Soul Grinder weapons

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.

**Sok**

So, the Soul Grinder has 4 weapons: 2 DCCWs, the Harvester cannon and the Mawcannon, which can have up to 3 separate profiles. My question is: how are the two shooting weapons mounted on the Grinder, hull or turret mounted? The codex completely fails to mention which is the case... :S

I'm only asking because a bit of a strange situation came up in a game yesterday with my Ork-playing friend. 2nd turn, I charged his Dreadnought, and we both immobilised each other. A couple more phases later, the Grinder blew up the Dread. We established that the Grinder couldn't turn to face, as he was immobilised, so the direction he could fire in became important.

We theorised that, as the cannons are on his head and arm, he could twist his torso to target units, like the weapons are mounted on a turret. What do you guys think, does that seem reasonable? Or should it be limited to firing in the front 180° arc, like in 4th ed rules?

EDIT: Spelling

**Negativemoney**

IIRC all walkers have a front 180° arch of fire. So he should only be able to fire that way.

**coredump**

No, walker guns have a 45 degree arc of fire. There is no longer and 'torso twist' in the rules.

**Lordhat**

Note that turning a walker in place during the shooting phase does not count as movement, although the immobilized result says that a vehicle may not turn in place. Not sure which take precedence.....

**SlaveToDorkness**

Mobile Vehicles may pivot in the Movement phase and not count as moving.

Walkers may pivot in the Shooting phase, with no caveate about being mobile/immobile, per RAW.

**coredump**

That is not RAW, that is your interpretation of what is written.

Immobile says you can't move, pivoting is moving; even if it doesn't 'count' as moving for some conditions.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Core, I invite you to read the RAW:

BGB Pg 57, Left Column, 3rd para, 5th sentence:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement Phase counts as stationary (however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot).

BGB pg. 72, right column, 7th para, 2nd sentence:

This pivoting in the Shooting Phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of Walkers in comparison to other vehicles.

Think of it like the Walker still being able to fight in combat with its front AV even when immobilised.

**Ghaz**

Uh, walkers are vehicles. I see nothing in the second quote that exempts them from the rules in the first quote.

**fullheadofhair**

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Core, I invite you to read the RAW:

BGB Pg 57, Left Column, 3rd para, 5th sentence:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement Phase counts as stationary (however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot).

BGB pg. 72, right column, 7th para, 2nd sentence:

This pivoting in the Shooting Phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of Walkers in comparison to other vehicles.

Think of it like the Walker still being able to fight in combat with its front AV even when immobilised.

am I losing it or does the last part of the first quote say immobilised vehicles may not even pivot.

**tinfoil**

Here's a follow-on issue, somewhat related. Would an "armament destroyed" result on the vehicle damage table destroy all of a Grinder's shooting attacks? For example, if a Grinder came to battle equipped with Phlegm and Tongue, do those have to be destroyed separately?

**Ghaz**

Phlegm and Tongue are upgrades to the Mawcannon. If it is destroyed, they are as well since it is only one weapon.

**tinfoil**

Ghaz wrote:Phlegm and Tongue are upgrades to the Mawcannon. If it is destroyed, they are as well since it is only one weapon.

Yep, on reflection, I realized that must be the case.

**The Defenestrator**

The Soul Grinders armaments are as follows, and work in precisely the same fashion as a dread:

Mawcannon (located in/as the mouth). pg 45 of the codex, "a 'weapon destroyed' result on the cannon destroys all profiles."
Right Arm Dreadnought CCW with built-in Harvester- counts as a single weapon for weapon destroyed results, just like a dreadnought's CCW w/ built-in stormbolter. Pg. 73 of the rulebook, the 'dreadnought close combat weapons' box if you don't believe me

Left Arm Dreadnought CCW
so technically, 3 weapons.

as for arc of fire:
pg 72 of the rulebook: "assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45, like hull-mounted weapons" which is all well and good for rules lawyers, but is chock full of mental retardation if you actually look at the model, and if you take a gander at this GW FAQ, it segues from pintle-mounted weapons on rhinos into general weapon mounting rules.

an excerpt for the lazy: "Remember that the rule is: if it looks like you can point the gun at it, then you can, even if it's glued in place. The rest is just a set of guidelines ... and does not cover all possible weapons mounting and vehicles."

I would be astonished for someone to argue the harvester's arc of fire any less than 180 degrees, and I could grudgingly accept an argument of the maw cannon being 90 or so, but 180 makes alot more sense there too, as the human neck can do a hell of alot more than 180 degrees.

**coredump**

Yes, and standing still, I can reach my arms 360 degrees around my body, but I can only throw a decent punch forward. Perhaps bending its neck, means it can't get the force for a good vomit...

It is a walker, its weapons have a 45 degree arc.

**sourclams**

If you mounted the head on a swivel much like the turret on any sort of tank would you allow it to fire at an arc greater than 45 degrees?

**The Defenestrator**

If you want to play the daemonic physiology card coredump, explain to me how an immpobilized walker, assaulted from the rear, not only gets attacked on his front armor, but can still fully defend himself, sans 1 attack per assault phase? Sounds like he's mighty limber to me.

**JD21290**

Yes, and standing still, I can reach my arms 360 degrees around my body, but I can only throw a decent punch forward. Perhaps bending its neck, means it can't get the force for a good vomit...

It is a walker, its weapons have a 45 degree arc.

are you a bloody mechanical daemon? didnt think so.
once again GW have failed when sorting out the wording.
i would just keep to he rules of walkers.

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement Phase counts as stationary (however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot).

it has an AV, so it is a vehicle, meaning once immobilised it cannot even pivot.

**Drunkspleen**

I would assume that you will be playing it as 45 degrees, but talk to your opponent re that quote from the FAQ and they might agree on 180 (which seems most reasonable to me)

**The Defenestrator**

letting an immobilized demolisher or dreadnought have a 45 degree arc of fire is extremely generous, as just looking at the model, it's fairly obvious they would both have a 0 degree arc of fire, but I'm ok with it as otherwise it would cripple the vehicle's viability.

GW has said time and time again, directly and in-directly, that they do not support this RAW, "show me a quote or it's not a rule" mentality, and encourage reasonable, common-sense based resolutions. Let's all grow up and do the same, shall we?

**Ghaz**

The point of this forum is RAW though.

**The Defenestrator**

we're only here to talk about the R in RAW, not my fault the internet takes a finer comb to the rulebook than GW ever has

**Drunkspleen**

but you are saying that we should use this board to come up with "reasonable, common-sense based resolutions" rather than "reasonable rules based resolutions", sure there is something to be said for using a common-sense solution both players agree on, but it's no good on the internet because it's an agreement between the two players, and any third party doesn't matter.

so It's futile to discuss anything other than RAW, although chiming in with how you would play it is okay, it's no basis for a discussion.

**Centurian99**

Somebody needs to read the "how to have an intelligent rules discussion" thread.

**coredump**

The Defenestrator wrote:If you want to play the daemonic physiology card coredump,

I call bs. *I* want to play the "what the rules say" card, which is why I said it was a 45 degree arc of fire. You are the one that brought up what "the human neck can do" Of course, since the human neck can't spew forth violent death in a spray.... it may not be quite relevant.

**Frazzled**

OK to restate:
We're agreed that normally immobilized vehicles canot pivot.

We're agreed that dreads/walkers have a normal 45 degree firing arc

We're still in discussion as to whether dreads swivelling fall under "pivot" as defined above?

**deviant cadaver**

Rule wise should really not make a distinction between a dread and a soulgrinder but, looking at the models its hard not to.

Would it make a difference if you put a soulgrinder arm on pointing backwards then of course he could shoot that way and would be able to move his arm back in to normal position and shoot forward also. If a dread did this i would say it was welded on wrong and could only shoot backwards with that arm.

RAW i would say it the same as a dread but I usually have trouble making it through a game with no rules questions.

Hell to me it would make sense to have him shoot how he wanted but, take -1 on WS after all he could shoot there but i am not sure how good a shot he would be with out being able to completely look that way.

Personal i vote from him being just bad ass enough to be able to pull him self half a inch on his arms then RAW he would just be able to move and there for could pivot of course if he loses his harvester gun then none of this is possible.

**Achron**

I thought Daemons can't suffer from immobilization.

**deviant cadaver**

They are just immune to shaken and stunned.

**gameandwatch**

Ok well, Finally someone said the correct terminology, thx frazzled, a walker when immobilized pervents its legs from moving, though its top or turret half it it has one does not actually pivot as pivot implies redirected placement of weight, which means it moves its feet to change its direction. This does not apply to walkers with a "swivilng/ turning" top half as its lower half is frozen and therefore unable to redirect weight, yet its upper half can turn freely...

**Kilkrazy**

Locking thread for necronisation.

Please check forum posting guidelines for necro rule.