Lots of people are arguing that it has only a 45 degree firing arc because they claim the weapons are hull mounted however.

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. 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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.


It's pretty clear to me that the mounting for the Obelisk allows a greater degree of firing arc and it is not restricted to the 45 degree arc that "rarely" happens.

I'm pretty sure the underlined is referring to a gun that is suppose to move but can't (like a predator's sponson that was glued in place)

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

And if I assume that the gun is "... free to rotate or swivel..." on a mounting that doesn't permit the gun to rotate or swivel beyond the range that the mounting would normally allow.

Yeah to me the only special circumstance would be if the weapon says " hull mounted" and the physical model was like that of a Leman Russ.

If you actually look at what it says " Tesla Spheres" and the physical model you can obviously see how it was intended to work. I mean it's hard to interpret it any other way than that gun is suppose to move around in that socket, but because that would be a incredible difficult thing to design ( ball and socket) then they left it like that.

We already finished discussing this. The model clearly has an up-down track on the sphere that would prevent movement to the left or right, even if it wasn't molded onto the model. It's Hull-mounted.

Yah once you look at the model physically you will see all the detail that makes tye guns very obiviously hull mounted and not turrets.

Tesla spheres are at Obelisk's hull corners. Shooting arc is 270 degree.

 Xyxel wrote:
Tesla spheres are at Obelisk's hull corners. Shooting arc is 270 degree.

The shooting doesn't come from the spheres it comes from the nozzle on the sphere which is locked from going horizontally. so it should only have 45 degrees

Strange, in my codex it is written "Tesla spheres". Does your codex say "shooting comes from nozzles" ?
Why do you assume those element are nozzles? For me those are elements that hold spheres in place. You can see a metal belt holding spheres in sockets.

 Xyxel wrote:
Strange, in my codex it is written "Tesla spheres". Does your codex say "shooting comes from nozzles" ?
Why do you assume those element are nozzles? For me those are elements that hold spheres in place. You can see a metal belt holding spheres in sockets.

That's clearly a barrel, it even has the same barrel tip as the Tesla Carbine, Tesla Cannon, and Tesla Destructor. And those all shoot out of barrels.

Plus they are not even true spheres. They are concave. Should be call tesla domes.

omg, where is the nozzle?!

So? The Obelisk has actual barrels on the Tesla Sphere that determine its arc.

 Xyxel wrote:
omg, where is the nozzle?!

Yup that picture sure is relevant....

That "barrier " that people keep talking about is obviously meant to slide to the side. Look at it.

Someone needs to post pictures.

I did, in the previous thread. Here it is again:



If you look closely, you can see the "track" that the barrel is locked into.

Yeah that's not what I'm saying I mean actual pictures close up of the thing, I don't own one.

It's clear in that picture the nozzle is locked in the vertical track. If you can't see it from there having the model isn't going to help you.

I own it. It goes up and goes down. It does not go side to side at all. No way no how. Its not even remotely designed to move side to side.

It projects a 45 degree cone from each barrel, you would struggle to get more then one of those trained on a single target.



The model even has the weapons molded into it, so it is fairly clear that it is a hull mounting.

I'd figure I'd copy/paste this since as far as I can tell this issue is settled.

Since they can only pivot up to 45 degrees vertical and horizontal here are some measurements to fire at a model height/degree wise.


Just measured the distance between two of the tesla spheres. They are 3.75 inches apart, 9.525 centimeters to those across the pond. With a height of 9 inches, 22.86 centimeters, to where the guns are (their midpoint).

They also have a 67.5 degree blindspot that's 9 inches tall. If my trig math is correct I am getting a length of 21.74 inches before a target is in LOS from the obelisk but that is if the target is paper thin on the floor so the taller a target is the closer you can shoot it from.

Marine standing at 1.5 inches = 18.11 inch range to hit from (46 centimeters)
models that are 2 inches tall like st celestine = 16.91 inches to hit (42.95 centimeters)
Rhino (I used my sob immolator so this might be off) 3 inches = 14.49 inches (36.80)
Dreadnaught at 4 inch height(don't know if this is right just googled) = 12.07 inches (30.66 centimeters)
RIptide at 6.5 inches = 6 inches away (15.24 centimeters)


I hope someone can tell me my math is wrong in this case and is really much closer than what I have came up with, been forever since I've done trig.

Would you be able to take the Monolith's weapons as a precedent for this model? the monoliths spheres look very similar and move in both directions?

bodazoka wrote:
Would you be able to take the Monolith's weapons as a precedent for this model? the monoliths spheres look very similar and move in both directions?

Different model (from a decade ago) and a different gun so no the monolith can't be used as a precedent .

This whole thread has been trying to decide if the obelisk's tesla spheres can move horizontally and the general consensus is no it can not.

No. You don't need a precedent. You look at the actual physical model.

Spheres make its a ball and socket affair. Not a hull mount.

 CrownAxe wrote:
... and the general consensus is no it can not.

And I guess Sir that You represent that "general consesnus" right? There is no other and "they" are right. lol
How model shoots is obvious. 270 degree. And hull is limiting line of sight for shooting from spheres.
If there are some people who want to play it as motionless nozzles (because Necrons have primitve technology yes?) then why not.
Just don't write bs about some consensus. "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Did you not read the thread at all? Tesla Spheres have a nozzle exactly like the rest of the tesla weapons so you draw LoS from that and not the entire sphere. Then that nozzle is locked on a vertical rail preventing the nozzle from turning left or right so its locked in place meaning it only has 45 degree LoS by RAW.

 Xyxel wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
... and the general consensus is no it can not.

And I guess Sir that You represent that "general consesnus" right? There is no other and "they" are right. lol
How model shoots is obvious. 270 degree. And hull is limiting line of sight for shooting from spheres.
If there are some people who want to play it as motionless nozzles (because Necrons have primitve technology yes?) then why not.
Just don't write bs about some consensus. "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Guy! You measure LOS from the barrel. I want you right now to go get a Obelisk and just atempt to traverse that gun left or right. Just go ahead and give it a shot.

Its not ball and socket. It does not move at all left or right. It is mounted to the hull completely. There is no arguement or ground you can stand on with this. Its ridiculous that you are trying to argue that its a turret.

The guns barrerl is mounted on an up/down traverse track only because it is hull mounted. Show me a vehicle weapon that is unable to move right or left and is a turret.

Fragile wrote:Spheres make its a ball and socket affair. Not a hull mount.

Xyxel wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
... and the general consensus is no it can not.

And I guess Sir that You represent that "general consesnus" right? There is no other and "they" are right. lol
How model shoots is obvious. 270 degree. And hull is limiting line of sight for shooting from spheres.
If there are some people who want to play it as motionless nozzles (because Necrons have primitve technology yes?) then why not.
Just don't write bs about some consensus. "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

As in the image below, the gun is mounted on a rail that is guided by an upper and lower mounting. It only traverses up and down.

I agree. The model is clearly designed such that the weapon can track vertically, but not horizontally. The effect is that you none of the four firing arcs overlap. You can only ever hit one target with one of these weapons.

FWIWI always thought of the sphere to just rotate clockwise/counter-clockwise with the track to move it sideways but there is no support for that model wise

Until GW FAQs it to a turret like they briefly did to the Helturkey it will be forever hull mounted.

Side not as the only personally I've personally met to own one I find it hilarious that people that have never seen them are arguing about it.

Really just another example of GW's ability to create a good looking model, but doing a horrible job engineering it for actual gameplay because they want to make their models with as few parts as possible to save money.
For all we know, GW's intent was for it to be 360 degrees since they called it a sphere, but GW's poor model design does not support that.

It really doesn't at all man. Not even in potential intent. The backside of the "spheres" is concave with details to emphasis the fact that its concave. The inside of the obelisk is very intricately detailed. It was never even concieved as a ball and socket. What it is, is poorly named. Or people are rather hung up on the sphere part in lieu of what their eyes are actually showing them.

Its better to see it as it is. A dome that generates energy that is focused through a 180° up and down rail mounted traverse aka hull mounted weapon.

I think the purpose is that the Obelisk deep strikes into the center of an army, or moves there, and can hit everything because of the way its weapons are mounted. Not to rotate the spheres accordingly, the weapons fire diagonally and are hull mounted.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
It really doesn't at all man. Not even in potential intent. The backside of the "spheres" is concave with details to emphasis the fact that its concave. The inside of the obelisk is very intricately detailed. It was never even concieved as a ball and socket. What it is, is poorly named. Or people are rather hung up on the sphere part in lieu of what their eyes are actually showing them.

You do realize that you're actually proving my point? The Obelisk has no interior (the Tesseract Vault does), it is an enclosed model. As I said, GW is trying to save as much money as they can by using as few parts/sprues as they can, hence the extensive shortcuts they took to design it as a dual kit, rather than make two separate, fully capable and properly engineered kits. GW does an exceptionally poor job of engineering their kits for actual gameplay. If GW did a better job with model design (or at least wrote the rules better), these problems with LoS arcs for almost every vehicle in the game would never be an issue.

 Kriswall wrote:
I agree. The model is clearly designed such that the weapon can track vertically, but not horizontally. The effect is that you none of the four firing arcs overlap. You can only ever hit one target with one of these weapons.

In case this side ever needed more support:

I have also played against this model and they only move vertically. Which means you can point them down with almost no blind spot. But still no Horizontal movement...

 BlackTalos wrote:
Which means you can point them down with almost no blind spot. But still no Horizontal movement...

Not wanting to start anything but are there any rules to support a hull mounted weapon able to fire with a full arc one way but not another? I'm curious if there is precedence for this.

Fragile wrote:
Spheres make its a ball and socket affair. Not a hull mount.

Um no, spheres make them curved. If they were meant to be ball and socket then they would have made them as such.

Oberron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Which means you can point them down with almost no blind spot. But still no Horizontal movement...

Not wanting to start anything but are there any rules to support a hull mounted weapon able to fire with a full arc one way but not another? I'm curious if there is precedence for this.

The rules about being able to shoot what you can point the weapon at.

Unless the guy i played had modded his Obelisk and these don't actually swivel up and down?

 BlackTalos wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Which means you can point them down with almost no blind spot. But still no Horizontal movement...

Not wanting to start anything but are there any rules to support a hull mounted weapon able to fire with a full arc one way but not another? I'm curious if there is precedence for this.

The rules about being able to shoot what you can point the weapon at.

Unless the guy i played had modded his Obelisk and these don't actually swivel up and down?

No parts of the obelisk guns move.

the only part that actually matters is if it is classified as hull mounted in it's unit entry.

if they are not then you can assume that they can actually rotate due to the description of sphere and the note that they appear to be a ball and socket joint.

as an example, a glued in place predator side sponson cannot rotate anywhere, that does not mean it cannot rotate in the rules.

the vertical axis track can be explained as a place holder for the turret mouth, this wouldn't prevent the actual sphere from rotating the that track to another point.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the only part that actually matters is if it is classified as hull mounted in it's unit entry.

if they are not then you can assume that they can actually rotate due to the description of sphere and the note that they appear to be a ball and socket joint.

as an example, a glued in place predator side sponson cannot rotate anywhere, that does not mean it cannot rotate in the rules.

the vertical axis track can be explained as a place holder for the turret mouth, this wouldn't prevent the actual sphere from rotating the that track to another point.

If you look at the picture I linked on the previous page, you'll notice the barrel is on the vertical axis track, which is prevented from moving left and right by the guides at the top and bottom. The guides cover the track completely on all sides, only letting it move straight up and down.

I have seen the model, I also have the apocalypse book in front of me.

and in both instances, that 'track' doesn't leave the orb surface, therefore it is akin to a halo around an spherical surface.

because the orb is a spherical surface and a halo ring is not attached to anything, it is safe to assume that the halo ring can indeed move around freely over the surface of the sphere.

in order to claim that the weapon can only fire like a hull mounted weapon, those orbs would need to be clearly identified in the unit entry in the book as hull mounts. they are not.

therefore you cannot stipulate that they do not have a horizontal axis on the basis of a 'track' that isn't fixed (as far as we know).

 nutty_nutter wrote:
I have seen the model, I also have the apocalypse book in front of me.

and in both instances, that 'track' doesn't leave the orb surface, therefore it is akin to a halo around an spherical surface.

because the orb is a spherical surface and a halo ring is not attached to anything, it is safe to assume that the halo ring can indeed move around freely over the surface of the sphere.

in order to claim that the weapon can only fire like a hull mounted weapon, those orbs would need to be clearly identified in the unit entry in the book as hull mounts. they are not.

therefore you cannot stipulate that they do not have a horizontal axis on the basis of a 'track' that isn't fixed (as far as we know).

If you look closely, the halo ring is prevented from moving left or right by the mounting. With the barrel on the halo it can only move up or down.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Which means you can point them down with almost no blind spot. But still no Horizontal movement...

Not wanting to start anything but are there any rules to support a hull mounted weapon able to fire with a full arc one way but not another? I'm curious if there is precedence for this.

The rules about being able to shoot what you can point the weapon at.

Unless the guy i played had modded his Obelisk and these don't actually swivel up and down?

It doesn't matter if they swivel up and down. The rules for pointing the weapon at its target apply to horizontal traverse. Vertically, all weapons are defined by the rules as having a 45 degree arc.

That's actually not true. Not all weapons are defined by the rules as having a 45 degree arc, just in the rare instance, which I'll point out they make it very clear that this is a rare instance where they are stated to be hull mounted or you physically cannot see how the gun would move.

It's clear to me that they have a basically large cone of light similar to a Flashlight arc.

Yeah so actually look at these it's clear that the "track" you say keeps it in place is meant to move to the side, it's even got little locking grooves on the other mounts.

Basically that thing swings to the left and the right and stops. It doesn't just move the gun up and down.

If the track moves to the left and the right, why didn't they just mount the barrel directly to the sphere/dome?

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the only part that actually matters is if it is classified as hull mounted in it's unit entry.

if they are not then you can assume that they can actually rotate due to the description of sphere and the note that they appear to be a ball and socket joint.

as an example, a glued in place predator side sponson cannot rotate anywhere, that does not mean it cannot rotate in the rules.

the vertical axis track can be explained as a place holder for the turret mouth, this wouldn't prevent the actual sphere from rotating the that track to another point.

Huh so my doomsday cannon is a turret because it isn't written as hull mounted, or gauss flayer arrays, or any tesla destructors?

The ball could move where ever it wanted to...still doesn't change that the barrel is locked up and down.

Here are some pics from mine.

Is it, though? There's nothing saying that rail can't be oscillated left or right. I mean, it is on a ball, after all.

In regards to the "doesn't say hull mounted in unit entry" argument, what do the rules say in regards to this?
It might normally be a good case to make, but if none of the other necron vehicle weapons say "hull mounted" for their weapons, it's not exactly a reliable claim...

Regardless, god, this codex is a mess, as far as rule clarity goes.

I for one can not find a weapon declared in its rules to be hull mounted so I must now assume that all vehicle weapons are in fact turrets.

In all seriousness turret, sponson and hull mounted are not themselves actually rules but descriptions of weapon mounting styles.

The rules say:

"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 blocked by intervening terrain or models"
The tesla sphere can not be moved so it can not be pointed at a target. The mounting is fixed in place and the barrel are fixed in place.

"...On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."
The T.Sphere is not assembled. It is phyiscally part of the model. As if it were mounted to the hull. The model has no original movement like gluing a turret in place so assembly was not the cause of its immobility.

"...Additionally, assume all hull mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45°."
There is the touchy feelly I think it could move therefore it should rule. T.Spheres are physically, wholly, permanently and originally mounted to the hull of the Obelisk. So because of that were are allowed to assume it has 45° left right movement.

This isn't rocket surgery here. Unless Geedubs steps in we have to follow the rules.

 skoffs wrote:
Is it, though? There's nothing saying that rail can't be oscillated left or right. I mean, it is on a ball, after all.

Going by the pictures in the post directly above yours, the ball is actually inside an exterior cage. Even if the ball can rotate, the rail that the nozzle is on is quite clearly fixed in place above and below the ball.

It says it can move on it's mountings. That to me looks like it can spin IE that bar would be lateral or could be moved laterally.

Ooooooh!
I see what you mean now!
The rail doesn't osollate, the ball/sphere/dome/whathaveyou doesn't move, it's the outside circle that the rail is connected to that rotates AROUND the sphere!
(eg. when shooting up, the circle rotates so the rail runs vertically. When shooting to the left or right, the circle rotates so the rail runs horizontally. It can be assumed that diagonals are also possible, depending on the position of the target)
That's... not a bad reasoning.

Its not a circle though. Look at the pictures I posted. Those are not warped its actually shaped that way. The sphere and rails sit in the middle of a concave oval. It wouldn't spin with that shape. Its kind of like a oval slash wedge shape.

Hollismason wrote:
It says it can move on it's mountings. That to me looks like it can spin IE that bar would be lateral or could be moved laterally.

If you mean the entire cage moves-

When the cage moves horizontally, the upper and lower mountings will catch on the wall of the obelisk, and if you move the entire cage vertically the left and right mountings will catch as well.

The barrel is mounted on a rail- why don't we assume that rail moves up and down? If the barrel was intended to move 360 degrees, it would be mounted on the ball. That seems to me to be the most sensible thing.

Okay, Google.

Why are we assuming that the rail moves at all when the physical model doesn't? Fluff wise I see it as the rail is on the ball and the ball spins and the rail then connects to the sides but how we think it moves and what it can physically do are two different things.

Well, the tracks on a rhino don't move either, but we assume they would move the model forward if they did.

Looking at the pictures, the rail is modeled inside the mounting. The mounting covers the sides of the rail. It can't slide to the left or right, or the mounting would have to move with it, which it can't or it would be caught on the sides. Nothing obstructs the rail from sliding up or down within the mountings at the top or bottom.

Yeah that's my point it looks like it swings side to side not just up and down, there's even little "stoppers" on the right and left of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
It says it can move on it's mountings. That to me looks like it can spin IE that bar would be lateral or could be moved laterally.

If you mean the entire cage moves-

When the cage moves horizontally, the upper and lower mountings will catch on the wall of the obelisk, and if you move the entire cage vertically the left and right mountings will catch as well.

The barrel is mounted on a rail- why don't we assume that rail moves up and down? If the barrel was intended to move 360 degrees, it would be mounted on the ball. That seems to me to be the most sensible thing.

Not really, look at the pick, if it moves vertically and then horizontally then that would cover the entire surface of that ball.

Ugh, this is really hard to explain with out closer pictures.

Ask and I can provide pictures from any angle.

Of course they will still get willfully ignored to forge the narrative.

Honestly just some front views would be great so I can draw a picture on it to show what I mean.

Well i did a page back. But I can do some more.

I mean just a front view straight on or like a weird side view. I can probably do it with one of those hold on.

Here, I cropped BrotherGecko's picture.

The rail can't move out from under the mounting, and the mounting appears to me to be too big to move left or right.

Like so..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Everything Bronze Rotates Clockwise or Counter Clock Wise. If it for example using the bar as hands on a clock were now at 12 and 6 , then if it rotated it would be horizontal at 3 and 9.

Do you not see that the the corner of the obelisk cutting into the gun? That makes it impossible to rotate the gun.

The problem with that is, the upper and lower mountings are not lined up with the left and right mountings. The upper and lower stick out farther than the sides.

Hollismason wrote:


Like so..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Everything Bronze Rotates Clockwise or Counter Clock Wise. If it for example using the bar as hands on a clock were now at 12 and 6 , then if it rotated it would be horizontal at 3 and 9.

Its hard to see with my pictures but that ring isn't a circle. Its a wedge and oviod. It wouldn't spin.

A few more pics I guess.

It still to me looks like it can spin?

Hollismason wrote:
It still to me looks like it can spin?

How? The top and bottom "tabs" are locked in place around the corner. The track is locked in place by the top and bottom "tabs". It looks as though the track would be able to move vertically, but the track cannot rotate around the "ball".

Hollismason wrote:
It still to me looks like it can spin?

Unfortunately there are no rules for what it looks like it could do. Only what it does or used to do before alteration.

As someone who spent the $160 on the darn thing I would like it to be just that slightly better. But it isn't (unless FAQ'd), as of right now I implore you to not purchase an Obelisk under the pretext that the spheres are turrets. Not many people will give you the benefit of the doubt as they can't and never could move.

Hollismason wrote:
It still to me looks like it can spin?

If you look at the pictures, you can see the corner of the obelisk cuts into one of the mounts. It's hard to tell without it in front of you, but the "bowl" isn't a perfect circle. To rotate it would have to be a more spherical bowl, but as it is it's a weird oval shape that's also bent in the middle. It doesn't have a good...bracket?... to rotate in. The bowl is oval shaped and angled.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Well, the tracks on a rhino don't move either, but we assume they would move the model forward if they did.

That is a strawman argument. The rules for movement aren't based on if the physical model's tracks or legs or w/e can physically move or not. Shooting from a vehicle is dependent on it's profile saying what it is, or (paraphrasing here) when assembled correctly can move. The obelisk when assembled per it's instructions can not move.

Oberron wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Well, the tracks on a rhino don't move either, but we assume they would move the model forward if they did.

That is a strawman argument. The rules for movement aren't based on if the physical model's tracks or legs or w/e can physically move or not. Shooting from a vehicle is dependent on it's profile saying what it is, or (paraphrasing here) when assembled correctly can move. The obelisk when assembled per it's instructions can not move.

Okay, so what are you assuming the firing arc of the Obelisk is? Is it treated as hull-mounted or a turret, and why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also as the image above shows, the barrels appear to be in different positions along the rail, even though the model itself cannot move. Much like rhino tracks, we can assume it would move.

We do assume it moves 45° left/right and 45° up/down as per the rules for Hull Mounted in the BRB.

Furthermore all barrels are in the same position. There are little tick marks under the barrels on the rail. All the same ones are visible.But the barrel can be glued at different angles if you so choosed to. That being said the barrels are designed to be glued in the same spot as there is a groove it fits into.

Much like a Rhino tracks there are zero rules governing tracks on a Rhino. Much like vehicle weapons there are rules. Which strictly depend on the weapons original mobility.

Since Tesla is like lightning and it does not have to follow the path of the barrel I always use it as, if the barrel can see the target then it can hit the target.

 Wolfedi wrote:
Since Tesla is like lightning and it does not have to follow the path of the barrel I always use it as, if the barrel can see the target then it can hit the target.

There is absolutely 0 rules support for this.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Wolfedi wrote:
Since Tesla is like lightning and it does not have to follow the path of the barrel I always use it as, if the barrel can see the target then it can hit the target.

There is absolutely 0 rules support for this.

I actually think there might be -1 rules to support that.

How far off the ground is the Obelisk on it's Flying Stand, isn't that the base it comes with?

If someone could give me that data there's something slighting amusing about this argument.

I need a picture of the Oblesik perfect sideview on it's flying stand if anyone has that edit Got one.

Where do you measure the 45 degrees from the whole gun or the tip of the gun? Or the surface of the orb?

I'll post a picture soon.

MATH!!!




Yeah, so if the height of the gun is 12" off the ground it should at a 45 degree angle intersect at 24 inches, that seems right of course I have not done a line graft in 25 years. Now that's from the tip of the gun and not allowing it to traverse or move at all. So yeah if it's not allowed to move and you consider it "hull mounted" even though there is no support for that at all, the thing's functionally useless I think.

And what if the barrel can rotate on the rail down?

I believe that math was already done either at beginning of this thread, or in the Dark Eldar tactics thread, but the blind spot was about 9" for a basic infantry model, 6"? For a rhino, and then various stuff for anything over that.

I don't want to draw more graphs but yeah if it rotates up and down on the curve then it would have a different angle. Straight up like it is though is gives it this ridiculous blind spot.

It's going to definitively have a blind spot for the weapons as of course the weapons can not shoot through the thing itself.

Yeah, even the barrel was directly attached to the sphere and free to rotate it would still have huge blind spots.

There is no evidence of it being a turret mind you.

Nobody is arguing that it is a well designed model. It by fluff is an enormous AA platform so by that its guns are pointed in the right direction/elevation. Unfortunately it doesn't have skyfire for some unfathomable reason.

As far as model assembly goes the barrel can be mounted at any point on that rail. So it would be reasonable to believe it can track up and down. Or you just glue them all pointing down and problem solved.

Either way...dumb yes...but still not a turret*.

*unless GW FAQs it. Which I would gladly accept because my T. Vault is in the same boat.

Hollismason wrote:
How far off the ground is the Obelisk on it's Flying Stand, isn't that the base it comes with?

If someone could give me that data there's something slighting amusing about this argument.

I need a picture of the Oblesik perfect sideview on it's flying stand if anyone has that edit Got one.

Where do you measure the 45 degrees from the whole gun or the tip of the gun? Or the surface of the orb?

I'll post a picture soon.

MATH!!!




Yeah, so if the height of the gun is 12" off the ground it should at a 45 degree angle intersect at 24 inches, that seems right of course I have not done a line graft in 25 years. Now that's from the tip of the gun and not allowing it to traverse or move at all. So yeah if it's not allowed to move and you consider it "hull mounted" even though there is no support for that at all, the thing's functionally useless I think.

Copy/paste from another thread. here is my math. This is assuming hull mounted (which IMO has the only RAW support)

Just measured the distance between two of the tesla spheres. They are 3.75 inches apart, 9.525 centimeters to those across the pond. With a height of 9 inches, 22.86 centimeters, to where the guns are (their midpoint).

They also have a 67.5 degree blindspot that's 9 inches tall. If my trig math is correct I am getting a length of 21.74 inches before a target is in LOS from the obelisk but that is if the target is paper thin on the floor so the taller a target is the closer you can shoot it from.
Height of model----------------Range
Marine at 1.5 inches = 18.11 inch range to hit from (46 centimeters)
models that are 2 inches like st celestine = 16.91 inches to hit (42.95 centimeters)
Rhino (I used my sob immolator) 3 inches = 14.49 inches (36.80)
Dreadnaught at 4 inch height(don't know if this is right just googled) = 12.07 inches (30.66 centimeters)
RIptide at 6.5 inches = 6 inches away (15.24 centimeters)


I hope someone can tell me my math is wrong in this case and is really much closer than what I have came up with, been forever since I've done trig. Also unable to hit the rhino with more than one tesla on the front.

Golden rule for more than one tesla from the obelisk is at 3.75 inches wide. Three on a single target is out of the question unless the unit is a green tide in a crescent formation

Yeah it's why I think you should draw line of sight not from the gun but front the middle of the sphere, it's just functionally a terrible weapon.

It's high off the ground and people thnk it's hull mounted.

Also RAW the rules specifically state you should assume a gun can move on it's mounting even though it physically can't.

So it's BLind spot is less than people think.

RAW is for a gun that could move but can't. Read the rules don't interpret rules to favorable results. Otherwise how do we come to decide if a weapon is hull mounted or not?

Otherwise there are no hull mounted weapons in current 40k. Vindicator demolisher...turret because it doesn't say hull mounted. Doomsday cannon...turret because it doesn't say hull mounted. Any Tesla Destructors...turrets because it doesn't say hull mounted. See where that goes? How about feels like it should line of thinking? Well we know space marine flyers can't fly so we should assume they are not flyers right? Or the tracks on a Rhino are too small so we should assume they can't move right? How about space marine bikers, they could not possibly turn as designed so we should assume they can't turn right?

Even if you did measure from the sphere as a turret, it doesn't look like you gain much other than being able to shoot more than one at the same target in the weird range bands made by the blind spots.

And it still seems to me that the barrel can only move up and down(if it did move). The bracket is the wrong same to rotate in, and the rail is secured in place by the mounting. I don't believe the barrel would be stationary- it looks obvious it's on a rail.

To me it looks like the gun itself can move on the vertical railing, but can't rotate horizontally because of the oval shape of the exterior.

 pizzaguardian wrote:
To me it looks like the gun itself can move on the vertical railing, but can't rotate horizontally because of the oval shape of the exterior.

looks is one thing, physically able to is another. The tesla sphere can not physically move.

 CrownAxe wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
Would you be able to take the Monolith's weapons as a precedent for this model? the monoliths spheres look very similar and move in both directions?

Different model (from a decade ago) and a different gun so no the monolith can't be used as a precedent .

This whole thread has been trying to decide if the obelisk's tesla spheres can move horizontally and the general consensus is no it can not.

I think that the guns are intended to function in a similar way to the monolith and the reason it doesn't currently have a ball rotating around like the monolith is because GW thought this design looked cooler...

But I don't have any evidence to back this up, it just seems the most logical conclusion to me..

As another poster pointed out, the thing basically can not shoot it's weapon's at all when on the flight stand! it's blind spot is massive if you don't allow it to rotate around it's sphere.

bodazoka wrote:
As another poster pointed out, the thing basically can not shoot it's weapon's at all when on the flight stand! it's blind spot is massive if you don't allow it to rotate around it's sphere.

that's the case with a lot of flyers.

bodazoka wrote:
As another poster pointed out, the thing basically can not shoot it's weapon's at all when on the flight stand! it's blind spot is massive if you don't allow it to rotate around it's sphere.

I guess if it's not shooting at Flyers or Titans it has some huge blind spots then.

Just realized the enormous blind spot of the stormravens top turret...hahaha

I always assumed it kind of arcs off instead of needing to directly face it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Just realized the enormous blind spot of the stormravens top turret...hahaha

Not to mention the storm bolters would fire into the hull when faced forward.

 Vash108 wrote:
I always assumed it kind of arcs off instead of needing to directly face it.

You know, it never even occurred to me until I read your comment, but then I realized,
"Wait. Yeah, it's tesla weaponry. Why the hell does it matter where anything points or what it can 'see', as if tesla lightning would care about that. It's just going hit whatever it's supposed to."

[warning: enormous pic showing how electricity curves after the spoiler]

Think you're safe hiding underneath an Obelisk?
Think again.

Are there rules for that? I thought something could only be hull or turret mounted.

What are the actual rules for the weapon?

Range, strength, etc?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Are there rules for that? I thought something could only be hull or turret mounted.

Lol there are zero rules for imagination.

Tesla Spheres are bolter range S7 no AP Heavy 5 and has the tesla rule. So not really all the impressive.

We know from the rules that it's assumed to move in it's mounting at least up and down.

Basically yeah, if you have no imagination and wanna be like yeah Measure the firing arc from the tip of the gun from the phasing that you put on it which isn't RAW.

Then it has a 20" blindspot.

No one can help that GW design their models and rules this way.

The rule specifically allows for them to move up and down. It states that they can move in their mountings and from the thread we know that it can be mounted where ever on that.

Correct it can go up and down that rail because it can be assembled that way. Still has a bind spot probably. Of course there is the option of cutting down the flying stand to reduce the problem.

This really needs an faq, according to the various interpretations people have it is either amazing or almost useless. Plus the same problem applies to the Vault, but even worse because how do you shoot from the C'Tan in the middle for the powers? The C'Tan isn't designed to rotate as a turret either, and for rules purposes is just a part of the vehicle. But it has even less of something that can be considered a barrel than the Tesla Spheres.

Tekron wrote:
This really needs an faq, according to the various interpretations people have it is either amazing or almost useless. Plus the same problem applies to the Vault, but even worse because how do you shoot from the C'Tan in the middle for the powers? The C'Tan isn't designed to rotate as a turret either, and for rules purposes is just a part of the vehicle. But it has even less of something that can be considered a barrel than the Tesla Spheres.

The C'tan can easily be built to rotate, actually. My local GW has one on display and I've poked and prodded it quite a bit looking to see where the joins are for magnetising the thing.

Hollismason wrote:
The rule specifically allows for them to move up and down. It states that they can move in their mountings and from the thread we know that it can be mounted where ever on that.

I think you'll find few people who will argue it can't move up/down. It's left/right where the disagreement is, and it seems fairly obvious it can't move left or right.

Yah the C'tan in the T. Vault actually is a turret. The cage it sits in is a peg and hole system. It freely rotates.

So I decided to take a little trip up to Phoenix today. I have stopped by every Games Workshop store and posed the discussion on this forum. Three stores in Tucson, both in Sierra Vista and the two I visited in Phoenix all had the same answer.

So I asked two questions. What is the firing arch or the Obelisks Tesla weapons? and How do you determine if the Tesla Sphere can hit a model it is shooting at?

Every store had the same answer.

The weapon is a sphere and can rotate in all directions. Just because the models cannot does not mean it is not supposed to. If you can draw line of sight from the sphere to the target you can shot it.

A couple of store even added that the Tesla sphere is supposed to rotate like the monolith.


I know this will not end this debate, but when 7 out of 7 stores agree on how it works, I am sure this is how it is supposed to work. For a 300 point model to not be able to hit half the firing arc and nothing that gets to close is ridiculous. Like one of the stores pointed out, the las cannons and hurricane bolters on the Land Raider do not rotate backwards, but they are still in their firing arch. The store pulled out one of their land raiders and showed me that they do not rotate. so if we went with what the model does, a lot of model loss half if not more of their firing archs.

 Wolfedi wrote:
So I decided to take a little trip up to Phoenix today. I have stopped by every Games Workshop store and posed the discussion on this forum. Three stores in Tucson, both in Sierra Vista and the two I visited in Phoenix all had the same answer.

So I asked two questions. What is the firing arch or the Obelisks Tesla weapons? and How do you determine if the Tesla Sphere can hit a model it is shooting at?

Every store had the same answer.

The weapon is a sphere and can rotate in all directions. Just because the models cannot does not mean it is not supposed to. If you can draw line of sight from the sphere to the target you can shot it.

A couple of store even added that the Tesla sphere is supposed to rotate like the monolith.


I know this will not end this debate, but when 7 out of 7 stores agree on how it works, I am sure this is how it is supposed to work. For a 300 point model to not be able to hit half the firing arc and nothing that gets to close is ridiculous. Like one of the stores pointed out, the las cannons and hurricane bolters on the Land Raider do not rotate backwards, but they are still in their firing arch. The store pulled out one of their land raiders and showed me that they do not rotate. so if we went with what the model does, a lot of model loss half if not more of their firing archs.

 Lorek wrote:
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

Please understand rules 1 and 2 for this forum, especially Rule N*2

 Wolfedi wrote:
*snip*

That's great and all but GW employees are notoriously awful at understanding how the rules work. They aren't there to be experts at the game they are there to run a business and make money. They don't have time to study up on how all the rules works because they have a job to do (more then full time because GW store are one man operations now). When presented them with a question they have no prior knowledge or research on they are going to answer you with their first impression which since its called a Tesla Sphere it will shoot like a sphere. You can ask people who don''t even play warhammer and they'd probably answer the same way. Also I can guarantee that at least one of those seven stores answered as they did to make the Obelisk seem more favorable so you would be more likely to purchase one from them.

As for the Land Raider point exactly the gun doesn't rotate backwards so those sponson weapons don't get to shoot backwards. That's how its suppose to be. Nothing about vehicles require that all of their guns rotate 360 degrees.

 Wolfedi wrote:
The store pulled out one of their land raiders and showed me that they do not rotate. so if we went with what the model does, a lot of model loss half if not more of their firing archs.

So if we follow the rules...

Land Raiders haven't been able to fire behind them like ever.

But CrownAxe, in the rules sponson weapons can shoot behind. Page 74, picture of line of sight clearly shows the weapons shooting behind the vehicle.

 Wolfedi wrote:


But CrownAxe, in the rules sponson weapons can shoot behind. Page 74, picture of line of sight clearly shows the weapons shooting behind the vehicle.

You're trying to use the example of a specific vehicle (Predator) as a general rule. That's not the case. You would check on a model by model basis.

 Wolfedi wrote:


But CrownAxe, in the rules sponson weapons can shoot behind. Page 74, picture of line of sight clearly shows the weapons shooting behind the vehicle.

For a Predator yeah because that is what is in the example and their sponsons can spin all the way back on their model. Land Raiders aren't a predator though and their sponsons do not spin all the way back.

Sponsons don't have a general rule that they can shoot 180.

This issue seems flat out unresolvable without an FAQ.

Since I cannot prove its a hull mounted weapon and there is no FAQ and nothing breaks in the game either way, I have to accept the more generous view that its a turret.

col_impact wrote:
This issue seems flat out unresolvable without an FAQ.

Since I cannot prove its a hull mounted weapon and there is no FAQ and nothing breaks in the game either way, I have to accept the more generous view that its a turret.

That's not how that works.
"Since I cannot prove that it's a turret mounted weapon and there is no FAQ, I have to accept the more restrictive view that it's hull mounted."

 Sinful Hero wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This issue seems flat out unresolvable without an FAQ.

Since I cannot prove its a hull mounted weapon and there is no FAQ and nothing breaks in the game either way, I have to accept the more generous view that its a turret.

That's not how that works.
"Since I cannot prove that it's a turret mounted weapon and there is no FAQ, I have to accept the more restrictive view that it's hull mounted."

Nope. In order to actively apply a restriction you have to prove that you have a basis for doing so.

 Wolfedi wrote:


But CrownAxe, in the rules sponson weapons can shoot behind. Page 74, picture of line of sight clearly shows the weapons shooting behind the vehicle.

So the Leman Russ doesn't have Sponson weapons? Same page. Please explain.

As other's have stated the gun apparently moves up and down that track and you can in fact point it downward. I'd say the track moves up and down so that'd reduce it's physical blind spot to a minor range.

Other's have posted numerous photos and math has been done.

The only real distinct clear answer is that the guns do in fact move up and down but it still has this 45 degree fire arc to the sides

Which makes it I think impossible almost to fire the guns at 1 target regardless of how you face it.

col_impact wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This issue seems flat out unresolvable without an FAQ.

Since I cannot prove its a hull mounted weapon and there is no FAQ and nothing breaks in the game either way, I have to accept the more generous view that its a turret.

That's not how that works.
"Since I cannot prove that it's a turret mounted weapon and there is no FAQ, I have to accept the more restrictive view that it's hull mounted."

Nope. In order to actively apply a restriction you have to prove that you have a basis for doing so.

40k is a permissive rule set. You need permission to do something.

You failed to prove that that the Tesla Sphere is a turret weapon so you don't have permission to fire it as one.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This issue seems flat out unresolvable without an FAQ.

Since I cannot prove its a hull mounted weapon and there is no FAQ and nothing breaks in the game either way, I have to accept the more generous view that its a turret.

That's not how that works.
"Since I cannot prove that it's a turret mounted weapon and there is no FAQ, I have to accept the more restrictive view that it's hull mounted."

Nope. In order to actively apply a restriction you have to prove that you have a basis for doing so.

40k is a permissive rule set. You need permission to do something.

You failed to prove that that the Tesla Sphere is a turret weapon so you don't have permission to fire it as one.

Do you have a rules quote saying that or is that just a motto you follow?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This issue seems flat out unresolvable without an FAQ.

Since I cannot prove its a hull mounted weapon and there is no FAQ and nothing breaks in the game either way, I have to accept the more generous view that its a turret.

That's not how that works.
"Since I cannot prove that it's a turret mounted weapon and there is no FAQ, I have to accept the more restrictive view that it's hull mounted."

Nope. In order to actively apply a restriction you have to prove that you have a basis for doing so.

40k is a permissive rule set. You need permission to do something.

You failed to prove that that the Tesla Sphere is a turret weapon so you don't have permission to fire it as one.

Do you have a rules quote saying that or is that just a motto you follow?

That how games work. They have to be a permissive rule set or they don't work.

Because if it weren't I can just declare myself the winner of every game because the rules don't say I can't

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This issue seems flat out unresolvable without an FAQ.

Since I cannot prove its a hull mounted weapon and there is no FAQ and nothing breaks in the game either way, I have to accept the more generous view that its a turret.

That's not how that works.
"Since I cannot prove that it's a turret mounted weapon and there is no FAQ, I have to accept the more restrictive view that it's hull mounted."

Nope. In order to actively apply a restriction you have to prove that you have a basis for doing so.

40k is a permissive rule set. You need permission to do something.

You failed to prove that that the Tesla Sphere is a turret weapon so you don't have permission to fire it as one.

Do you have a rules quote saying that or is that just a motto you follow?

That how games work. They have to be a permissive rule set or they don't work.

Because if it weren't I can just declare myself the winner of every game because the rules don't say I can't

Still looking for a rules quote from you. Otherwise at best you are going to have a roll off.

So I can declare my self the winner then?

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

You are required to base your argument in rules.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

You are required to base your argument in rules.

I need a rules quote on that

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

Sure. Why not. Quote a rule saying otherwise (using your stance.

You are required to base your argument in rules.

And a permissive rule set is those rules. You're not allowed to do something unless a rule allows it. You made a statement that the orbs are turrets - please, using rules, prove that.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

You are required to base your argument in rules.

I need a rules quote on that

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

You are required to base your argument in rules.

I need a rules quote on that

Spoiler:

If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a
rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the
game – on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides.
Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily
continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.

None of that says I can't declare my self the winner

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

You are required to base your argument in rules.

I need a rules quote on that

Spoiler:

If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a
rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the
game – on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides.
Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily
continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.

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

Please follow the rules of Dakka and this subforum - which you agree to by posting here.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

Sure. Why not. Quote a rule saying otherwise (using your stance.

You are required to base your argument in rules.

And a permissive rule set is those rules. You're not allowed to do something unless a rule allows it. You made a statement that the orbs are turrets - please, using rules, prove that.

The rules don't say turret or hull-mounted. I fire it and the rules aren't applying any restriction. "Players should assume
that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings" and I draw LOS.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

Sure. Why not. Quote a rule saying otherwise (using your stance.

You are required to base your argument in rules.

And a permissive rule set is those rules. You're not allowed to do something unless a rule allows it. You made a statement that the orbs are turrets - please, using rules, prove that.

The rules don't say turret or hull-mounted. I fire it and the rules aren't applying any restriction. "Players should assume
that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings" and I draw LOS.

Correct. And the "mounting" is not the orb - you're inventing that fact.
The actual rules tell you to draw LoS along the barrel of the weapon... which doesn't have the ability to rotate across the entire sphere, as shown in the pictures in this thread.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

Sure. Why not. Quote a rule saying otherwise (using your stance.

You are required to base your argument in rules.

And a permissive rule set is those rules. You're not allowed to do something unless a rule allows it. You made a statement that the orbs are turrets - please, using rules, prove that.

The rules don't say turret or hull-mounted. I fire it and the rules aren't applying any restriction. "Players should assume
that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings" and I draw LOS.

Correct. And the "mounting" is not the orb - you're inventing that fact.
The actual rules tell you to draw LoS along the barrel of the weapon... which doesn't have the ability to rotate across the entire sphere, as shown in the pictures in this thread.

Prove that it isn't mounting.

col_impact wrote:
Prove that it isn't mounting.

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one claiming it is.

Yeah I mean the only thing I was going to argue was that if it could spin then it'd have that range, but it's pretty clear the mountings don't spin on it.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So I can declare my self the winner then?

What you are doing is making up rules and using an obtuse argument. Can I make up rules freely?

Sure. Why not. Quote a rule saying otherwise (using your stance.

You are required to base your argument in rules.

And a permissive rule set is those rules. You're not allowed to do something unless a rule allows it. You made a statement that the orbs are turrets - please, using rules, prove that.

The rules don't say turret or hull-mounted. I fire it and the rules aren't applying any restriction. "Players should assume
that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings" and I draw LOS.

So the cannon of the front of a vidicator can rotate 360 then?

Post a picture and point out the mounting that can be swiveled on. For the Obelisk I see an orb that can be swiveled on.

col_impact wrote:
For the Obelisk I see an orb that can be swiveled on.

The actual model disagrees with you. You're making that up.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah I mean the only thing I was going to argue was that if it could spin then it'd have that range, but it's pretty clear the mountings don't spin on it.

The mountings are modeled to look as if they could be swiveled on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
For the Obelisk I see an orb that can be swiveled on.

The actual model disagrees with you. You're making that up.

Prove that.

col_impact wrote:
Prove that it isn't mounting.

Trivial. That's not what the barrel attaches to. The barrel attaches to the structure around the orb - not the orb itself.

Ork player so no dog in this fight:

Maybe the gun-looking nozzle is just a camera, like on SM and IG vehicles and the lighting actually comes from the orb-looking device. If someone didn't glue on that uppy-downy piece, you'd just have a sphere with a line down the middle. Not saying it's an ideal compromise but I think what happened is that the Monolith functioning guns are more complicated, thus automatically more expensive, for GW to produce. They got lazy and now the consumers have to pay.

So I'd say it looks like a gun on a rail, but the name is Telsa Sphere so as long as it can't hit stuff underneath (where my BikerBoss will be attacking anyways), I'd let it have a 270 firing arc BASED on the NAME Telsa Sphere.

col_impact wrote:

Post a picture and point out the mounting that can be swiveled on. For the Obelisk I see an orb that can be swiveled on.

Its like you didn't read the thread at all. I'll repost the images you seem to have missed

Its hollow in the pack. Despite its name, its not a sphere

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Prove that it isn't mounting.

Trivial. That's not what the barrel attaches to. The barrel attaches to the structure around the orb - not the orb itself.

It looks like it attaches to the orb itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Post a picture and point out the mounting that can be swiveled on. For the Obelisk I see an orb that can be swiveled on.

Its like you didn't read the thread at all. I'll repost the images you seem to have missed

Its hollow in the pack. Despite its name, its not a sphere

Its modeled to look like a sphere.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Prove that it isn't mounting.

Trivial. That's not what the barrel attaches to. The barrel attaches to the structure around the orb - not the orb itself.

It looks like it attaches to the orb itself.

Um. Are we reading the same thread? The one with these images:


There's an obvious mounting around the sphere. It's not the sphere itself with the barrel.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Prove that it isn't mounting.

Trivial. That's not what the barrel attaches to. The barrel attaches to the structure around the orb - not the orb itself.

It looks like it attaches to the orb itself.

Um. Are we reading the same thread? The one with these images:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

There's an obvious mounting around the sphere. It's not the sphere itself with the barrel.

I see a gun that swivels around the sphere.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Prove that it isn't mounting.

Trivial. That's not what the barrel attaches to. The barrel attaches to the structure around the orb - not the orb itself.

It looks like it attaches to the orb itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Post a picture and point out the mounting that can be swiveled on. For the Obelisk I see an orb that can be swiveled on.

Its like you didn't read the thread at all. I'll repost the images you seem to have missed

Its hollow in the pack. Despite its name, its not a sphere

Its modeled to look like a sphere.

No its not the picture i posted proved it.

Its hollow, its concave in the back. Its half a dome, not a sphere.

Great! So we have you admitting the sphere is not the mounting. Agreed?

rigeld2 wrote:
Great! So we have you admitting the sphere is not the mounting. Agreed?

No the sphere moves like a track ball (if that description helps you understand how I am seeing it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Prove that it isn't mounting.

Trivial. That's not what the barrel attaches to. The barrel attaches to the structure around the orb - not the orb itself.

It looks like it attaches to the orb itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Post a picture and point out the mounting that can be swiveled on. For the Obelisk I see an orb that can be swiveled on.

Its like you didn't read the thread at all. I'll repost the images you seem to have missed

Its hollow in the pack. Despite its name, its not a sphere

Its modeled to look like a sphere.

No its not the picture i posted proved it.

Its hollow, its concave in the back. Its half a dome, not a sphere.

Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally from an unseen angle? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

They made ball-in-socket work with the Monolith and that model is much older. If it was meant to be ball-in-socket then they could have modeled it as such. Instead it only tracks up and down.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great! So we have you admitting the sphere is not the mounting. Agreed?

No the sphere moves like a track ball (if that description helps you understand how I am seeing it).

Sure. The sphere moves all it wants.

Nothing is mounted to the sphere, however.

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

Zimko wrote:
They made ball-in-socket work with the Monolith and that model is much older. If it was meant to be ball-in-socket then they could have modeled it as such. Instead it only tracks up and down.

It looks like a ball in socket. Point me in the rules to where it has to be modeled as a ball in socket and not just look like a ball in socket.

col_impact wrote:

Zimko wrote:
They made ball-in-socket work with the Monolith and that model is much older. If it was meant to be ball-in-socket then they could have modeled it as such. Instead it only tracks up and down.

It looks like a ball in socket. Point me in the rules to where it has to be modeled as a ball in socket and not just look like a ball in socket.

It was quoted here before. If the weapon can move then you use the barrel for line of sight. If it doesn't move in a horizontal or vertical direction then you assume 45 degree fire arc. The Obelisk's weapons do not move horizontally no matter how you model it.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Zimko wrote:
They made ball-in-socket work with the Monolith and that model is much older. If it was meant to be ball-in-socket then they could have modeled it as such. Instead it only tracks up and down.

It looks like a ball in socket. Point me in the rules to where it has to be modeled as a ball in socket and not just look like a ball in socket.

It was quoted here before. If the weapon can move then you use the barrel for line of sight. If it doesn't move in a horizontal or vertical direction then you assume 45 degree fire arc. The Obelisk's weapons do not move horizontally no matter how you model it.

Feel free to find and re-quote.

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. 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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

The very first post of this thread.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.

It's still exposed and thus is a factual part of the model. The inside of the tesla sphere is conclave and thus is not modeled as a sphere

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.

It's still exposed and thus is a factual part of the model. The inside of the tesla sphere is conclave and thus is not modeled as a sphere

You got rules for that statement? I see a sphere that the rules is calling a sphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. 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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

The very first post of this thread.

Explain how that rule backs what you are saying. The gun is a tesla sphere and it assumed that it can freely rotate on its mountings. In fact the only definitive rules thing we have is that the gun itself is called a "tesla sphere" so point to the thing on the model that is the "tesla sphere" and then assume it freely rotates.

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. 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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Can you swivel the barrel horizontally on the model?
No
So it tells us to assume it can swivel on it's mounting.

What is the barrel mounted on?
A single track that goes vertically.

Great so we have vertical Line of Sight covered. How about horizontally?

The track doesn't appear to move horizontally... so no matter what it's called, the physical weapon can't pivot horizontally no matter how you model it. Therefore you use 45 degree firing arc from the barrel.

Zimko wrote:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. 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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Can you swivel the barrel horizontally on the model?
No
So it tells us to assume it can swivel on it's mounting.

What is the barrel mounted on?
A single track that goes vertically.

Great so we have vertical Line of Sight covered. How about horizontally?

The track doesn't appear to move horizontally... so no matter what it's called, the physical weapon can't pivot horizontally no matter how you model it. Therefore you use 45 degree firing arc from the barrel.

The gun itself is called a Tesla Sphere. Point to the thing that is the Tesla Sphere. I am pointing to the thing that looks like a sphere. I freely rotate that in its mounting.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.

It's still exposed and thus is a factual part of the model. The inside of the tesla sphere is conclave and thus is not modeled as a sphere

You got rules for that statement? I see a sphere that the rules is calling a sphere.

It is physically not a sphere. It model is literally not a sphere. You are objectively wrong it claiming you see a sphere

I know you are rules lawyer trying to get every advantage possbile for your necron army but seriously this is ridiculous.

The thing that has a dome shape (like sphere) with a single vertical track and a barreled weapon on it.

Zimko wrote:
The thing that has a dome shape (like sphere) with a single vertical track and a barreled weapon on it.

I freely rotate the sphere per the rules. The gun is the "tesla sphere"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.

It's still exposed and thus is a factual part of the model. The inside of the tesla sphere is conclave and thus is not modeled as a sphere

You got rules for that statement? I see a sphere that the rules is calling a sphere.

It is physically not a sphere. It model is literally not a sphere. You are objectively wrong it claiming you see a sphere

I know you are rules lawyer trying to get every advantage possbile for your necron army but seriously this is ridiculous.

Its very clear on that model what thing looks like a sphere. Do you see something else that looks like a sphere?

col_impact wrote:

Zimko wrote:
The thing that has a dome shape (like sphere) with a single vertical track and a barreled weapon on it.

I freely rotate the sphere per the rules.

Can you glue the model together in such a way where the barrel is mounted on a different part of that sphere? The vertical track is stuck in place.

Zimko wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Zimko wrote:
The thing that has a dome shape (like sphere) with a single vertical track and a barreled weapon on it.

I freely rotate the sphere per the rules.

Can you glue the model together in such a way where the barrel is mounted on a different part of that sphere? The vertical track is stuck in place.

The gun is the tesla sphere. Per the rules I freely rotate that.

This is going nowhere.

If in doubt, discuss it with your opponent.