere in the use of the weapon.

My thoughts of anyone are not something I ever apologize for. Why should the way that I or anyone else thinks of you be an insult unless you have some belief of the same.... Either way I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you waiting for an apology on my thoughts and feelings.

No, you have pointed out the mounting can move freely

That ball joint? That can move freely. That gun that cannot swing past the tesla? That cannot

You cannot provide ANY applicable rule, just your made up version that the "weapon" can move "freely", when the ACTUAL rule is that the *mount* can move freely.

You broke the tenets fo the forum by assuming bias in the person, when no evidence of that was available. You should apologise for being rude AND wrong.

Gravmyr wrote:
My thoughts of anyone are not something I ever apologize for. Why should the way that I or anyone else thinks of you be an insult unless you have some belief of the same.... Either way I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you waiting for an apology on my thoughts and feelings.

You said I was ignoring rules and was biased.
So I cheat for my own benefit?
This is acceptable conduct for a rules debate? To insult anyone that has a different opinion? And you don't feel this deserves an apology?

So does the Death Ray rule in the Necron Codex specifically state it is a Hull-mounted weapon? Or does it not specify? Just wondering, I didn't see a full posting of the actual verbatim rules for it.

As with most vehicle weapons, it doesn't specify.

Ah, now I understand

I noticed the new Apocalypse book doesn't specify the mounts for the Thunderhawk, just as an example. So if somebody mounts the turbo-laser destructor on a model part that can swivel or rotate, can it then target and blast things off to its side? .And then if they mount the tesla guns on the wing edges of a Doom Scythe so that Death Ray could swivel sideways or all around, is that modeling to advantage? What if I just think it looks cool? If a cool looking arrangement of weapons somehow provides an advantage in any scenario, is it then unfair? An extra skull on the end of my lascannons could give an extra 1/4" of range afterall.

This is a huge recurrent failing on GW's part, and not just with the Death Ray. Vehicle weapons need some mandatory mounting profiles in addition to 'Heavy' or 'Rapid Fire', etc. Then any amount of interesting model making, which is an inevitable and awesome part of this hobby, wouldn't complicate things.

As I read this thread Gravmyr is trying to cling to a faulty argument, and reads likes he "wants his Crons to Pwn more."

The rules are clear, it can swivel freely, but its LOS is clearly limited by the underslung Tesla and the hull of the vehicle. End result is a quite limited LOS and playing it as Hull Mounted is more than fair.

As above.

Gravmyr - you need to find an actual rule that says being able to move freely on your mountings means something other than the mounting moving freely. As in, you need a rule stating you can ignore pesky obstructions, like the attached cabling, the guns etc that would stop a freely moving mounting from rotating completely.

Unless and until you can do so you have no rules support, and are just arguing HYWPI.