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.

 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.