Valkyrie - which arc of fire?

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.

**Lord Solar Plexus**

I have a Valkyrie with a "hull" multilaser. The weapon is mounted slightly to the aft and starboard of the cockpit's casing and can not draw LoS through it.

What arc of fire do I use? 45 degrees to the front from the cockpit's side?

**yakface**

GW has strangely stopped putting how a weapon is mounted into their codex entries even though their 5th edition rules say they will, so there's no way to give you a fool-proof answer here.

The weapon is clearly 'fixed' on the model which would tend to indicate that it is 'hull-mounted' per the rules on page 59. That means it should technically have a 45 degree arc from its mounting point which (as you point out) much of ends up being blocked by the cockpit.

GW's guidlines in the rulebook FAQ aren't much help here either:

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.

Ultimately, I think the 'safest' way to play it would that it is hull-mounted, with half of its allowed arc blocked, which means that you really only have a very small arc of fire with this weapon.

It sucks, I know, but the vehicle is so kick-ass for the points that a few negatives like this really aren't a deal-breaker IMHO.

**Lordhat**

Alternatively discuss this with your opponent before the game. I personally wouldn't have a problem letting you fire 'through' the nose of the Valk to represent the ship 'hemming and yawing' while firing and moving.

**willydstyle**

Don't forget that weapons also have a 45 degree vertical firing arc, so if you're too close to the badguys you won't be able to shoot

**Flexen**

Despite the modeling arrangement - I would call it hull mounted and make it a 45degree.

**Skinnattittar**

I would say it can fire like a regular 45%%d hull mount. The placement is "poetic license" of the modeler, and I would follow the idea of it "hemming and yawing" as Lordhat puts it. Similarly, does an immobilized Basilisk still have a 45%%d firing arc? In all instances I have seen it does, that is not to say they have been wrong.

**Lord Solar Plexus**

Very good, thank-you all!

**Scott-S6**

I'm mounting mine in an under-wing pod - problem solved.

**Gwar!**

Scott-S6 wrote:I'm mounting mine in an under-wing pod - problem solved.

<Rabble Rabble> Wings are not Hull

</Rabble Rabble>

**Scott-S6**

They'll like this even less - I've got the heavy bolters in the cowls by the cockpit so they can both point straight forward (not actually possible normally as the gunner has nowhere to stand)

**willydstyle**

I bet people would pitch a fit if I modeled all the weapons on my predator on elevated turrets so they could draw better lines of sight.

**Gwar!**

willydstyle wrote:I bet people would pitch a fit if I modeled all the weapons on my predator on elevated turrets so they could draw better lines of sight.

Almost as much as the "gangsta" predator with both sponsons on 2 Side

**Scott-S6**

I wouldn't mind - I can shoot back at you just fine.

**chromedog**

Mine has its multilaser mounted in the nose (like a cobra gunship). Still a hull mount, but not obstructed by the c0ckpit - I have twin sensor pods on the 'cheek' locations.

Although, considering that mine also has two assault cannons in the sponsons, instead of HBs, and won't be used outside of apoc, it's not going to be an issue for my games.

**JohnHwangDD**

Instead of being +22.5 / -22.5, the hull Multi-Laser is +0/-45 and problem solved.

**AdeptArtificer**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Instead of being +22.5 / -22.5, the hull Multi-Laser is +0/-45 and problem solved.

I like your interpretation best. Although I would have no problem letting someone fire through their cockpit. They would just have to take a hit as well......I'm kidding! REALLY!

**Caffran9**

Gwar! wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:I'm mounting mine in an under-wing pod - problem solved.
<Rabble Rabble> Wings are not Hull </Rabble Rabble>

then what should I do with the weapons moutned there as per the GW instructions for assmelbing the model itself?

Also that means I can hide the hull and shoot with the wing weapons with no risk of return fire, correct?

**Gwar!**

Caffran9 wrote:Also that means I can hide the hull and shoot with the wing weapons with no risk of return fire, correct?

If you somehow hide behind a Skyscraper, if the Wings are ruled to not count as hull, then yes

**Caffran9**

Eh, a diagonal line over a decent sized building can be harder than it looks

And that is slowed. I'm not disagreeing with your ruling, but its slowed that I can shoot without being shot at and be using weapons without the Barrage rule.

**Gwar!**

Caffran9 wrote:Eh, a diagonal line over a decent sized building can be harder than it looks

And that is slowed. I'm not disagreeing with your ruling, but its slowed that I can shoot without being shot at and be using weapons without the Barrage rule.

Yeah it is slowed, but thats the rules. If you want you can scream "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE HURR DURRR!" and cheat by changing the rules, but that is up to you. Just be aware that doing that means you allow your oppoent to use TMIR to say they win on a 1+, and if you refuse, you become TFG.

**Agamemnon2**

Gwar! wrote:
Caffran9 wrote:Eh, a diagonal line over a decent sized building can be harder than it looks

And that is slowed. I'm not disagreeing with your ruling, but its slowed that I can shoot without being shot at and be using weapons without the Barrage rule.
Yeah it is slowed, but thats the rules. If you want you can scream "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE HURR DURRR!" and cheat by changing the rules, but that is up to you. Just be aware that doing that means you allow your oppoent to use TMIR to say they win on a 1+, and if you refuse, you become TFG.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"

**Gwar!**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Caffran9 wrote:Eh, a diagonal line over a decent sized building can be harder than it looks

And that is slowed. I'm not disagreeing with your ruling, but its slowed that I can shoot without being shot at and be using weapons without the Barrage rule.
Yeah it is slowed, but thats the rules. If you want you can scream "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE HURR DURRR!" and cheat by changing the rules, but that is up to you. Just be aware that doing that means you allow your oppoent to use TMIR to say they win on a 1+, and if you refuse, you become TFG.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"

xkcd ftw

**Caffran9**

Gwar! wrote:
Caffran9 wrote:Eh, a diagonal line over a decent sized building can be harder than it looks

And that is slowed. I'm not disagreeing with your ruling, but its slowed that I can shoot without being shot at and be using weapons without the Barrage rule.
Yeah it is slowed, but thats the rules. If you want you can scream "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE HURR DURRR!" and cheat by changing the rules, but that is up to you. Just be aware that doing that means you allow your oppoent to use TMIR to say they win on a 1+, and if you refuse, you become TFG.

haha wat, simmer down. I never mentioned any of that, nor would I try to. I even said I agreed on the ruling. I think its a slowed rule, that is all