Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a picture showing my Mark II LR's true LOS and on pg 58 it says very clearly that you measure down the barrel, yet my friend that is over here is arguing that the possition is an abnormal possition, (I pointed to the fact on the opposite page that it can cover more than the 180 degrees, yet he is still saying the LR doesn't have that capability, and I am taking advantage of the markII having front mounted sponsons, rather them normally being in the back. So... is the LOS correct, or is it an "abnormal position" *cough bull cough cough*

Thanks!

Looks ok to me.

If he doesn't like it drive your landraiders backwards, and use the same angle anyhow

I don' t think there is an official 'this is how it must always be' on sponson placement, as long as they're on the right part of the vehicle.

My GK LR Crusaders always had the doors behind the guns, because it made no sense to put the guns behind the exit point, where they wouldn't be able to fire if the topprs disembarked there..

Ascalam wrote:
I don' t think there is an official 'this is how it must always be' on sponson placement, as long as they're on the right part of the vehicle.

Does that mean I can broadside it? a.k.a. put both sponsons on same side?

Probably not, as LR are supposed to have one on either side, but it's never been ironclad whether they should be in front or behind the doors. The Mk 1 had the doors behind the guns, i think.

Have him read the Sponson entry again(heck pretty much all of page 59) Fire arcs are determined by what the actual model can do(or looks like it should ba able to do if it was glued).

The only times you get "abstract" Fire arcs is with any weapon mounted in such a way that it cannot move(never intended to), such as most ordnance weapons, and Many hull mounted weapons; in this case there is a 45* Cone from the weapon mount.

As to whether you can broadside mount the lascannons; originally i had said yes in your other thread; then I re-read the Landraider entry in the codex. no you cannot broadside mount them as you would then not have an access point on the one side and the rules state that the land raider does have such a point.

I'd say your LOS looks good to me. OT, are you painting a "Tron" themed SM army?

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:I'd say your LOS looks good to me. OT, are you painting a "Tron" themed SM army?

Lol, just noticed that!

the greater the 180 degree LoS is perfectly legal.


look in the BRB at the Predator diagram for fire arcs. it has the exact same thing you have with your paint brushes.

Your allowed to put the sponsons on either of the sponson parts of the Land Raider, the front or the back. If anything their was an argument at my store that the sponsons only had a 90 degree arc but then someone pointed out that they can and are suppose to be able to rotate 180 degrees so now we play it like that.

Also remember you can't shoot through your own unit and if you fire the forward sponson at the "weird angle" it is legal but if its covering 50% of his vehicle/monstrous creature then he gets a cover save.

Amazed how everyone thinks the LOS is okay with those paintbrushes

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Amazed how everyine thinks the LOS is okay with those paintbrushes

They are, as you can aim through your vehicle to my knowledge (dont have brb with me till monday).

You can't shoot through your own hull, i'm afraid

tbh I would prefer that a line parallel to the side of the LR would be used.

edit: Ascalam is correct afaik
Shooting your own vehicle is generally not recommended and not allowed in 40K

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:tbh I would prefer that a line parallel to the side of the LR would be used.

Read above, the sponsons go over 180 degrees, if they didnt however, that would be used. And as I do not have my LR with me to say wether or not that is actually through my hull or my brb to contest that I cannot shoot through my own vehicle's hull (I remember reading it somwhere) I cannot contest the inability to shoot through the hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its the same rule that allows the terminous ultra to fire all 5 of its weapons, not being blocked by the front, it is either stating a vehicle can shoot through its hull, or cannot be blocked by itself, so ya...

I said I would prefer it, I did not say it was the rules!

The point I was making earlier was that everyone was okay with the los as drawn by the wonky and poorly aligned brushes. As presented in the OP, the drawn LOS gives an unfair advantage. The blind spot has been drastically reduced.

If the OP played that with me he would be offered the choice of lining up the shot more convincingly or taking lascannon damage to the LR tracks

"Winterous," a senior member of Herasy Online, stated "No, your own hull does not block the vehicle's LOS as far as RAW is concerned." and, while he did not specify an exact page number, I am apt to believe his word and my own memory this friday when my friend and I were having this debate, I showed him the passage in the brb.

Seriously? a gun can fire through its own vehicle??

What happened all of a sudden to true line of sight.
What a load of kloplollocks.

Then he's wrong, or Raw-wrangling for effect

Can you see through your own hull, from the gun's barrel? No.
Can you therefore shoot what you can't see without hitting yourself?
No.

Senior Member just means 'has posted more'

The brushes were just a 5 second example, here is a 5 minute example, suce it may not be exact, but it gets the idea across, purple lines is LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:Then he's wrong, or Raw-wrangling for effect

Can you see through your own hull, from the gun's barrel? No.
Can you therefore shoot what you can't see without hitting yourself?
No.

Senior Member just means 'has posted more'

It was on a seprate topic, he brought it up for the terminous ultra, the question wasnt even a shoot through your hull one, I'm going to you make the call and asking...

I'd say the innermost lines would be a no, due to the tracks.

The purple ones i'm good with

This is why with sponsons, if I was writing the rules a line parallel to the vehicle sides would be taken.

Firstly there are usually mechanisms in place to prevent accidentally damaging your own vehicle. This seems immensely sensible!

Secondly you have misaligned again ever so slightly.
Now I am not saying this is deleberate, it is just that the barrels of the guns are comparitively short. The hull sides provide a clearer datum line and less likely to be the cause of disagreement during gameplay.

But enough of that- apologies for going off topic.

FWIW Again I agree with Ascalam

The centre line on the above image is the one used. You cannot fire through your own hull.

Units can fire through their own models, maybe that is where the mix up is?

Dont forget that the terminus ultra is a titan hunter, its targets will usually be above it, so the lascannon can shoot over one another.

darkmarine wrote:"Winterous," a senior member of Herasy Online, stated "No, your own hull does not block the vehicle's LOS as far as RAW is concerned." and, while he did not specify an exact page number, I am apt to believe his word and my own memory this friday when my friend and I were having this debate, I showed him the passage in the brb.

There is no rule that allows the vehicle to shoot or draw LOS through itself. And the rulebook FAQ specifically disallows it.
To whit:

rulebook FAQ wrote:...However, if you mount
the same storm bolter on a Razorback, even though it still
can rotate 360º, it wonʼt obviously be able to fire through
the Razorbackʼs main turret, and so it will have a ʻblind
spotʼ

The 'Razorback' here is just the example being used. The point is that the weapon is blocked by other parts of the vehicle.

insaniak wrote:The 'Razorback' here is just the example being used. The point is that the weapon is blocked by other parts of the vehicle.

This is true. But looking back at the threads, a few have the lines from the sponsons drawn wrong which makes the referenced LOS incorrect.
Remember that for vehicles, you trace the LOS from the weapon's mounting point and along the barrel. The paintbrushes in the original post were close to this.

I traced the line along the barrel as you state. I will not claim 100% accuracy but is close enough to show that the brushes are not alighned correctly.

Not sure what the point is you are making Time Wizard?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Amazed how everyone thinks the LOS is okay with those paintbrushes

The red lines are a good half inch (at a guess, I don't have a LR) in from the barrels of the lascannons; the paintbrushes seem more representative of the LoS from where the LCs are mounted.

A Leman Russ' sponsons OTOH will have a greater blindspot at the front (to the sponsons, at any rate) as the weapons are mounted closer to the hull (and I think they are incapable rotating closer than parallel to the centreline of the vehicle).

This was in another thread, but I think it creates quite a problem in shooting "down" over the side with the top-mounted pintle weapons, as a single-infantry sized target would have to be a good foot away or more for you to even get the gun downward arc past the tracks on the sides to where it can fire down to about 1 inch. Even then, if all you can see is the figure's head over your own track sides, there's a cover save involved too. I wish they would abstractify the vehicle targetting rules a bit (not quite as much as the 360 degree facing on an infantry model abstract, but still... because its actually very difficult to get some angles and leads to a strong urge to nitpick a millimeter on your opponent's model just to deny a shot.

Ulver
Sorry but you are talking abject nonsense
I started the line at the base of the barrel
aligned it along the barrel and extended a stright line.

Have a look at the gallery view. The wax shapers start their journey from the tracks for goodness sakes. How is that more correctly aligned?

Not only that the brushes are in side the line of the wax shapers.

So as for the lines being less accurate and half an inch out I seriously suggest that you need to take another and more objective view.

Guitardian is describing some of the concerns I had over the problems implementing TLOS. The OP line up is gaining a lot more than a millimetre or two.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:So as for the lines being less accurate and half an inch out I seriously suggest that you need to take another and more objective view.

Guitardian is describing some of the concerns I had over the problems implementing TLOS. The OP line up is gaining a lot more than a millimetre or two.

It looked to me like the red lines you placed for the weapon's LOS started at the mounting point of the sponson, not the mounting point of the weapon, which is in the middle of the sponson.

If you look at the diagram on page 59 of the BRB you can see that in both sponson-mounted weapon arc of sight the the LOS starts fruther out from the hull of the tank than yours did.
That was the point I was trying to make, not that LOS of the weapon can cross through the hull of the vehicle.

remember the outer gun's barrel can be used for determining the LOS also, hence the purple line being legal If either cannon can draw a line the gun has LOS