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.

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

So now you're making my argument for me?

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

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

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

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

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

I have no idea what your point even is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

So now you're making my argument for me?

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

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

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

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

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

I have no idea what your point even is here.

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

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

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

It's more fun making the arguments for people.

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

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

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

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

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

Kevlar wrote:

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

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

/thread.

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

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

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

Which is exactly the problem. Hence the discussion here.

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

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

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

Is it a Helbrute, or a Dreadnought model?

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

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

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

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

People seem to be ignoring this:

BYB pg 84:
"When firing a Walker's weapons, pivot the Walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that weapons mounted on a walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees). ...This ipvoting in the shooting phase does not count as moving..."

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

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

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

 nolzur wrote:
People seem to be ignoring this:

BYB pg 84:
"When firing a Walker's weapons, pivot the Walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that weapons mounted on a walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees). ...This ipvoting in the shooting phase does not count as moving..."

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

 nolzur wrote:

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

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

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