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.

Ok so there seems to be some conflict in this rule, both the RAW and commen sense ruling. So, I personally believe that the rule actually states quite clearly that any vehicle may not pivot if imobilized, yet can a turning of its top half be considered pivoting since no weight distribution is occuring? Pivoting is not the same as turning, swiveling or rotating...any thoughts?

gameandwatch wrote:Ok so there seems to be some conflict in this rule, both the RAW and commen sense ruling. So, I personally believe that the rule actually states quite clearly that any vehicle may not pivot if imobilized, yet can a turning of its top half be considered pivoting since no weight distribution is occuring? Pivoting is not the same as turning, swiveling or rotating...any thoughts?

There is nothing in the rules about a walker being able to pivot at its waist and their weapons have a fixed arc of fire to the front. So unless the walker is listed as having a turret, it isn't allowed to pivot when immobilized.

A big problem arises because some models look to be capable of "waist" rotation, like dreadnoughts or defilers, while other's do not appear to be, like killa kans. They've obviously gone ahead and blanketed the issue with a 'cannot swivel' and called it a day, which is fine; it would have to go one way or the other.

the same thing shows up when you state that a dreadnought, unable to pivot, would only have up/down control of aiming his weapon arms. Whereas a Soul Grinder has these big beefy human-analogue arms, which would be capable of a pretty wide range of motion by the looks of them. However, GW has lumped their firing arcs into a middle of the road 45 degrees, for the sake of simplicity.

In a world of zombie robots and brain-exploding psychics, not everything is going to align with common sense.

The Defenestrator wrote:A big problem arises because some models look to be capable of "waist" rotation, like dreadnoughts or defilers, while other's do not appear to be, like killa kans. They've obviously gone ahead and blanketed the issue with a 'cannot swivel' and called it a day, which is fine; it would have to go one way or the other.

the same thing shows up when you state that a dreadnought, unable to pivot, would only have up/down control of aiming his weapon arms. Whereas a Soul Grinder has these big beefy human-analogue arms, which would be capable of a pretty wide range of motion by the looks of them. However, GW has lumped their firing arcs into a middle of the road 45 degrees, for the sake of simplicity.

In a world of zombie robots and brain-exploding psychics, not everything is going to align with common sense.

Its a bit OT but watch the DOW2 trailers.. shows you how kick-ass & agile a drednought is in terms of its manual banshee crushing dexterity. The model may only have up/down movement with its arms but the actual machine will have many hidden servos/pivots and other gubbins to allow for a wide fire-arc.

As far as I can see a SM Dreadnought has as many turret mounts as a Predator. None, as the codex doesn't list it (like the rulebook say it should).

The IG and Chaos codices list mounts for most of their vehicle weapons but I think none of the codices are complete.

So I guess you have to look at the model and you can easily argue that SM Dreadnought weapons are turret-mounted.

lol. Im sure there are specific rules reguarding turrets but easily argueable turreted dreds.. just lol

This IMO was addressed in the GW FAQ on a subject very similar:

Q. On page 59, the rules for the arc of fire of
pintle-mounted (or bolt-on) weapons address
those mounted on turrets and those mounted
directly on the hull. But what about those
mounted on smaller structures (like a Rhino’s
cupola) that look like they can rotate 360º, even
though they aren’t proper turrets?
A. 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
about the arcs of fire of weapons glued in place,
and does not cover all possible weapons
mounting and vehicles. If the structure the gun is
pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of
rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola,
then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of
fire. However, if you mount the same storm
bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can
rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire
through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it
will have a ‘blind spot’. In the same way, the
shuriken catapult mounted under the hull of a
Wave Serpent, Falcon, etc. looks like it can rotate
360º, but it does not look like it can be fired
through the main hull right behind it, so we
normally play that it can be fired roughly in the
180º to the vehicle’s front, which seems like an
acceptable compromise.

Basically, GW's rule of thumb is if it looks like it can rotate (even though it is glued on) then it can be assumed that it can, and even going to the extent of explaining that the arcs of fire are "set of guidelines" for glued in place weaponry, even the predator is shown with an arc of fire even though we know it can rotate it's main gun. I think the same can be assumed for the dreadnaught and the arc of fire the RB gives the dread is for its arc whichever way it is facing at the moment.

So I vote Yes, an immobilized Dreadnaught can in fact rotate his upper half to fire because it "looks like it can", and I have gone to the extent on some of my chaos dreads (yes I do use them) by using a long pin so it can rotate.

What are game club read based on the rules was a dread jhad 45 degrees right so we said it could turn 45 degrees a turn and that was it's firing ark.

Yak I thought you were a proponent of using modeling to your advantage.



G

I shall wield the powers of threadromancy and bring this thread back to life!

This issue came up in a game today. Are there any new FAQs, interpretations, opinions regarding whether a Walker may pivot or rotate if immobilized? Does it matter when the model was modeled to have a pivot point?

My opinion is that the ruleset is permissive and Immobilized means the vehicle may not move or even pivot. Walkers are vehicles and therefore the rule applies to them. However I am having trouble coming up with a good faith argument why the technology that allows vehicle mounted weapon to rotate can survive an immobilized result but not that which allows the dreadnought's torso to rotate.

Deuce11 wrote:I shall wield the powers of threadromancy and bring this thread back to life!

This issue came up in a game today. Are there any new FAQs, interpretations, opinions regarding whether a Walker may pivot or rotate if immobilized? Does it matter when the model was modeled to have a pivot point?

My opinion is that the ruleset is permissive and Immobilized means the vehicle may not move or even pivot. Walkers are vehicles and therefore the rule applies to them. However I am having trouble coming up with a good faith argument why the technology that allows vehicle mounted weapon to rotate can survive an immobilized result but not that which allows the dreadnought's torso to rotate.

No there is no new information. Immobilized vehicles cannot move, which includes pivoting. Yes, you can draw LOS normally from weapon mounts when a vehicle is immobile (which for a walker is 45 degrees to the front arc), but beyond that there is absolutely nothing in the rules allowing vehicles to pivot or change any part of their facing when immobile.

Anyone claiming differently is still hanging onto old editions of the rules that no longer have any relevance with the current rules.

Fluffwise, for dreadnaughts- maybe the shot hit them in the pivot point severing their "spine" ie., it hit right at the junction of the torso and legs.

brb page 72. section labled "Walkers Shooting" say all guns are counted as hull mount, so 45 deg. but a walker can pivot in the shooting phase.

yakface wrote:There is nothing in the rules about a walker being able to pivot at its waist and their weapons have a fixed arc of fire to the front. So unless the walker is listed as having a turret, it isn't allowed to pivot when immobilized.

I don't think I have seen any vehicle (I could be wrong) that has a turret 'listed'.

I don't think a turret has ever even been defined in the rulebook.

Walkers in close combat swivel and spin so attackers hit front armor. However, should the walker get immobilized, cc attackers CAN attack the rear. Therefore I would hazard a guess that the immobilized result prevents the aforementioned pivoting. And if it can't do so in CC then it should not be able to for purpose of shooting.

DarthSpader wrote:Walkers in close combat swivel and spin so attackers hit front armor. However, should the walker get immobilized, cc attackers CAN attack the rear..

I think this is where this whole thing gets confusing as in the assault phase against a walker you always attack the front armour, and the attacks are reduced by 1 for the immobilised result. No attacking of the rear armour

So really if a Walker is immobilised and can't turn in place you should be able to attack the rear armour.

But as per the suggestion that the walker can still move to counter in the assault phase, why can't it pivot to shoot?

I would say that if it can pivot because it has a part called a pivot, like the defiler, then it should be able be treated like a turret. But I guess GW have kept it universal, if not lazy, to treat all walkers the same.

Pilau Rice wrote:

DarthSpader wrote:Walkers in close combat swivel and spin so attackers hit front armor. However, should the walker get immobilized, cc attackers CAN attack the rear..

I think this is where this whole thing gets confusing as in the assault phase against a walker you always attack the front armour, and the attacks are reduced by 1 for the immobilised result. No attacking of the rear armour

So really if a Walker is immobilised and can't turn in placen you should be able to attack the rear armour.

But as per the suggestion that the walker can still move to counter iin the assault phase, why can't it pivot to shoot?

I would say that if it can pivot because it has a part called a pivot, like the defiler, then it should be able be treated like a turret. But I guess GW have kept it universal, if not lazy, to treat all walkers the same.

to me this is the most convincing argument yet. I was unaware of those rules for CC with immobilized dreads. I will have to speak with the gaming group about it before the next game. Thanks everyone!

going to correct myself. spent some time re reading the BRB, and nothing idicates immobilized dreads have rear armor struck in cc. just that they rampage through and enemys attack the front armor. it makes sense.... but nothing in the rules actually says this, except that immbolized walkers loose 1 attack. i might have been thinking 4th ed, or previous house rule. sorry if i confused anyone.

Pilau Rice wrote:I would say that if it can pivot because it has a part called a pivot, like the defiler, then it should be able be treated like a turret. But I guess GW have kept it universal, if not lazy, to treat all walkers the same.

More or less, yes, I would say it's just a convenience so everyone is using the same rules.

Walkers already all have a bonus over other vehicles, in that they are normally allowed to pivot to face their target in the shooting phase. Allowing that bonus to continue to apply once immobilised, but only to those walkers that have a waist joint (which isn't all of them...) would be unnecessary.

insaniak wrote:More or less, yes, I would say it's just a convenience so everyone is using the same rules.

Walkers already all have a bonus over other vehicles, in that they are normally allowed to pivot to face their target in the shooting phase. Allowing that bonus to continue to apply once immobilised, but only to those walkers that have a waist joint (which isn't all of them...) would be unnecessary.

Except, of course, that this is completely inconsistent with other rules in the BRB.

Of course, that's not surprising...

imweasel wrote:Except, of course, that this is completely inconsistent with other rules in the BRB.

Which ones?

While I would love to say "yes" the unfortunate answer here is infact NO!

I believe this should just about answer your question...



for emphasis...

But then you could argue that



in the green applies

and that

padixon wrote:
Q. On page 59, the rules for the arc of fire of pintle-mounted (or bolt-on) weapons address those mounted on turrets and those mounted directly on the hull. But what about those mounted on smaller structures (like a Rhino’s
cupola) that look like they can rotate 360º, even though they aren’t proper turrets?


A. 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 about the arcs of fire of weapons glued in place, and does not cover all possible weapons mounting and vehicles. If the structure the gun is pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola, then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of fire. However, if you mount the same storm bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it will have a ‘blind spot’. In the same way, the shuriken catapult mounted under the hull of a Wave Serpent, Falcon, etc. looks like it can rotate 360º, but it does not look like it can be fired through the main hull right behind it, so we normally play that it can be fired roughly in the 180º to the vehicle’s front, which seems like an acceptable compromise.

Applies in the case of a Dreadnought or Defiler being able to turn 360º and treat it like a turret.

I don't play it like this myself and count it as being immobilised as per the BRB.

Pilau Rice wrote:But then you could argue that



in the green applies

and that

padixon wrote:
Q. On page 59, the rules for the arc of fire of pintle-mounted (or bolt-on) weapons address those mounted on turrets and those mounted directly on the hull. But what about those mounted on smaller structures (like a Rhino’s
cupola) that look like they can rotate 360º, even though they aren’t proper turrets?


A. 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 about the arcs of fire of weapons glued in place, and does not cover all possible weapons mounting and vehicles. If the structure the gun is pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola, then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of fire. However, if you mount the same storm bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it will have a ‘blind spot’. In the same way, the shuriken catapult mounted under the hull of a Wave Serpent, Falcon, etc. looks like it can rotate 360º, but it does not look like it can be fired through the main hull right behind it, so we normally play that it can be fired roughly in the 180º to the vehicle’s front, which seems like an acceptable compromise.

Applies in the case of a Dreadnought or Defiler being able to turn 360º and treat it like a turret.

I don't play it like this myself and count it as being immobilised as per the BRB.

No that cannot be argued and here is why:


Vehicle weapons are listed as having different mounting types in the rulebook (hull, sponson, turret, pintle). Although GW has gotten lazy about including what every weapon on a vehicle is mounted as (likely because true LOS makes it a bit pointless), the fact remains that there are specific rules for how walker weapons are mounted.

Walker weapons are *not* pintle, hull, sponson or turret mounted. They have their own specific rules for walkers that state (LIKE a hull mounted weapon) that they only fire 45 degrees to the front arc of the vehicle. It does not matter how the weapons look to be mounted on a vehicle, the rules are clear: they only fire 45 degrees to the front arc of the walker.

The rule you quoted is specific that a vehicle which is immobile cannot pivot and we know for certain how walker weapons are treated (45 degrees to the front arc), therefore there is no confusion and there is backing for an argument. Once a walker is immobile, its weapons may only fire 45 degrees to the vehicle's front arc.

Pilau Rice wrote:But then you could argue that



in the green applies

and that

incase Yak's post is a tl;dr for you...

the Green would apply if the weapon was being rotated, you are rotating the walker (as you state, in the rules for shooting, the WALKER may PIVOT ON THE SPOT) NOT the weapon.

The WALKER cannot pivot on the spot due to the underlined (in red) text.

yakface wrote:

No that cannot be argued and here is why:


Vehicle weapons are listed as having different mounting types in the rulebook (hull, sponson, turret, pintle). Although GW has gotten lazy about including what every weapon on a vehicle is mounted as (likely because true LOS makes it a bit pointless), the fact remains that there are specific rules for how walker weapons are mounted.

Walker weapons are *not* pintle, hull, sponson or turret mounted. They have their own specific rules for walkers that state (LIKE a hull mounted weapon) that they only fire 45 degrees to the front arc of the vehicle. It does not matter how the weapons look to be mounted on a vehicle, the rules are clear: they only fire 45 degrees to the front arc of the walker.

The rule you quoted is specific that a vehicle which is immobile cannot pivot and we know for certain how walker weapons are treated (45 degrees to the front arc), therefore there is no confusion and there is backing for an argument. Once a walker is immobile, its weapons may only fire 45 degrees to the vehicle's front arc.

Which is exactly why I don't play it like that

To make that clearer though, in my opinion, you should be able to attack the rear armour on an immobilised walker

yakface wrote: Once a walker is immobile, its weapons may only fire 45 degrees to the vehicle's front arc.

Also yak, there is one exception to this...

Due to the wording on the FAQ, there really isn't anything(in the rules) stopping the Dred from rotating his arm so that the gun fires backwards (as the LoS is drawn from the weapon NOT the Dred).

Pilau Rice wrote:Which is exactly why I don't play it like that

Top make that clearer though, in my opinion, you should be able to attack the rear armour on an immobilised walker

So to be perfectly clear... if we were playing a game, and you were playing Space Marines, while I'm playing Orks... your Dreadnoughts may be immobilized, be hit on rear armor, and also may pivot in the shooting phase because they look like they can... whereas my Deff Dreads may be immobilized, be hit on rear armor, but may not pivot in the shooting phase because they look like they can't?

How is that anything remotely approaching fair?

If you're going to house rule something, don't be a dick and house rule it so that ONLY YOUR ARMY benefits.

Walkers are standardized for a good reason, leave them as they are.

They cannot pivot in any phase, movement or shooting, if they are immobilized.

SaintHazard wrote:So to be perfectly clear... if we were playing a game, and you were playing Space Marines, while I'm playing Orks... your Dreadnoughts may be immobilized, be hit on rear armor, and also may pivot in the shooting phase because they look like they can... whereas my Deff Dreads may be immobilized, be hit on rear armor, but may not pivot in the shooting phase because they look like they can't?

Or better yet, if GW wants to give Defilers/Dreds this special rule, let them incorperate that into their rules (like the rhino's ability to repair and the Chimera's ability to travel through water) and into their point costs, instead of being "implied bonuses".

SaintHazard wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:Which is exactly why I don't play it like that

Top make that clearer though, in my opinion, you should be able to attack the rear armour on an immobilised walker

So to be perfectly clear... if we were playing a game, and you were playing Space Marines, while I'm playing Orks... your Dreadnoughts may be immobilized, be hit on rear armor, and also may pivot in the shooting phase because they look like they can... whereas my Deff Dreads may be immobilized, be hit on rear armor, but may not pivot in the shooting phase because they look like they can't?

How is that anything remotely approaching fair?

If you're going to house rule something, don't be a dick and house rule it so that ONLY YOUR ARMY benefits.

Walkers are standardized for a good reason, leave them as they are.

They cannot pivot in any phase, movement or shooting, if they are immobilized.

Woah, isn't that a bit hostile? I'm saying that I play by the rules in the BRB, I don't house rule anything. I see your point and agree, that's why I play by the rule ...

I think if it's immobilised you should be able to attack a walkers rear armour. I don't think the -1 attack is enough, I think you should be able to assault immobilised walkers rear armour.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Or better yet, if GW wants to give Defilers/Dreds this special rule, let them incorperate that into their rules (like the rhino's ability to repair and the Chimera's ability to travel through water) and into their point costs, instead of being "implied bonuses".

Would make sense