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.

What's the line of site arc from the weapon mounted on an ork truck?

LOS for weapons without a defined arc is drawn from the weapon mount.

So the fire arc for the Trukk's weapon is 'wherever you can point it'

Yay for GW.

That's the trouble we were having. As it is, I figured you could turn it 180 forward, with the plate that separates the crew from the passengers blocking it from aiming to the rear. So then it came up that maybe he'd just leave that part off from now on so you could fire 360. Is there anything that defines that or can you just model it freely to give it a full 360?

There are no rules that restrict how you can construct a model.

But isnt modelling for an advantage technically illegal, as seen with the "Peeker-Fex"? You'd be hard pressed for anyone to accept that its legal, but in the RAW, its sort of allowed.

But isnt modelling for an advantage technically illegal

Page and para, please.

You can use modelling to your advantage. Attributed to yakface.

the ork gunner is mounted in a turret. It can swing around 360 degrees on the three that I modeled, so yes, it can shoot anywhere within range/LOS.

Firing arcs for weapons on vehicles is pretty fast and loose. Side sponsons are limited, and so is the fixed Earthshaker on a Basilisk (though only by virtue of being used as the exemplary case). Otherwise, it is pretty much a case of "how much does the model's gun move?"

Then you have things like the Exorcist that would never work anyway, so who knows it's firing arc? (Not that I want to debate that, just pointing out that it is open to debate.)

If I can use modeling to my advantage like that, I'm going to mount my predator side sponsors on the side of the turret. I'm going to mount all the land raider guns on the hull turret to give it a better arc of fire. You better believe that my vindicator tank is getting a demolisher turret.

Weapons should be limited in categories, so that modeling can change a model's look, but not it's function. It should be listed in the unit entry, for example:

Leman Russ Weapons : Battle Cannon (360 Turret) hull weapon (90 front hull) sponsors (90 forward/that side) pintle (turret mount)

Until that happens, COMMON SENSE. Don't let people "cheat" with modeling. When in doubt, use the "normal" version of the weapon mounting according to the box it came in!

I like that you put "cheat" in inverted commas. That's pretty much the only way you could squeeze the word in, isn't it? By RAW, it isn't cheating at all.

open_sketchbook wrote:If I can use modeling to my advantage like that, I'm going to mount my predator side sponsors on the side of the turret. I'm going to mount all the land raider guns on the hull turret to give it a better arc of fire. You better believe that my vindicator tank is getting a demolisher turret.

Weapons should be limited in categories, so that modeling can change a model's look, but not it's function. It should be listed in the unit entry, for example:

Leman Russ Weapons : Battle Cannon (360 Turret) hull weapon (90 front hull) sponsors (90 forward/that side) pintle (turret mount)

Until that happens, COMMON SENSE. Don't let people "cheat" with modeling. When in doubt, use the "normal" version of the weapon mounting according to the box it came in!

in the rulebook, it shows the explicit firing arcs for side sponsons (and since any sponson weapon is listed as "sponson" in the rules, you cant alter that arc through modeling)

along with that, most things will say either "hull mounted" or "turret mounted" to note restrictions of where you can place the guns. for instance, a vindicator has a "hull mounted Demolisher Cannon" meaning it must be mounted on the hull, not a turret.

modeling CAN be used to your advantage, however, putting a demolisher cannon on a pred. turret and calling the tank a vindicator is technically against the rules.

You're right, it's not RAW. But, there is a spirit to the game too. Modeling advantages onto things is definitely against the spirit of the rules, in every way. You are gaining an advantage you didn't pay points for and thus you are artificially increasing the value of the model. The rules have been created for a certain vehicle built a certain way. Build it your own way, by all means, (conversion is my favorite part of the hobby) but don't use it to create an advantage. I put the turrets on my razorbacks at the front of the vehicle, but I still measure from the rear. Likewise, my whirlwinds have stationary weaponry because of a conversion, but I treat it like a turret, because on the "official" model, that's what it has.

It's exactly like modeling a vehicle deliberately to block line of sight. Sure, there isn't a hard and fast rule about it, but you're being a massive dick and nobody is going to want to play against you in a casual game. Best treat all cases like this the same (can you do it on a vehicle built by the instructions?) then make muddy exceptions and do little things to gain an advantage.

In cases where their are no official vehicle, ie battlewagons and looted vehicles, go nuts. I'm also pretty open on the placement of pintle weapons and hunter-killer missiles etc. But as a rule of thumb, play the game, not the models, and everyone will have a better time.

The rules have been created for a certain vehicle built a certain way. Build it your own way, by all means, (conversion is my favorite part of the hobby) but don't use it to create an advantage.

And if someone were to say, "Sorry, but I think I'll do just that," what then? You can't point to a rule to justify your position. You can of course simply decline to play them, but everyone has that option all the time and can exercise it for whatever reason.

Along with what T-C says, GW's endorsement of "counts as" blows your whole argument out of the water.

Where's Yakface when you need him?

How so? Count as means just that, you're taking a unit and counting it, in every respect, as another unit, with all it's advantages and disadvantages. Optimally, if the vehicle was of a different size, you would use some sort of base or template with the footprint of the vehicle it is representing to make the fight fairer, though that is obviously above and beyond the call.

There is no hard-and-fast rule that says I can't make my rhinos using only the track sections to create a vehicle roughly an inch and a half across, except for the one rhino I'm using as a screen that is actually three rhinos glued together. Nothing in the rules says I can't. BUT I've broken the spirit of the game, and I doubt that anyone will play against you unless they have to. Nothing in the RAW prevents me from making a twelve inch long demolisher cannon, rotating backwards most of the time to prevent the enemy measuring to it, and turning it around when I fire to make a 36" range Demolisher. But would you play against that person? Would you tolerate a triangular Land Raider just so the guy could firing his sponsors in the forward arc? This is a game, of which winning is an element, but when you start exploiting the model element in a blatant way like that, you're sacrificing the most important part of the game, fun, for winning. If you want to win that bad, play against newbies or just out-and-out cheat.

The miniatures in warhammer are just representations of an abstract set of rules, particularly ever since proper LOS went the way of the dodo with the onset of 3rd ed. You could easily play the game with paper cutouts of the units and vehicles. How you make your models is your own choice, separate from the game itself. They are just game pieces, and everything that really matters about them is in the documentation. There is a reason the location of entry points are marked and documented in the Wargear book, to prevent exploiting things like this.

I am not arguing against conversion, but I am arguing that the modeling and game aspect are, for the most part, separate entities. WYSIWYG, in the RAW, applies only to what weapons/wargear something has, NOT fire arcs, not line of sight, and not weapon range.

open_sketchbook, let me put this simply:

Are you, in fact, making any claim at all about the rules as they have actually been written? If so, what are your claims and how do you support them? Leave out all that stuff about modeling to one's advantage making you unpopular, leaving you with no opponents etc. This is a discussion about rules; your insistence on telling us non-rules-related things that everyone knows already ("being a cheesy git can sometimes make you disliked"--no, really?) only muddies the waters.

Just to point out, while there are no rules restricting how models are constructed, there are also no rules specifically allowing conversions.

The rulebook tells us on page 6 that the game is played with Citadel miniatures. Without some specific rule actually allowing those miniatures to be modified, it could be argued that the only legal way to use them is exactly as they're supposed to be built.

But down that road lies madness. The whole 'modelling for advantage' thing tends to get blown all out of proportion online. Sure, the occasional person will try it... but most quickly find that other players object to it and won't play against them, and so they either stop doing it or find like-minded opponents who don't care what they do with their models.

You're claim is that weapon arcs are determined by what is shown on the model. My claim is that, within the rules of the game, WYSIWYG does not apply to weapon arc/line of sight, and, using an existing precedent in the rules (location of entry/exit points on transports corresponding to the official model in Wargear) shows us that, logically, a similar system should be used.

While it is not RAW completely, neither is the idea that weapon arcs are completely dependent on where the weapon may actually point. A Leman Russ, for example, has side sponsors, which by the RAW have an 180 degree fire arc. A Russ may fire it's sponsors at targets behind it. However, the model itself only allows 90 degrees of movement. Similarly, the dark eldar ravanger has no ability to turn it's guns whatsoever, as they are glued onto the hull. However, it is not reasonable to assume this means the gun can turn 360 degrees, even if it can if mounted on a round peg on the model itself, nor to assume that the gun must be pointed ever-so-carefully at the target. I believe (I'll verify when I get home) that a weapon not stated to be a turret or sponsor weapon may fire in the arc of the facing it is mounted in, a 90 degree chunk of space to the front, side or rear.

When we relate this back to the original question, the shoota in question is not identified as being a turret. It is safest, using the idea that the "intended" configuration, for rules purposes, is in the assembly instructions, to assume the weapon is a frontally mounted and therefore has a 90 degree arc of fire.

I think that most of the time this is a purely theoretical debate, 99.9% of conversions are done to look good rather than offer an in-game advantage. I might be wrong on this, but I've never seen models designed purely to dick people over. But then again, I fall into the category of 'the painter' not 'the power-gamer' so maybe it's different up on those distant top-tables.

BTW, easiest way to solve this, just point your trukk at whatever you want to shoot, it's got the same armour all round, and pivot movements are free.

Greebynoy, pivoting is only free in the shooting phase if the vehicle didn't move that turn.

open_sketchbook:

I believe (I'll verify when I get home) that a weapon not stated to be a turret or sponsor weapon may fire in the arc of the facing it is mounted in, a 90 degree chunk of space to the front, side or rear.

Here's where it all falls apart. Quite simply, you're mistaken, and ought to have read the actual rules before posting. This is what the BGB says:

"Vehicles trace their line of sight for shooting directly from the weapon mountings. Weapons mounted on vehicles often have a limited arc of fire and may not fire on units that are outside this arc. Trace the actual line of fire from the weapon mounting to see if it will be blocked by terrain or other vehicles. Weapons mounted on walkers can fire in a 180 degree forward arc. Fixed weapons have a 90 degree fire arc from their mounting point." (pg 64)

It then goes on to show three diagrammes depicting the fire arcs for side sponsons (the only type not already covered in the text), walker-mounted weapons, and fixed weapons.

In other words, if a weapon is defined as a sponson weapon or fixed weapon, or it is mounted on a walker, you apply the appropriate restrictions. If it is anything else, all we are told to do is "Trace the actual line of fire from the weapon mounting to see if it will be blocked."

Sketchbook, you are sort of missing the points of the issue.

The rules are not clear about what each weapon on a vehicle is mounted to. You are absolutely right that they SHOULD be listed in the army list entry as sponson, turret, etc. But they are not. So no guidance there.
Barring explicit definition in the rules, we are left to our own devices to guess how it should work. We generally assume the models are a good starting point, but really that is fairly arbitrary since there is no particular way to know how some should be built (just about anything Ork for example.)

So RAW, there is really nothing other than "Use our models if you can" to point you in the right direction. Everything else, be it "don't be a prick" or "just figure out what makes sense or seems equitable" has no bearing on the actual rules, though they are an excellent rule of thumb. There is nothing cheating about it, unfortunately, though if you are a tourney organizer you could make it so if you deemed it worthy for your tournament.

I meant just to pivot at the end of your movement. Seems like the easiest option.

open_sketchbook wrote:You're claim is that weapon arcs are determined by what is shown on the model.

Not quite. The claim is that weapon arcs are determined by what is on the model, except where defined specifically by the rules.

While it is not RAW completely, neither is the idea that weapon arcs are completely dependent on where the weapon may actually point.

Unless I've missed something, nobody was saying this was the case.

A Leman Russ, for example, has side sponsors, which by the RAW have an 180 degree fire arc.

Actually, sponsons have closer to a 190 or 200 degree arc. As shown in the vehicle rules, it's an arc drawn from the sponson mount to the front and rear corners of the vehicle.

I believe (I'll verify when I get home) that a weapon not stated to be a turret or sponsor weapon may fire in the arc of the facing it is mounted in, a 90 degree chunk of space to the front, side or rear.

Fixed weapons have a 90 degree arc. Unfortunately, the only weapon defined by the rules as being fixed is the Earthshaker on a Basilisk... and even that's only because it's shown as an example of a fixed weapon.

It is safest, using the idea that the "intended" configuration, for rules purposes, is in the assembly instructions, to assume the weapon is a frontally mounted and therefore has a 90 degree arc of fire.

Building an Ork trukk as per the instructions gives you a pintle mount in a rotating collar.


There is an argument for weapons without a defined arc as being fixed by default... but you'll have a hard time getting everyone to agree with it.

Ztryder wrote:in the rulebook, it shows the explicit firing arcs for side sponsons...

No. It shows the explicit firing arc for the side sponsons on a stock Predator. There is no 'explicit firing arc' given in the rulebook for all sponsons regardless of what vehicle the sponsons are on.

insaniak wrote:
Fixed weapons have a 90 degree arc. Unfortunately, the only weapon defined by the rules as being fixed is the Earthshaker on a Basilisk... and even that's only because it's shown as an example of a fixed weapon.

On this note: The Vindicator in Codex:Chaos Space Marines states that the Demolisher cannon is Hull-mounted (and therefore 90 deg. firing arc). The Blood Angels codex does not have this specification. Thus, by RAW, the BA Vindicator has a much larger firing arc than the Chaos one.

I can't wait for a new rulebook.

2 words: pivot move
- the trukk is open topped, your passengers dont care if they leap over the hood or come out of the back
- the trukk has crappy armor everywhere so it doesn't really matter if it shows rear or side armor

Back in the Kult of Speed heyday, we used to drive our trukks backwards just to piss off the marine players!

Ahhh... good times!