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 am curious on what peoples interpretations are for the firing arc of the exorcist missile launcher. On page 64 of the BGB, it says that you draw line of sight from the gun itself to the target, and that fixed mount guns have a 90 degree arc of fire. The exorcist missile launcher points straight in the air and to my knowledge is fixed, Would you treat this as a 360 or a 90 degree firing arc?

The issue is, besides the Basilisk's Earthshaker (which is shown as the example of a fixed weapon) we have absolutely no idea what GW's idea of a "fixed" weapon is.


So really it comes down to how you interpret the "fixed" rule. If you think that the excorcist launcher is "fixed" then you play it as a 90 degree arc.

If you don't think the weapon is fixed (which is more appropriate by the RAW since we don't have a definition for what constitutes a fixed weapon) then you use the normal rules for weapon mounts and LOS is essentially 360 degrees.


Also muddying the issue is that the FW version of the Excorcist has its launchers on a swivel mount, than can clearly rotate in any direction.


As for how I play it: pending any further clarification from GW I use the basic LOS rules for the weapon and allow it to fire in any direction (360 degree LOS).

Well its not listed as a fixed weapon in the book, and i don't have one to see if it is "turreted" like an immolator, so i suppose you could fire it 360' but the reality is that you want your best armor facing towards the enemy so i always see them firing as if they are fixed foward.

Doesn't the exorcist fire missiles? Now granted when I think missile, I think today's technology. I'd play it as having a 360 firing arc.

If the organ didn't point straight up... then I'd have to go with a 90' arc.

yakface:

So really it comes down to how you interpret the "fixed" rule. If you think that the excorcist launcher is "fixed" then you play it as a 90 degree arc.

If you don't think the weapon is fixed (which is more appropriate by the RAW since we don't have a definition for what constitutes a fixed weapon) then you use the normal rules for weapon mounts and LOS is essentially 360 degrees.

Can't we put it a little more strongly than that? By RAW, the launcher is clearly not fixed, since nothing says that it is. What constitutes a fixed weapon--again by RAW--is not at all ambiguous: a weapon is fixed if and only if its entry says it is, just as an infantry unit may move and fire heavy weapons if and only if its entry says it may.

mughi3:

Well its not listed as a fixed weapon in the book, and i don't have one to see if it is "turreted" like an immolator, so i suppose you could fire it 360' but the reality is that you want your best armor facing towards the enemy so i always see them firing as if they are fixed foward.

Not necessarily. The direction of the thing you want to shoot at is not always the same as the direction from which most incoming AT fire is coming from.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

Can't we put it a little more strongly than that? By RAW, the launcher is clearly not fixed, since nothing says that it is. What constitutes a fixed weapon--again by RAW--is not at all ambiguous: a weapon is fixed if and only if its entry says it is, just as an infantry unit may move and fire heavy weapons if and only if its entry says it may.

Sadly we can't. Not all vehicles specify what type of weapon they are. Falcons, for example don't mention that their weapons are "turret" mounted yet it is pretty clear that they have a turret.

Also there is no vehicle noted as having a fixed weapon, including the Basilisk's Earthshaker Cannon yet that weapon is given as an example of a fixed weapon.

Clearly GW has associated weapon attributes with how the weapons are modelled on the model, rather than (in all cases) how they are noted in their army list entry.


So I really think it is a situation that has to be FAQ'd or dicussed with your opponents ahead of time because it really isn't always clear when or if a weapon should be considered "fixed", "turret mounted" or "sponson mounted".

yakface wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

Can't we put it a little more strongly than that? By RAW, the launcher is clearly not fixed, since nothing says that it is. What constitutes a fixed weapon--again by RAW--is not at all ambiguous: a weapon is fixed if and only if its entry says it is, just as an infantry unit may move and fire heavy weapons if and only if its entry says it may.

Sadly we can't. Not all vehicles specify what type of weapon they are. Falcons, for example don't mention that their weapons are "turret" mounted yet it is pretty clear that they have a turret.

Also there is no vehicle noted as having a fixed weapon, including the Basilisk's Earthshaker Cannon yet that weapon is given as an example of a fixed weapon.

Clearly GW has associated weapon attributes with how the weapons are modelled on the model, rather than (in all cases) how they are noted in their army list entry.


So I really think it is a situation that has to be FAQ'd or dicussed with your opponents ahead of time because it really isn't always clear when or if a weapon should be considered "fixed", "turret mounted" or "sponson mounted".

I agree on the ambiguity, so I wouldn't argue your POV with you.

My group plays it as Fixed. The Organ does not swivel, so we use the fixed rule.
As for the Forgeworld model... GW has repeatedly referred to those models as not being codex (not their words, obviously), and don't allow FW in most tourneys, except to represent something that IS in the codex.

As the "rotating" model isn't the official model, we simply play it as if it follows the rules for the GW version... which is stationary (for us).


Eric

I generally ask the opponant, but I have never had someone reply they think it is fixed. I have had a few say "It shouldn't be able to hit anything... it's slowed" which is very true. My general idea of how it works is that it shoots missiles up into the air, which then change direction and go after something. Really it should be a fixed barrage weapon, but given it's rules, we all play it as 360.

Hull mounted weapons have a fix arc, where as turret and sponsoon mounted weapons have a movable arc. As far as the Exorcist goes the GW model and the FW model both have the ability to shoot the missiles in a 360 fashion. The Organ on the GW model is positioned in such a way that all the missiles that are fired go up before they go any where else. In this case that can easily go in any direction once launched.

I agree. In fact, I knew you were going to say that 25 minutes and 46 seconds before you did. I am a future psychic in that regard.

And no, they shouldn't be able to go anywhere without having their own steering system. The way the tubes are constructed would cause them to go up with a slight bias for going towards the low part of the tube due to pressure differentiation after the missile's bottom passed the low point. If they are guided missiles, cool, they can steer themselves and go anywhere. If not, then they just go wherever after they leave the muzzle. Does the Imperium have reliable, high volume guided missile systems? We don't really know, but it doesn't seem that way (though one could argue that the Exorcist isn't exactly "reliable" given it's d6 shots.)

The Exorcist was always seen as a varient of the SM Whirlwind, but less reliable. May Exocist were kit bashed from Whirlwinds prior to the introduction of the FW model and the "official" 4th Edition GW model.

I have never met an opponent or group that claimed that this weapon had anything but a 360 degree attack arc. Even the ugly official GW model does not have a facing of the weapons, instead shooting straight up before arcing into the enemy position. The shortness of the tubes in front can be explained better by its ability of allowing the servent in front of the tubes the ability to reload easier.

There is NO scientific reason to state that tubes facing straight up would produce an "vacuum" when launching that would provide a facing.

But in the end, while some people might think the pipe organ is cool looking (and that is a personal opinion), I do not believe you will find anyone who thinks that it is an actual working configuration.

Robyn
Sister player since CA2

Given the nature of the Exorcist as a something that is similar (Though Different to) a Whirlwind I would say it would have some of the mechanisms of the whirlwind with a little more punch. Since the rules do not say that it is either hull mounted or turret mounted one would need to go with the notion that since the tubes are pointing in the up direction the missiles after launched would need to change their heading towards the target. I would have no problem with any one saying it has a 360 fire arc. I also would think that the best compromise in this case would be the front 180 fire arc. I say this just because it would alleviate most of the question that come to mind with the line of fire.

Since the rules tell us that we're supposed to judge arcs of fire by where the guns on the model actually point (aside from turrets, fixed mounts, and walkers), and since the tubes on the Exorcist can never* actually be pointed at the enemy, it doesn't really work within the rules. 360 is as good as any other reading.


*Well, leaving aside it being parked beneath the enemy in a multi-level building or something, anyway.

dragonlady wrote:The Exorcist was always seen as a varient of the SM Whirlwind, but less reliable. May Exocist were kit bashed from Whirlwinds prior to the introduction of the FW model and the "official" 4th Edition GW model.

I have never met an opponent or group that claimed that this weapon had anything but a 360 degree attack arc. Even the ugly official GW model does not have a facing of the weapons, instead shooting straight up before arcing into the enemy position. The shortness of the tubes in front can be explained better by its ability of allowing the servent in front of the tubes the ability to reload easier.

There is NO scientific reason to state that tubes facing straight up would produce an "vacuum" when launching that would provide a facing.

But in the end, while some people might think the pipe organ is cool looking (and that is a personal opinion), I do not believe you will find anyone who thinks that it is an actual working configuration.

Robyn
Sister player since CA2

You might note I didn't say "vacuum". Traditionally, quotes are used to denote something someone said. The shortness of the tubes in front is due to the fact that it is how organs actually look. If that Servitor has a lift to put him high enough to muzzle load those missiles, he can get the extra foot or so to have them flat. However, there is reason that guns do not have angled muzzles, and that is that it changes the arc of the barrel when fired (sometimes used on supressors to push the muzzle down to counteract climb as on thr AK-47) and it can do odd things to the angle the projectile leaves the barrel due to the sudden drop off in pressure on the short side.

I am obviously not suggesting this information be used to make a game ruling, or even a guess at RAI. The weapon is obviously well nigh unworkable in its organ formation. Hell, 3/4 of the weapons in 40k wouldn't work, or would be so ridiculously expensive as to be infeasible. All I am saying is that the rules don't fit the model's concept terribly well, and it is more a case of "We want it to work this way, so it does. Oh, but we won't tell you exactly how." Ie. GW didn't keep their own rules in mind when writing the rules for the Exorcist. So don't agonize over missing something. It isn't there.

Edit: -$ : I agree, a 180 would make the second best guess after 360, given the design of the model and all. Plus it is a little easier to determine over the range of the weapon than 90.

Mannahnin wrote:*Well, leaving aside it being parked beneath the enemy in a multi-level building or something, anyway.

Parking it between the legs of a Titan would be nice then.

Archaeo wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:*Well, leaving aside it being parked beneath the enemy in a multi-level building or something, anyway.

Parking it between the legs of a Titan would be nice then.

I'd be a very sad Witchhunter if the Exorcist was only usable for clearing rooftops, where everything gets a 4+ cover save.

For the record, the only references to "turret" or "hull-mounted" (in lieu of 'fixed') that I could find in the WH codex were in the small transport entry for the Chimera and Land Raider. Like the Exorcist, the Immolator -- which most definitely has a turret modeled on it -- doesn't list it's weapon as any specific type. The wording looks like it hasn't changed since the initial Chapter Approved Sisters article of 5 years ago (though I don't own the previous Sisters codex to confirm it's the same there as well). The SM codex, which I'll point out is very slightly newer, states explicitly whether each vehicles weapons are turret-, hull-, or sponson-mounted (with the exceptions of the Land Speeder and the Drop Pod). So I'm of the opinion that it was an oversight in the WH Codex rather than not specifying being intended to imply one or the other: They copied the WH transport entry from somewhere that specified correctly and the Sisters vehicles from Chapter Approved that didn't. Which still doesn't do anything to settle the case of the Exorcist, other than eliminating some possible lines of reasoning.

But what about the Necron Monolith's Particle Whip? It doesn't specify turret mounting either, and as the vehicle barely has a discernible front I'd be amused if someone tried to assert that the crystal up top could only shoot in a 90 degree forward arc.