what is their firing arc?? 180 degrees??

can they fire backwards?? cause in the model you cant turn those turrets 180degrees the plates on the huricane bolters dissalow it...they hit the vehicles plating at about 75 degrees!!

opinions?

They're side sponsons, so their firing arc should be 180degree.

 Order Knight wrote:
They're side sponsons, so their firing arc should be 180degree.

No. Their arc is what the model actually allows.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Order Knight wrote:
They're side sponsons, so their firing arc should be 180degree.

No. Their arc is what the model actually allows.

Pretty much this. Same idea as the limited arc on Leman Russ battle tank sponsons, it's what the model allows. Page 72 of the BRB has diagrams, although no actual words for it. 5th ed had the wording above.

Moved you over to YMDC.

The diagram in the BRB shows side sponsons on a Rhino/Predator chassis having a bit more than 180d. arc. The LR, being a bigger model, would have that LoS changed a bit.

If you can ge draw los from the gun to the target you can shoot at it.

Side sponsons are usually 180 ish degree arcs. especially those on the land raider.

its a 180 arc, I think you haven't put them on right if you can only rotate to 75 as mine can go the full 180...

if i remove the protective plates of the guns then i can turn them 180 degrees... if i dont they turn hardy 75 degrees.. strange... you can turn 180 with the plates on?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Order Knight wrote:
They're side sponsons, so their firing arc should be 180degree.

No. Their arc is what the model actually allows.

If this was the case my tanks would onle shoot straight forward. I tend to glue my guns in to help keep them from breaking. side sponsons have 180 arc.

Reread the BRB, you are told that IF glued in place you imagine they arent.

On the newer plastic Crusader/Redeemer if you build it "normally" (without skipping parts) your side sponsons can't rotate 180°, more like 90°

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Reread the BRB, you are told that IF glued in place you imagine they arent.

It also mentions the way the model is assembled has an impact. Not sure in what way though and if this also counts the design of the model. Could be a good idea to quote this paragraph to see what it says. I will have a look later on tonight or perhaps tomorrow.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
its a 180 arc, I think you haven't put them on right if you can only rotate to 75 as mine can go the full 180...

If someone is saying you can't shoot the full 180 degrees because the way your model is assembled or if you glued your sponsons on you're better off letting them 'win' and not waste 2-3 hours of your life playing against someone like that.

Yeah - screw the rules, they're obviously a bad person for following them.

 DarthOvious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Reread the BRB, you are told that IF glued in place you imagine they arent.

It also mentions the way the model is assembled has an impact. Not sure in what way though and if this also counts the design of the model. Could be a good idea to quote this paragraph to see what it says. I will have a look later on tonight or perhaps tomorrow.

Design is NOT the way it is assembled - it was designed to turn X degrees, but you managed to glue the wrong part etc meaning it only turns X/2 degrees - then you would be allowed to pretend it went the full X degrees

If, however, you build it such that it moves 2X degrees - by ommitting a part, for example - then you still can only shoot as if it could see X degrees. IT works both ways round.

THis impacts some models quite harshly - the Death Rays underslung gun physically AND the way it has been design CANNOT rotate more than about 60 degrees total the other guns get in the way, and you have some plastic "cabling" which, even if the other guns werent there would physically prevent it turning much at all (and that assumes the cables being flexible, not a hard plastic)

By saying that the sponsons cant shoot 180+ because they are glued wrong is like saying you cant shoot the helldrakes baleflamer anywhere but within 45 degrees of its mouth even though the rules clearly saying it can fart its flamer template... Look at the diagram and read the rule book, those are the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Design is NOT the way it is assembled - it was designed to turn X degrees, but you managed to glue the wrong part etc meaning it only turns X/2 degrees - then you would be allowed to pretend it went the full X degrees

If, however, you build it such that it moves 2X degrees - by ommitting a part, for example - then you still can only shoot as if it could see X degrees. IT works both ways round.

So in essence we are talking about the way a model is assembled from the original design?

This impacts some models quite harshly - the Death Rays underslung gun physically AND the way it has been design CANNOT rotate more than about 60 degrees total the other guns get in the way, and you have some plastic "cabling" which, even if the other guns werent there would physically prevent it turning much at all (and that assumes the cables being flexible, not a hard plastic)

So some potential limitation there for the Necron flyer. I need to remember this, I think down at our store we tend to consider the Necron Death Ray as having a 360 degree rotation. I might have to consider reviewing this for future battles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
By saying that the sponsons cant shoot 180+ because they are glued wrong is like saying you cant shoot the helldrakes baleflamer anywhere but within 45 degrees of its mouth even though the rules clearly saying it can fart its flamer template... Look at the diagram and read the rule book, those are the rules.

Can I ask you interpretation on the rule discussed? Tjhe rule that lets you imaging that your gun can rotate in a normal manner even if you glued it in place.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
By saying that the sponsons cant shoot 180+ because they are glued wrong is like saying you cant shoot the helldrakes baleflamer anywhere but within 45 degrees of its mouth even though the rules clearly saying it can fart its flamer template... Look at the diagram and read the rule book, those are the rules.

I never said that gluing it wrong would limit its arc.

The OP said that if he assembles it properly it's a ~75 degree arc. That's the design of the model - which is what the rules say to use.

And an older model of the same vehicle allows 180. Now the game becomes like MtG where older models are worth more. Awesome! The rules finally allow me an advantage because I've played the game for 20 years and have old models.

Does the part-metal one allow 180° ? It doesn't look like it from the older pictures I've got of it, but I never bothered getting one before the plastic kit.

Not really. I'm prone to hyperbole sometimes.

The MK1 has a kind of slot that the weapon fits in and you can get just about a 90 degree arc; pretty much the same for the MKII. All of this is based upon my faulty memory because my actual models are so beat up from years of use that the weapons are glued on (not to mention all the layers of paint and varnish).

I should know better than to read YMDC because people who post here generally are very literal. Not necessarily a bad thing considering people are coming here to interpret the rules but I just play for "fun" these days, when I have the time to even play, and getting bent out of shape over this poorly written rules set is a bit ridiculous to me. Even GW tells us that it's meant to be a "Beer and Pretzels" game with people making gentlemanly (gentlepersonly?) agreements on the rules.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
By saying that the sponsons cant shoot 180+ because they are glued wrong is like saying you cant shoot the helldrakes baleflamer anywhere but within 45 degrees of its mouth even though the rules clearly saying it can fart its flamer template... Look at the diagram and read the rule book, those are the rules.

Noone said that. In fact, they said the opposite - that you can still fire if you assemble it incorrectly, however you are limited by the *design* of the model to tell you the total arc available. Not whatever arc you want it to have.

So if you glue the sponsons straight ahead, you still get the same firing arc as if you hadnt glued them.

 agnosto wrote:
Not really. I'm prone to hyperbole sometimes.

The MK1 has a kind of slot that the weapon fits in and you can get just about a 90 degree arc; pretty much the same for the MKII. All of this is based upon my faulty memory because my actual models are so beat up from years of use that the weapons are glued on (not to mention all the layers of paint and varnish).

I should know better than to read YMDC because people who post here generally are very literal. Not necessarily a bad thing considering people are coming here to interpret the rules but I just play for "fun" these days, when I have the time to even play, and getting bent out of shape over this poorly written rules set is a bit ridiculous to me. Even GW tells us that it's meant to be a "Beer and Pretzels" game with people making gentlemanly (gentlepersonly?) agreements on the rules.

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you were serious, which led me to post since my memory had it that the old one worked the same and the pics I saw of it seemed to show that.
But yeah YMDC is sometimes for clearing rules issues and often to have a fight on what the GW rules failed to say "clearly".

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you were serious, which led me to post since my memory had it that the old one worked the same and the pics I saw of it seemed to show that.
But yeah YMDC is sometimes for clearing rules issues and often to have a fight on what the GW rules failed to say "clearly".

Sorry about that. Though I do recall a vehicle where the sponsons just dangled on either side instead of being attached to the hull at the bottom as well as the top. My first thought was that it was the old land raider but I was wrong on that count. These could be turned completely around...possible the old predator?

Current Predators hang down like that. There are many places sponsons can turn in a 180 arc - Crusaders aren't one.

rigeld2 wrote:
Current Predators hang down like that. There are many places sponsons can turn in a 180 arc - Crusaders aren't one.

Redeemers and regular LR's can turn the full 180 so there is that.

 agnosto wrote:
And an older model of the same vehicle allows 180. Now the game becomes like MtG where older models are worth more. Awesome! The rules finally allow me an advantage because I've played the game for 20 years and have old models.

The Old Predator model had sponsons that turned roughly 90 degrees. The newer ones turn just over 180 degrees, so a penalty for having older, less useful models YEA!

I would say it a design flaw myself, if the other 3 Variants of the same vehicle hve 180+ arcs

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
By saying that the sponsons cant shoot 180+ because they are glued wrong is like saying you cant shoot the helldrakes baleflamer anywhere but within 45 degrees of its mouth even though the rules clearly saying it can fart its flamer template... Look at the diagram and read the rule book, those are the rules.

Noone said that. In fact, they said the opposite - that you can still fire if you assemble it incorrectly, however you are limited by the *design* of the model to tell you the total arc available. Not whatever arc you want it to have.

So if you glue the sponsons straight ahead, you still get the same firing arc as if you hadnt glued them.

Never said anyone did...

An example was given where if a person tried to tell you couldnt and you couldnt convince them otherwise, just let them win or leave cause that person isnt worth your time.

I said what i said because I would never let this kind of person push me around just because they want to right without reading the rules, when it clearly says that ignore any guns that are glued in place (ie turrets, sponsons, etc.)... it was a generalized statement, hence why i didnt quote anyone...

(Here is that example given by Ravenclaw "If someone is saying you can't shoot the full 180 degrees because the way your model is assembled or if you glued your sponsons on you're better off letting them 'win' and not waste 2-3 hours of your life playing against someone like that.")

HI NOS! HOW ARE YOU?!?!?!

Im with the 180 deg camp. The redeemer and godhand has 180 arc, which i take is reason enough for the lrc to have the same arc.

The leman russ sponsons though have a different sponson design. They look more like the hurricane bolters on stormravens. They have a box like case which prevents you from practically swiveling the guns all the way around. With those units weve played them as not 180degrees.

I agree if You play against someone who makes a bigdeal out of this, just let him win and dont play him again.

To be honest I have never had to fire backward with my huricane bolters, there is no point.

Everything in back of my LRC is dead and everything in front is about to be as well.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
To be honest I have never had to fire backward with my huricane bolters, there is no point.

Everything in back of my LRC is dead and everything in front is about to be as well.

Yup, this +1

The first time i shot backwards with hurricane bolters it was my opponet who reminded i can shoot backwards against his lone firewarrior

The shields prevent 180 degrees.
The only way to get 180 degrees is to leave off the shields.
The only reason to leave off the shields is to allow 180 degree arcs(it looks better with the shields).
Therefore leaving off the shields is purely modelling for advantage.

And the pretty pictures are not the rules the rules say very clearly that the guns have a firing arc that they can traverse, of what it looks like they can traverse in the case of glued in position guns.

The hurricane bolters have a 90 degree arc; there can be no debate.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The shields prevent 180 degrees.
The only way to get 180 degrees is to leave off the shields.
The only reason to leave off the shields is to allow 180 degree arcs(it looks better with the shields).
Therefore leaving off the shields is purely modelling for advantage.

And the pretty pictures are not the rules the rules say very clearly that the guns have a firing arc that they can traverse, of what it looks like they can traverse in the case of glued in position guns.

The hurricane bolters have a 90 degree arc; there can be no debate.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is pure 100% unadulterated opinion, and should be noted as such.

I would also like to iterate that I have two crusaders, one with the old white metal upgrade kit and one with the plastic kit, both of which are able to rotate the full 180 and both have the shield in place.

looking at the thread I'd say I have a fluke, however it is worth pointing out a couple of things:

1) there is nowhere in the rules the specifically talks about sponsons independently from the normal rules referring to LOS and or firing arcs.

2) as there is no given precedent set, the logical conclusion is to follow existing examples based on what they are capable of and the designs that they have

3) (and this is now treading into opinion) given that different tanks have different sponsons that have different arcs of fire, it would be safe to assume that what is true for one variant of a chasis is true for them all

as an example, every sponson on a predator has the same arc of fire, every sponson on a Leman Russ has the same arc of fire.

why then would 2/3 Land raiders have one arc and 1/3 have a different arc even though it is the SAME mounting?

would it not be more logical that each sponson type has a set arc and that this arc is true regardless of weapon mounting?

Yes, but the is the internet. Good luck making anyone believe you

Edit: read my below post. I've humbly changed my mind.

first of all id like to state that my model is 100% correct assembled and has not any malfunctioning parts!! also nothing is glued averything is interchangable..

still the side sponsors can only rotate 75 degrees and not 180..

i am usually playing them like they are 180degrees but that player that noted it prolly had right! cause i couldnt tell were exactly to count the distance of the weapon to the target!!

he was also using a battlewagon with 2 boys with big shootas at each side firing at 180 arc..witch i believe is wrong since they are firing from the side windows..

Elric Would you mind getting a picture of your "properly built" Land raider? I have mine in front of me and there's no way for the sponsons on either variant to more than 90° (pointing ahead of the vehicle to the side they're on)

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
Elric Would you mind getting a picture of your "properly built" Land raider? I have mine in front of me and there's no way for the sponsons on either variant to more than 90° (pointing ahead of the vehicle to the side they're on)

Now you seem to miss the point of what Elric is saying, he's saying the total arc traversed by the sponson is 180 degrees.

To the OP are you talking about the total arc or just how far you can traverse between parallel and perpendicular to the hull?

Edit: read my below post. I've humbly changed my mind.

in "Arc of sight 1" figoure is actually more than 180degrees...

anyways i belive it to be the right thing even thought they cant turn backwards on the model

Alright, I've learned a valuable lesson: check the model before "remembering" how something is.

I haven't used my LRC in a while, and spouted off opinions without doing the appropriate research.
Properly assembled, the hurricane bolters on a LRC can clearly draw LoS according to "Arc of Sight 2" on BRB72. A LRC has no weapons (except maybe a HK) that can target an enemy in its own Rear arc.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Alright, I've learned a valuable lesson: check the model before "remembering" how something is.

I haven't used my LRC in a while, and spouted off opinions without doing the appropriate research.
Properly assembled, the hurricane bolters on a LRC can clearly draw LoS according to "Arc of Sight 2" on BRB72. A LRC has no weapons (except maybe a HK) that can target an enemy in its own Rear arc.

also the multimelta and storm bolter can target on its rear (360 degrees arc)

The actual range of motion on a model has never mattered. Pg 72 tells us if we can't physically point the gun at the enemy we should assume the weapon can swivel on its mount. The only limit placed on this is for hull mounted weapons. The Hurricane bolter is not hull mounted, so it can rotate 360 degree regardless of how it was assembled (this includes assembled correctly btw) and The sponsons on a land raider are open in the back, so the only thing to block line of sight from the barrel of a hurricane bolter is the hull of the land raider itself. This will result in a slightly better then 180 degree firing arc. If the sponsons were not open in the back (like imperial guard sponsons, or storm raven hurricane bolters) then the firing arc would be reduced.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The actual range of motion on a model has never mattered. Pg 72 tells us if we can't physically point the gun at the enemy we should assume the weapon can swivel on its mount. The only limit placed on this is for hull mounted weapons. The Hurricane bolter is not hull mounted, so it can rotate 360 degree regardless of how it was assembled (this includes assembled correctly btw) and The sponsons on a land raider are open in the back, so the only thing to block line of sight from the barrel of a hurricane bolter is the hull of the land raider itself. This will result in a slightly better then 180 degree firing arc. If the sponsons were not open in the back (like imperial guard sponsons, or storm raven hurricane bolters) then the firing arc would be reduced.

Firstly hull mounted weapons have a firing arc and the range of motion on a model matters. The rules tell they can swivel on their mounts, if the mount doesn't allow you to fire in a given direction then you cannot fire in that direction.

2nd the sponson cannot make a 360 degree arc because the weapon mount doesn't allow it. The stormraven for example hasn't a 360 degree arc on it's turret and you cannot get more than about 100 degrees out of a leman russ sponson, that's just how it plays.

Page 72 of the BRB wrote: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 the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on the mountings.

Can we point a hurricane bolter at a model placed behind it? No

Why not? Because of the way the model is assembled.*

What do we do? Assume the hurricane bolter can rotate on its mountings.

Does any part of the hull of the land raider, or the mounting block line of sight if the barrel of the gun could rotate to face the target? No.

Can the Land Raider draw line of sight to the target placed behind the hurricane bolter? Yes.


*Its very important to understand that a limitation on range of motion that does not reflect the weapons potential firing arc can be created during proper assembly.

There is a bit assumption that the model is supposed to have more range of motion and that the assembly is improper.

Free to rotate on the mountings =/= auto 180 arc.

The big IF here is if the barrel could rotate, if different parts of the gun must be inside the space occupied by the rest of the mounting then it really cannot rotate. Such assumptions as that are far beyond the scope of free rotation. I'm looking a my raider and it's impossible to get a 180 degree arc and have the guns level throughout due to the barrel striking the angled braces on the sponson and mine moves perfectly freely. If you stick in a bulkier gun such as a hurricane bolter I cannot see any way that it would be able to turn due the the actual model's design and not the vagaries of assembly.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
There is a bit assumption that the model is supposed to have more range of motion and that the assembly is improper.

Thats fine for RAI, but RAW you can make no assumption. They did not specify the assembly was incorrect. Further more, that would also mean if I glue the weapon in place then it gets a better arc.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Free to rotate on the mountings =/= auto 180 arc.

no, it means a 360 arc limited only by portions of the model that would block line of sight. Parts of the model that would not rotate with the weapon will still block line of sight. Thats why a land raider sponson will get about 190 arc and a storm raven sponson gets much less even though they are both sponson mounted hurricane bolters.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

The big IF here is if the barrel could rotate, if different parts of the gun must be inside the space occupied by the rest of the mounting then it really cannot rotate. Such assumptions as that are far beyond the scope of free rotation. I'm looking a my raider and it's impossible to get a 180 degree arc and have the guns level throughout due to the barrel striking the angled braces on the sponson and mine moves perfectly freely. If you stick in a bulkier gun such as a hurricane bolter I cannot see any way that it would be able to turn due the the actual model's design and not the vagaries of assembly.

Its also impossible to rotate up or down, but we know all weapons can do that.

Actually the rules state you can assume a greater freedom of motion IF the model is incorectly assembled, such as being glued in place

If the DESIGN of the model is such that it [b]inherently[b] limits motion, you do not get to assume greater.

The assumption on extended motion is purely when the assembly has caused issues. For example a DeathRay cannot have 360 degree, despite being a turret mount, because of two design issues - the underslung guns getting in the way of any freely allowed rotation, and the cables connecting the gun to the hull preventing rotation.

I have to agree with Nos on this. The rules read to me as it is only for issues of assembly and gluing, not issues of design.

Otherwise a stormraven could shout in 360 too. BTW my Landraider can rotate up and down, however the rules give a general allowance guns to traverse up and down so if you glue it you still get to do it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually the rules state you can assume a greater freedom of motion IF the model is incorectly assembled, such as being glued in place

If the DESIGN of the model is such that it [b]inherently[b] limits motion, you do not get to assume greater.

The assumption on extended motion is purely when the assembly has caused issues. For example a DeathRay cannot have 360 degree, despite being a turret mount, because of two design issues - the underslung guns getting in the way of any freely allowed rotation, and the cables connecting the gun to the hull preventing rotation.

It actually does not say that. Unless you are refering to the bit about "...the way the model is assembled, or the gun is glued in place..." but there is no requirement the model be assembled incorrectly,just that the assembly prevents the model from point at the target. I'm not familiar with he Deathray, do you have a book and page number I can reference that documents the deathray's firing arc?

We are both making assumptions, mine is based on the strictest interpritation of RAW. Yours is based on a reasonable interpretation of the same RAW. I've demonstrated how my assumption is reflected by the BRB in the examples provided, the "no you're wrong" counter argument is not good enough. You need to explain how my reasoning is clearly flawed. Find an example where what I have claimed cannot be true and there is a documented example.

You can look at the deathray, it's fairly clear. Similarly the Heavy bolter/Assault cannon turret on a LR doesn't get to shoot behind it.

You still haven't answered the question of if you cannot move the moved freely on it's mountings beyond a certain point, messed up assembly not withstanding, why you give the 180 degree arc to a LR but not a Leman russ. In both cases the mountings impose a maximum arc.

FIring arcs in general are not documented, only examples of such are.

"Due to the way the model is assembled" means you only consider deviations from design in assembly, NOT the design itself. You are not given allowance to ignore the DESIGN of the model, so if the DESIGN of the model only allows an arc of X, then no matter how you assemble it you only get to have an arc of X.

You are, strictly, wrong, as you are ignoring what the statement is actually say.

Let's be fair Nos, it may not be ignoring as that requires intent. It could be simply misunderstanding. There is a world of a difference between the two.

If someone is saying you can't shoot the full 180 degrees because the way your model is assembled or if you glued your sponsons on you're better off letting them 'win' and not waste 2-3 hours of your life playing against someone like that.

Exactly!
Ever since the hellturkey cheese got their 360 bale flamer I treat my sponsons as 180.

Just cos the Heldrake has a 360 view doesn't mean it's a) unbeatable or b) that you're not being unsportsmanlike by walking away from the table or throwing a game because of something that isn't actually going to have a major impact on most of your games.

For the people claiming partial firing arcs, how to you play bike mounted bolters... they can only fire directly ahead? What about vertical firing arcs?

Bikes are not vehicles, so the discussions in this thread don't apply to them.

Kiwidru wrote:
For the people claiming partial firing arcs, how to you play bike mounted bolters... they can only fire directly ahead? What about vertical firing arcs?

iirc all weapon mounts have a 45 degree arc vertically

 Bausk wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:
For the people claiming partial firing arcs, how to you play bike mounted bolters... they can only fire directly ahead? What about vertical firing arcs?

iirc all weapon mounts have a 45 degree arc vertically

For vehicles, yes, however Bikes are not vehicles.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You can look at the deathray, it's fairly clear. Similarly the Heavy bolter/Assault cannon turret on a LR doesn't get to shoot behind it.

You still haven't answered the question of if you cannot move the moved freely on it's mountings beyond a certain point, messed up assembly not withstanding, why you give the 180 degree arc to a LR but not a Leman russ. In both cases the mountings impose a maximum arc.

The Heavy Bolter/Assault Cannon IIRC is a hull mounted weapon. Pg 72 limits the hull mounted weapons to a 45 degree forward arc. For the sake of argument, lets say its a 360 degree arc. When the weapon rotates to face the rear you cannot draw line of sight from the barrel the target because the hull of the land raider will be in the way. Its the same with the sponson on a Leman Russ. Those sponsons are closed in the back so the mounting for the weapon blocks line of sight. The land raider's sponsons are 'open' and will never block line of sight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
FIring arcs in general are not documented, only examples of such are.

And all of the examples perfectly match up to what I am saying.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Due to the way the model is assembled" means you only consider deviations from design in assembly, NOT the design itself.

Does it? I think my understanding is quite clear, and a big part of it was no mention of HOW the model was assembled. This statement must include all forms of assembly, not just incorrect ones. Anything else is inserting a preconceived notion into the text.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are not given allowance to ignore the DESIGN of the model, so if the DESIGN of the model only allows an arc of X, then no matter how you assemble it you only get to have an arc of X.

I think you clearly are given that allowance. More to the point you are never explicitly restricted to the physical range of motion of the model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are, strictly, wrong, as you are ignoring what the statement is actually say.

This adds nothing to the discussion. The only aproipriate response it "No I'm not, you are."

 DJGietzen wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You can look at the deathray, it's fairly clear. Similarly the Heavy bolter/Assault cannon turret on a LR doesn't get to shoot behind it.

You still haven't answered the question of if you cannot move the moved freely on it's mountings beyond a certain point, messed up assembly not withstanding, why you give the 180 degree arc to a LR but not a Leman russ. In both cases the mountings impose a maximum arc.

The Heavy Bolter/Assault Cannon IIRC is a hull mounted weapon. Pg 72 limits the hull mounted weapons to a 45 degree forward arc. For the sake of argument, lets say its a 360 degree arc. When the weapon rotates to face the rear you cannot draw line of sight from the barrel the target because the hull of the land raider will be in the way. Its the same with the sponson on a Leman Russ. Those sponsons are closed in the back so the mounting for the weapon blocks line of sight. The land raider's sponsons are 'open' and will never block line of sight.

Firstly the turret isn't hull mounted, it seems you are either not very familiar with this tank or what hull mounted is. Hull mounted is where the gun is build into the hull with a very limited amount of mobility such as the weapon in the hull of a leman russ chassis. Where as the turret on the LR is a turret with the ability to cover over 90 degrees in the horizontal plane and a bit further with a 22.5 degrees of an inclination or declination.
The hulls are not blocking line of sight for the russ, the sponsons are blocking traversing just as with the LRC. You've introduced a false dichotomy here for no reason. A Leman Russ moves as it would going by proper assembly but we don't use the propper assembly of a LRC we just assume free rotation.

BTW it's a preconceived notion in the text that you assembled the model correctly, they did give you the instructions on how to assemble it and that's how you make the model and 40k uses GW models. Otherwise why talk about funny glueing?

DJ - no, you still aremaking up additions

You are allowed to ignore how the model is assembled

Now, is "assembly" the same as "design"? No, clearly not. There is no way to explain other than - no, they are not hte same thing

How you assemble something, and being able to ignore assembly, does not give you any form of permission to ignore the design of the model.

You are, strictly, wrong on this. You have created a new word - "design" - and inserted it into the allowance on what you are allowed to ignore when determining fire arcs

You can ignore assembly, NOT the design
You cannot ignore design, you CAN ignore the assembly

Two entirely different concepts.

I have both the older metal sponsons on one crusader and the newer plastic ones on another. I know (with shields) that the metal one rotates 180. I've never tried with the plastic... Think I will when I get home after work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - no, you still aremaking up additions

You are allowed to ignore how the model is assembled

Now, is "assembly" the same as "design"? No, clearly not. There is no way to explain other than - no, they are not hte same thing

How you assemble something, and being able to ignore assembly, does not give you any form of permission to ignore the design of the model.

You are, strictly, wrong on this. You have created a new word - "design" - and inserted it into the allowance on what you are allowed to ignore when determining fire arcs

You can ignore assembly, NOT the design
You cannot ignore design, you CAN ignore the assembly

Two entirely different concepts.

Nothing tells me to fallow the design of the model. The only thing that matters is if I can move the gun to point at the target or not. If I can't becouse the model does not move that way, for any reason, I have to pretend that it could, then try and draw line of sight.

The sponsons or mountings on a leman russ only have an opening that presents a 270 degree arc. The inability to move the gun past the opening does not limit the firing arc, the fact that once you pretend the model can move that way the line of sight would be blocked by the walls of the sponson. The hull of the tank further lowers the arc to about 95 degrees.

The Sponsons or mountings on a land rader do not have any walls and as a result present a 360 degree arc. The land raiders hull will lower the arc to about 190 degrees.

 Lobukia wrote:
I have both the older metal sponsons on one crusader and the newer plastic ones on another. I know (with shields) that the metal one rotates 180. I've never tried with the plastic... Think I will when I get home after work.

I have the old metal in front of me right now, the shield bumps against the sponson mounting flush in the rear, limiting the model to 90 degrees.

The bolters should be right next to the shield, with the ammo bins in the doorway.

It looks like the new plastic connects to the mounting for a 90 degree.
Here are a few Images that show its farthest movement. None of these images are mine because my damn cable to connect my phone to my computer is busted.

Not the best picture but it is here:


A better image and better showing of the full traverse:


Here is a properly assembled old metal crusader:

Now you tell me that can traverse more than 90 degrees.

Here is a side/back view of an old Metal crusader at full traverse:


And another:

Yeah. Still not home, but I can't see mine being any different. I'd have to say 105 degrees from front (slightly in due to being out from the LRC) to back is the best you'll get in actual rotation. As most arc pics in the BRB give about anothe 15, that's 120 tops... which certainly rules out rear-firing.

Funny though, positive that I'd done it before... Must have been one of the godhammers or the redemmer (not sure on that now either).

The redeemer's I know can rotate all the way around, I have done so on my redeemers, so you may have been thinking of that Lobukia.

DJGietzen wrote:
Nothing tells me to fallow the design of the model.

Except you have no permission to ignore the design of the model, just the assembly. You are told you get the arc the model looks like it COULD move through, nothing more.

DJGietzen wrote:
The only thing that matters is if I can move the gun to point at the target or not. If I can't becouse the model does not move that way, for any reason, I have to pretend that it could, then try and draw line of sight.

I have bolded the part you have, frankly, made up.

You get to ignore LOS issues due to the way the model isassembled. You have no other permission to ignore how the model actually looks like it would rotate - none at all.

If a model is on a turret mount, but has two thin uprights directly either side of the barrel meaning in total it could only LOOK like it could rotate 1 degree, then that is all the movement it is allowed - because the assembly is not affecting the traversal, but the design IS

ok i made this post a poll post..since so much debate is going on!!! go poll poll!!!

you made the poll wrong.

The figures do not matter, they are just pretty pictures to illustrate the rules.

I go option D: They can only shoot where the models can turn to or look like they can turn to when glued in place.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I go option D: They can only shoot where the models can turn to or look like they can turn to when glued in place.

Totally this.
Option D needs adding.

well NO they are not just pretty pictures..theya re diagrams to help you understand the way models look and shoot so D is invalid cause you can have glued guns in any 3 options i gave...glued guns or not it really dosent matter... the thing is the arc range of the weapons

No; as we have pointed out, the DESIGN of the weapon tells you the firing arc. Nothing more

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DJGietzen wrote:
Nothing tells me to fallow the design of the model.

Except you have no permission to ignore the design of the model, just the assembly. You are told you get the arc the model looks like it COULD move through, nothing more.

I also don't have permission to not punch old ladies in the face. Do you know why I don't punch old ladies in the face? Because I never was required to in the 1st place. Lack of permission to ignore something does not implicitly create that something.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DJGietzen wrote:
The only thing that matters is if I can move the gun to point at the target or not. If I can't becouse the model does not move that way, for any reason, I have to pretend that it could, then try and draw line of sight.

I have bolded the part you have, frankly, made up.

You get to ignore LOS issues due to the way the model isassembled. You have no other permission to ignore how the model actually looks like it would rotate - none at all.

I have no requirement to limit the rotation of a weapon based on the surrounding model. This is something that, frankly, you have made up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If a model is on a turret mount, but has two thin uprights directly either side of the barrel meaning in total it could only LOOK like it could rotate 1 degree, then that is all the movement it is allowed - because the assembly is not affecting the traversal, but the design IS

If the assembly of the model prevents you from rotating that turret because you assembled the model to include two thin uprights directly on either side of the barrel.

Any problem preventing you from pointing the weapon at the target will undoubtedly be traced back to the assembly of the model (ergo 'for any reason'.)

No; some issues are assembly, some are design.

It is a simple difference, one you are claiming doesnt exist

The game tells you what permission you have. You have created more permission than the rules give you

AKA cheating

Sikamikanic0 wrote:
well NO they are not just pretty pictures..theya re diagrams to help you understand the way models look and shoot so D is invalid cause you can have glued guns in any 3 options i gave...glued guns or not it really dosent matter... the thing is the arc range of the weapons

No they are just pretty pictures without the accompanying rules.

They are diagrams that illustrate the rules. The rules tell you what to do in the case of Guns that cannot move(Whether by glue or model design); you have a field of fire in whatever arc it looks like the gun can turn to.

model assembly, not model design

By design the Deathray has an effectively hull mounted arc, even if you look like you could swivel it out the way, pretend that the rigid cables are infinitiely long and flexible, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No; some issues are assembly, some are design.

It is a simple difference, one you are claiming doesnt exist

The game tells you what permission you have. You have created more permission than the rules give you

AKA cheating

Did you assemble the design? Is there some sort of force of nature that prevents a weapon from being pointed at the target with out the model being assembled? Design issue are all assembly issues. Design is never even mentioned as a potential cause of problems because of this.

There are a few models with turrets that have a ring and peg; it should be a turret, it looks like it can traverse 360 degrees, but the design of the model prevents it from actually rotating.

The sentinel is 1 example of a gun that looks like it can traverse vertically 90 degrees with comfort, but the model design does not allow the physical movement; you use the rules for where it looks like it can swivel.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No; some issues are assembly, some are design.

It is a simple difference, one you are claiming doesnt exist

The game tells you what permission you have. You have created more permission than the rules give you

AKA cheating

Did you assemble the design? Is there some sort of force of nature that prevents a weapon from being pointed at the target with out the model being assembled? Design issue are all assembly issues. Design is never even mentioned as a potential cause of problems because of this.

Another assertion with no basis

Problems due to assembly != problems due to design. Clear difference

Prove you are allowed to ignore problems with the design of the model, as opposed to problems with the assembly of the model. Or concede

Vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets
in order to shoot at them. When firing a vehicle's weapons,
point them at the target and then trace line of sight from
each weapons' mounting and along its barrel to see if
the shot is blockedby terrain or models. If the target unit is in
cover from only some of the vehicle'sweapons,then work out
the target's cover saves exactly as if each firing weaponon the
vehicle was a separate firing unit.

On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally
move the gun and point it towards the target because of the
way the model is assembled or because the gun has been
glued in place. In this case, players should assume that
the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their
mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that
guns can swivel vertically up to 45°, even if the barrel on the
model itself cannot physicallydo that! Additionally,assume
all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45°.

At no point is the design of the model made an issue. I do not have to ignore the design of the model because its design is irrelevant. If you would like it to be relevant you will need to prove that it is.

If I can not literally point the weapon at the target because of the way the the model is assembled (not if the model is assembled incorrectly, just because of the way it is assembled) I am given permission to assume the gun and rotate or swivel on its mountings (not that it can rotate or swivel a certain amount, just that that is can rotate or swivel) and I only need to draw a line of sight from the mounting along the barrel to the target with out passing through a model or terrain.

Non-hull mounted weapons can rotate horizontally on its mounting 360°. I'm not making a baseless assertion. We are given permission to rotate the weapons, the only limitations on how far we should assume a weapon can rotate or swivel is 45° horizontal for hull mounted weapons and 45° vertically for all weapons. A weapon that can rotate that is not given a restriction or limitation on that rotation would rotate 360°. It is the belief that there is an undocumented limitation for this rotation based on the models design that is baseless.

In the case of the Land Raider Crusader I assume the hurricane bolters can rotate on its mountings If I rotate the h-bolters 180° away from the forward facing and draw a line from the mounting down the barrel of the h-bolter to a target the model of the land raider it self will not block line of sight because the back of the sponson is open.

In the case of the Leman Russ I assume the sponson mounted weapons can rotate on its mountings If I rotate the weapons 180° away from the forward facing and draw a line from the mounting down the barrel of the gun to a target the model of the Leman Russ it self will indeed block line of sight because the back of the sponson is closed.

 DJGietzen wrote:
At no point is the design of the model made an issue.

Because it's not. It simply tells us how far the weapons can turn.

If you have glued your weapons in place, or if you, say, have a crewmember hanging off the side of the vehicle, you assume that the weapon can still pivot through the arc that it could go through if it was free to move normally. If the vehicle is physically designed for the weapon to only move through a certain proscribed arc, then that is how far it can go.


You can not swivel the hurricane bolters 360 degrees, because the design of the vehicle prevents it. You don't need a rule to spell that out, because the rules tell you to use the model as a reference for how far the weapons can swivel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The sentinel is 1 example of a gun that looks like it can traverse vertically 90 degrees with comfort, but the model design does not allow the physical movement; you use the rules for where it looks like it can swivel.

Vertical movement is slightly different, since all vehicle weapons are limited to 45 degrees vertically, regardless of how they are mounted.

 insaniak wrote:

You can not swivel the hurricane bolters 360 degrees, because the design of the vehicle prevents it. You don't need a rule to spell that out, because the rules tell you to use the model as a reference for how far the weapons can swivel.

And what rule is that?

You already quoted it:

When firing a vehicle's weapons,
point them at the target and then trace line of sight from
each weapons' mounting and along its barrel to see if
the shot is blockedby terrain or models.

If the weapon isn't designed to turn as far as you want it to go, then you can't do this.

I also quoted this

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.

Again, I'm not told to assume the guns can rotate or swivel a little bit, I'm not told to limit the amount they rotate or swivel based on what a properly assembled model can normally do. I'm not told to limit the swival at all, so why should I? These imitations are being inserted by your bias and are not present in the text.

Ok, let's try it this way. Can your elbow move freely? Can you bend it in suck a way to touch the back of your hand off your tricep?

Free movement of a joint =/= as move in any direction. Free movement is that it doesn't stick or jar within it's range of movement. Anything more is an assertion.

No it can't because of the way my body is assembled. But If I assume my lower arm can rotate on its mounting (my elbow) and I'm not told to assume how far it can rotate then yes, the back of my hand could touch my tricep. Anything less is assertion.

Nice assumption but that's assuming more than free movement on the mounting that attaches your forearm.

You know what they say about assumptions.

I was instructed to assume the gun can rotate. You assume the gun can only rotate so far. Why the second assumption?

 DJGietzen wrote:
I was instructed to assume the gun can rotate. You assume the gun can only rotate so far. Why the second assumption?

It says free to move on it's mounting, not free to move. Very different things.

Right, but a gun rotating 360 degrees on its mounting is still rotating on its mounting.

Not if its mounting only allows 90 degrees of movement. For the other 270 degrees, it's going to have to come off the mounting.

As above - it is a difference between design and assembly. The WAY it is assembled can be discounted, not the actual design of the model

If the turret can only rotate 90 degrees, then you cannot assume it can rotate 360 - as that isnt an assembly issue but a design one.

 insaniak wrote:
Not if its mounting only allows 90 degrees of movement. For the other 270 degrees, it's going to have to come off the mounting.

How do you figure? mountings do not allow or disallow and degree of rotation. The assembly of the model does. All a mounting does is provide the axis and plane of rotation. If I am told to assume the weapon can roatate on its mounting I have to assume it can rotate 360 degrees on its mounting. Anything less with out instruction is inserting my own bias.

nosferatu1001, all do respect, but don't bring up the design of the model again until you can find where the design of the model is mentioned in the BRB. Its an incompetent irrelevant and immaterial argument otherwise.

"due"

Incompetent? Really? Any additional insults?

You are allowed to ignore how the model is assembled. The fact "design" is not mentioned means you are unable to ignore the design of the model

The design of a mounting absolutely CAN restrict the degree of rotation. Saying otherwise belies reality.

 DJGietzen wrote:
How do you figure? mountings do not allow or disallow and degree of rotation..

Of course they do. If something is build on a swivel that only turns through 90 degrees (like a pedestal fan, for example) or is built into a fixture that only allows the pount to swivel through a certain arc (like a Leman Russ sponson) then that something can only turn on its mounting through that limited arc. Turning any further would require taking the something off its mounting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
nosferatu1001, all do respect, but don't bring up the design of the model again until you can find where the design of the model is mentioned in the BRB. Its an incompetent irrelevant and immaterial argument otherwise.

I would recommend toning down the snark a little if you wish to continue participating in this discussion...

saying an argument is incompetent is not an insult. It means the argument is based on a poor foundation.. An incompetent irrelevant and immaterial argument is one that is a poor argument based on information that while tetchily correct has no relevance to the discussion and ads no value.

I'm not sure that is an accurate interpretation of a mounting. Even so the mountings on a land raider's sponsons allow for a full 360 degree rotation.

 DJGietzen wrote:
saying an argument is incompetent is not an insult. It means the argument is based on a poor foundation.. An incompetent irrelevant and immaterial argument is one that is a poor argument based on information that while tetchily correct has no relevance to the discussion and ads no value.

That doesn't make it any less insulting when you use it that way. See Dakka's rule #1.

Even so the mountings on a land raider's sponsons allow for a full 360 degree rotation.

No, they don't, because the rest of the land raider gets in the way.

Exactly, the rest of the land raider is not the mounting! You can't point the gun at the target because of the assembly. If you did not assemble the land raider in the manor you did, the land raider's hull would not be in the way,

 DJGietzen wrote:
Exactly, the rest of the land raider is not the mounting!

No, but the design of the land raider means that the mounting can only turn through a limited arc. That's not an assembly issue. It's a design issue. The gun is only capable of turning through a limited arc.

If you did not assemble the land raider in the manor you did,...

...then you would have an incorrectly assembled land raider.

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Exactly, the rest of the land raider is not the mounting!

No, but the design of the land raider means that the mounting can only turn through a limited arc. That's not an assembly issue. It's a design issue. The gun is only capable of turning through a limited arc.

If you did not assemble the land raider in the manor you did,...

...then you would have an incorrectly assembled land raider.

The design of the land raider model has zero baring on the function of the land raider model. I am allowed to assemble it any way I want. I do not need to have assembled the land raider correctly to have met the requirements to assume weapons range of motion is different than what was literally possible. I have explained why I have this opinion several times based on what is written in the book. If you feel the design has any baring at all on the rules please point me to a single line in the rule book that supports this opinion. I understand this opinion makes sense. In the real world two surfaces can not move through one another. The games rules do not reflect the real world and on multiple occasions simulate the impossible.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The design of the land raider model has zero baring on the function of the land raider model.

In a game where the fire arc of the weapons is defined by how far they can turn on the model, this is blatantly false.

I am allowed to assemble it any way I want.

Really? Please quote the relevant rule that allows this.

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The design of the land raider model has zero baring on the function of the land raider model.

In a game where the fire arc of the weapons is defined by how far they can turn on the model, this is blatantly false.

The fire arc of the weapon is not defined by how far they can turn on the model, that is what the last two pages have been about. If you can't literally point the weapon at the model you get to assume you can. You only need to check for line of sight from the assume weapon position.

I have permsion to use my models in the game. This permison is not restricted to properly assembled models. You might assume that is implied but then you would be inserting your own bias into the rules. With out a restriction on the models I can use this permission allows me to use models that are assembled any way I want. The only reference to the instructions is on page 313. It reminds you that you should try and keep your moving parts moving when you assemble. The numerous references to model customization through out the books and the understanding that if the assembly of your model inhibits the gun movement you assume the gun can move anyway means the model should be assembled according o the instructions, but does not need to be.

How do you determine the proper weapon motion on a model that has no official model? With my understanding of the rules this is not an issue, with yours it is a big one.

 DJGietzen wrote:
. If you can't literally point the weapon at the model you get to assume you can.

And what people have been pointing out for the last 2 pages is that this is not what the rules mean.

What they are saying is that if you can not move the weapon, due to assembly or gluing it in place, then you can pretend that it moves.

Not that you can pretend that the weapon can move through an arc that it is not actually capable of.

I have permsion to use my models in the game. This permison is not restricted to properly assembled models.

That one isn't really a debate for this thread, because it descends into silliness very quickly, but essentially the game is designed to function with 'Citadel Models'. The common argument against 'creative' modelling to give yourself some sort of advantage over a base model is that once you assemble the model in a way other than how the instructions tell you to do it, it's no longer the correct Citadel Model to represent that model.

It's a shaky argument that a lot of people just find too silly for words though, and it's more common for people to just point out that deliberately modelling for advantage is a great way of not having people want to play with you.

How do you determine the proper weapon motion on a model that has no official model? With my understanding of the rules this is not an issue, with yours it is a big one.

Strictly by the rules, you wouldn't be able to use a unit that has no official model, as there is no Citadel Model to represent it.

In actual practice, it goes by however you have built your stand-in model... provided your opponent doesn't object to what you have come up with and refuses to let you use it.

What evidence do you have that we are not suppose to assume a weapon can rotate on its mounting free of restriction if the assembly of the model prevents us from pointing the vehicle's weapon at the target?

So you have to assume a mounting always allows totally free movement?

Even when that is demonstrably false?

 Order Knight wrote:
They're side sponsons, so their firing arc should be 180degree.

Just because a side sponson can potentially fire 180, not every one can do so. One is limited by the actual limitations of their model. Turn the sponsons on your crusader, this determines their firing arc.

 DJGietzen wrote:
I have permsion to use my models in the game. This permison is not restricted to properly assembled models. You might assume that is implied but then you would be inserting your own bias into the rules. With out a restriction on the models I can use this permission allows me to use models that are assembled any way I want. The only reference to the instructions is on page 313. It reminds you that you should try and keep your moving parts moving when you assemble. The numerous references to model customization through out the books and the understanding that if the assembly of your model inhibits the gun movement you assume the gun can move anyway means the model should be assembled according o the instructions, but does not need to be.

"Permission". You have "permission".

So, how do you feel about this:



I mean, those're war walkers, right? It has got all the bits assembled. They're just not assembled like in the manual, right? Right?

How about this one?


You sound like a walking talking apology for modeling for advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you have to assume a mounting always allows totally free movement?

Even when that is demonstrably false?

What is the foundation of this claim that it is demonstrably false? Assume the gun can rotate means just that, it can rotate. No limitation is placed on how far we should assume it can rotate. No mentioned of the intended or physical range . Inserting these limitations on your own is what I have an issue with. The additional instructions on how to determine if we have line of sight prevent us from always being able to always fire even though we can always point the gun at the target.

augustus5 wrote:

 Order Knight wrote:
They're side sponsons, so their firing arc should be 180degree.

Just because a side sponson can potentially fire 180, not every one can do so. One is limited by the actual limitations of their model. Turn the sponsons on your crusader, this determines their firing arc.

I don't think it does. The firing arc, in my opinion is 180-190 degrees on a land raider's side sponsons becouse the sponsons do not block line of sight like they do on a leman russ.

daedalus wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I have permsion to use my models in the game. This permison is not restricted to properly assembled models. You might assume that is implied but then you would be inserting your own bias into the rules. With out a restriction on the models I can use this permission allows me to use models that are assembled any way I want. The only reference to the instructions is on page 313. It reminds you that you should try and keep your moving parts moving when you assemble. The numerous references to model customization through out the books and the understanding that if the assembly of your model inhibits the gun movement you assume the gun can move anyway means the model should be assembled according o the instructions, but does not need to be.

"Permission". You have "permission".

So, how do you feel about this:



I mean, those're war walkers, right? It has got all the bits assembled. They're just not assembled like in the manual, right? Right?

How about this one?


You sound like a walking talking apology for modeling for advantage.

I am discussing the rules, not how I would play. If I felt my opponent was blatantly modeling for advantage he would not be welcome at a table with me. Please refrain from personal attacks, its not polite.

I apologize for being snide.

To throw your argument to the extreme, would you say that, were I to mount my sponsons directly atop the land raider, and on a vertical axis, they should be able to fire in 360 degrees?

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't think it does. The firing arc, in my opinion is 180-190 degrees on a land raider's side sponsons becouse the sponsons do not block line of sight like they do on a leman russ.

The sponsons on a russ don't block line of sight, it stops it rotating.
If we assume free movement like you are suggesting, the russ sponsons could easily target something behind the tanks. The barrel would be well clear of the sponson.
The diagrams show this isn't the case.

 DJGietzen wrote:
What evidence do you have that we are not suppose to assume a weapon can rotate on its mounting free of restriction if the assembly of the model prevents us from pointing the vehicle's weapon at the target?

You are supposed to assume that a weapon can rotate freely on its mounting if the assembly of the model prevents us from pointing the weapon at the chosen target.

What people are telling you is that this doesn't allow you to point the weapon somewhere it is not capable of actually going. It's just an allowance to assume that weapons that don't turn as intended should be assumed to be able to turn.

Turning freely on its mounting does not allow a weapon to rotate through the vehicle's own hull.

daedalus wrote:I apologize for being snide.

To throw your argument to the extreme, would you say that, were I to mount my sponsons directly atop the land raider, and on a vertical axis, they should be able to fire in 360 degrees?

Are you suggesting we rotate the sponson and h-bolter 90 degrees and mount it on the roof?

grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't think it does. The firing arc, in my opinion is 180-190 degrees on a land raider's side sponsons becouse the sponsons do not block line of sight like they do on a leman russ.

The sponsons on a russ don't block line of sight, it stops it rotating.
If we assume free movement like you are suggesting, the russ sponsons could easily target something behind the tanks. The barrel would be well clear of the sponson.
The diagrams show this isn't the case.

No, you check line of sight from the mounting point down the barrel of the gun to the target. Although the tip of the barrel would be outside the sponson the line of sight would still be blocked by the sponson. I believe this is exactly what the picture shows us.

insaniak wrote:

What people are telling you is that this doesn't allow you to point the weapon somewhere it is not capable of actually going. It's just an allowance to assume that weapons that don't turn as intended should be assumed to be able to turn.

That is the whole point of the rule. To let you point the weapon somewhere is not capable of actually going. This assumption that the rule is limited to models that don't move as designed/intended is a fallacy. Its only limited to models who can't literally point their guns at the target because of assembly or being glued in place. The rule allows you to assume the weapon can be pointed at the target and gives no restriction to this allowance.

No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you can try to play the game how you like. However if the moel is clearly unable to pivot, no matter how freely you let it rotate, because of the model getting in the way all by itself, noone I know will actually let you play it your way.

I imagine that is also the prevailing opinion - it certainly is this thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you can try to play the game how you like. However if the moel is clearly unable to pivot, no matter how freely you let it rotate, because of the model getting in the way all by itself, noone I know will actually let you play it your way.

I imagine that is also the prevailing opinion - it certainly is this thread.

I have not been proven wrong. All you have done is repeat the same thing over and over. I say the gun can rotate 360 degrees.You say it can only rotate 90 degrees because the model physically prevents any more. I ask you to document where in the rules the physical restrictions of the model are mentioned as a limit to the imaginary rotation. You say it can only rotate 90 degrees because the model physically prevents any more.

I have explained why I think the rules mean one thing. You have explained why your opinion is different, but have not supported your opinion with rules.

The poll for this thread shows most players disagree with you. They may not agree with my reasoning but they would let me play it my way.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The poll for this thread shows most players disagree with you. They may not agree with my reasoning but they would let me play it my way.

Although it has to be wondered just how many of those would change their vote once you show them the actual model and demonstrate the actual arc the the weapon can move in, because I would strongly suspect that a number of those votes are from people who just assumed that the Crusader's sponsons would have the same range of movement as the other Land Raider variants.

K... here it is. Land Raider Crusader, about as much of a top-down view as I could find in 3 minutes.



Red triangles are the firing arcs of your sponson-mounted weapons. Shaded blue areas are the areas the bolters cover.

Notice that neither sponson can fire through the tank its attached to. Why? Because it's not fething designed that way. Neither the model nor the vehicle in-universe is designed to shoot through itself.

Your triangles are flawed. That shield clearly limits the traverse.

ok guys here is my model and that is the mximum angle that the side sponsors can achieve..

seems like 75 degree arc to me

Mine are limited too, and I definitely put it together right.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Your triangles are flawed. That shield clearly limits the traverse.

Might indeed be the case. I, literally, spent forty-five seconds in MS Paint making that image. The sponsons may not be able to point directly behind the tank. Which even further indicates that the sponson-mounted weapons do *not* have a 360-degree field of fire... or even half that.

Or a quarter... Which would be closer to the actual amount.