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.

Question 1: Are tank side sponsons considered one weapon or two?

example: opponent rolls 'weapon destroyed' on damage table, are both sponsons eliminated or just one?

Question 2: Are pintle-mounted weapons considered weapons in the example above, where a 'weapon destroyed' is rolled on the damge chart? (i think it is cheese that my opponent purchases a combi-bolter on his vindicator so to save his demolisher cannon at the expense of a 5 point upgrade)

please explain and consider different circumstances. thanks!

Q1) 2 under all circumstances unless specifically stated otherwise

Q2) The opponent chooses what weapon is destroyed, not you. The Pintle weapons just allow you do do stuff after the main gun is gone and also stop additional weapon destroyed results becoming immobilised.

I'm not sure about the first scenario, last time my LR got a weapon destroyed on it I forget what happened.

For the second scenario I believe the upgrade weapons are applicable under weapon destroyed.

to GWAR!:

REALLY?! man have I been getting shafted if I (the attacking player) gets to choose which weapon my opponent (he who is receiving the vicious blows) has lost!

can I get BGB cite so I can vehementle defend this position next time it comes up?

Pretty sure it's page 60 or 61

Deuce11 wrote:to GWAR!:

REALLY?! man have I been getting shafted if I (the attacking player) gets to choose which weapon my opponent (he who is receiving the vicious blows) has lost!

can I get BGB cite so I can vehementle defend this position next time it comes up?

Page 60, under "3 Damaged - Weapon Destroyed":
One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed

I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

I play it as 2 weapons for all purposes.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

Yeah but you never play by the rules anyway.

Two weapons - you roll to hit separately, they have different arcs of fire.

If they were one weapon, you would be rolling it as 'twin-linked', and you would only ever be able to fire out the front!

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

Yeah but you never play by the rules anyway.

You know in all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone model a tank with only one side sponson. I understand that you see the rules in black and white Gwar but they need to be read all over. Oh snap.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

Yeah but you never play by the rules anyway.

You know in all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone model a tank with only one side sponson. I understand that you see the rules in black and white Gwar but they need to be read all over. Oh snap.

G

They are printed in black and white, so no wonder he sees them like that jk

They are destroyed together IMO.

As they are purchased at a single cost, therefor they are a single target to be destroyed.

In fact I can not find a single person locally around that thinks otherwise.

Clthomps wrote:They are destroyed together IMO.

As they are purchased at a single cost, therefor they are a single target to be destroyed.

In fact I can not find a single person locally around that thinks otherwise.

Lol, that is by far the most Bananas Logic I have ever seen. An Imperial Guard Squad is bought for a single cost, should the whole unit die if one model dies?

Clthomps wrote:They are destroyed together IMO.

As they are purchased at a single cost, therefor they are a single target to be destroyed.

In fact I can not find a single person locally around that thinks otherwise.

Really? Huh.

Of the 4 states and 6 or 7 groups I've played in over the years, I've never seen a single person who hasn't played them as 2 separate weapons. I'd always see it done as 2 separate weapons when GW used to run games at GD, too.

Not saying you're wrong, just never personally seen it played or even suggested it be played that way before.

Especially ya know since it says you get a PAIR of sponsons. Last I checked PAIR meant two (Conversely PEAR means tasty Fruit, like a banana)

Since they are clearly two weapons then I have to agree with GWAR...separate.

Two seperate weapons. They fire individually and fire in different directions.

Two separate weapons.
Fire separately, destroyed separately.

Only bought as ONE option.

2 weapons I think most people get confused by this specifically when thinking of heavy bolter sponsons. Since in 4th ed STR 5 weapons were considered defensive people always fired with 3 HB + battle cannon from a LRBT or heavy bolters + auto cannon from Predators. Even in 4th ed they wre considered 2 weapons but being able to fire them always is a likely reason for confusion.

Yeah, it always struck me as pretty clear. Sponsons count as one weapon each, so a weapon destroyed result can only take out one at a time, even though they're bought in pairs.

On the note of Land raiders in the space marine codex, it specifically states the entry for each land raider variant that the side mounted weapons with the word two in front of it (e.g. "Two twin-linked lascannons") as opposed to the phrase sponson mounted lascannons.

The term 'two' is identifying them individually as opposed to grouping them as a multi-part weapons system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To me sponson mounted weapons have always functioned as 2 seperate weapons for LOS, firing, targeting (with reference to the land raider machine spirit rules), and applicable firing arcs.
Even though they are purchased as a single option they are physically 2 separate weapons on the vehicle.

Yes, any two non twin-linked weapons are 100% separate, regardless of whether they were purchased together or not. It's ridiculous to say that your weapon destroyed result is going to destroy two weapons on different sides of the tank at once.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Yes, any two non twin-linked weapons are 100% separate, regardless of whether they were purchased together or not. It's ridiculous to say that your weapon destroyed result is going to destroy two weapons on different sides of the tank at once.

But the Flux Capacitor was hit with the enemies Inverted Tachyon Beam which reversed the Polarity of the Positronic Circuitry causing a Cascade Failure in the Main Deflector Dish Captain!

More likely the Imperium uses cheap wiring and it has a nasty habit of causing a chain reaction that carries though and overloads the weapon on the far side.
In the 41st millennium good electrical engineers are hard to find.

I think my theory is far more likely

For those that prefer a 'legalistic' arguement, the rule states on a 3, One of the vehicles 'weapons' is destroyed.

A pair of sponsons is not a weapon in their own right, - they are moutings for weapons. As per the diagram shown on page 58 with the description of 'the weapon on the right sponson cannot draw line of sign, to the chosen target....".

So, with my legal hat on, the destruction of a weapon would be the destruction of a weapon from a sponson (singular).

Add that to the fact you are paying double the cost for two guns and Im committed to the "they are two weapons" camp.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Two seperate weapons. They fire individually and fire in different directions.

Noting PotMS as one exception the two sponsons fire at the same target. They are a weapons system.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Two seperate weapons. They fire individually and fire in different directions.

Noting PotMS as one exception the two sponsons fire at the same target. They are a weapons system.

G

The battlecannon also fires at the same target, are you saying that the Battlecannon and the Heavy Bolter are the same weapon system too?

@Green Blow Fly: Following that logic, do you count the bolters carried and fired by a unit of marines as one weapon system, because all bolters have to fire at the same target?
I can see neither a rule aspect nor a "realistic" aspect why one "weapon destroyed" result should insta-kill weapons on complete opposite sides of a vehicle, which are manned by different gunners and fired like they were separate units according to the rules.