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.

Hey Dakka!

Ive encountered a bit of a bump and cant seem to find a clear answer on this one and was hoping the esteemed rule lawyers of Dakka could lend a hand!

The situation:

A soul grinder deep strikes into some terrain and is immobilized but no fear right? it can still pivot its body made of flesh and its neck to gain LOS and shoot right? well according to the owner of the shop I did my ard boys first round in, I was only able to shoot in a 45 degree angle in front of the model couldn't shoot to the side even just straight ahead...

seems kinda odd especially since dreads and defilers all can pivot freely and don't have anything(to my knowledge) that can only shoot straight ahead, now I could understand 180 so its whole frontal arc is accessible but only 45 degrees straight seems a bit odd and just coming down on a "OP" army by his reckoning

So the next round is at the same place and I would like to find anything I can to combat this but if that is the actual rules at least I can rest knowing that I wasn't cheated

Thanks for any help guys

I don't know about pivoting, logic says they couldn't do it when immobilized but the rules for walkers say that the pivot in the shooting phase doesn't count as movement.

Regarding the 45 degree angle though, that's totally correct, all walker weapons are always assumed to have that 45 degree angle.

when I say pivot I dont mean the legs start moving i mean more like at the waist, like a dread has a pivot point at the waist that the body can turn on, wheres the soul grinder has flesh and should be able to pivot somewhat at its waist right....or so it would seem

Whether the Soulgrinder's more flexible than a dreadnought, there's nothing in the rules letting it twist and turn beyond what it would be able to do as a walker. So, in the absence of additional rules, you have to go by the regular walker rules.

In any event, as Drunkspleen wrote, I've seen people argue both ways as far as immobilized walkers still pivot to face their target while firing.

The old walker rules in 4th edition gave them a 180 degree arc of sight to represent this movement [known to us battletech players as torso-twisting, by the way]. Heck back in 3rd edition you actually had to immobilize dreadnoughts twice to lock them in place [back then they were ALL metal, so people wouldn't glue the torso down to allow for the movement].

The new edition messes with my head with the whole pivoting thing - CAN an immobilized walker pivot [signs say no, it's immobilized, no moving], or is it locked?

Spellbound wrote:The new edition messes with my head with the whole pivoting thing - CAN an immobilized walker pivot [signs say no, it's immobilized, no moving], or is it locked?

The only thing an immobilised vehicle can do, in terms of rotation/pivoting, is to rotate it's turret. Since a dreadnought isn't a turret (it's fire arcs are clearly defined in the walker section), and there are no rules allowing for walkers to turn after suffering an immobilised result, it looks like you're right.

Spellbound wrote:The old walker rules in 4th edition gave them a 180 degree arc of sight to represent this movement [known to us battletech players as torso-twisting, by the way]. Heck back in 3rd edition you actually had to immobilize dreadnoughts twice to lock them in place [back then they were ALL metal, so people wouldn't glue the torso down to allow for the movement].

The new edition messes with my head with the whole pivoting thing - CAN an immobilized walker pivot [signs say no, it's immobilized, no moving], or is it locked?

you have to remember that the section you are reading from is called "walkers" and not "dreadnoughts". A lot of people automatically assume this since they are the iconic image of a walker. This means this section covers rules for all walkers in general including sentinels, war walkers, soul grinders, killa kans, dreadnoughts, etc...

With that said, the most important thing is how the walker is modeled. It is true that the immobilized result explains that only 'turrets' may turn and continue to fire, but does that mean that sponson weapons and pintle mounted weapons may not move? Of course not. The explanation in the rule is just that...an explanation of how you treat an immobilized result and how it doesn't effect a weapons natural movement or arc of fire.

What this means is that if your walker can pivot its weapon without moving its legs, then do so. And also the GW's rule that if it 'looks' like it can pivot but it is glued down, than it is assumed to be able to pivot.

padixon wrote:What this means is that if your walker can pivot its weapon without moving its legs, then do so. And also the GW's rule that if it 'looks' like it can pivot but it is glued down, than it is assumed to be able to pivot.

It's worth noting, that they do actually tell you to:

BGB p.72 wrote:assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees, like hull-mounted weapons

Otherwise you could argue that a SM dreadnought can shoot behind it (since it's arms have 360 degrees of vertical rotation). Since a dreadnoughts weapons are neither listed as turret, sponson, nor pintle -mounted, if immobilised, it may only use it's "normal arc of fire" which, is defined in the walker section (quoted above).

The Faq has something to say on the matter.

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.

FAQs aren't rul... Noooooooooooo! Stay out of my head Gwar!



The way I read it is that they've recognised that walkers are such a messed up category that they've basically said "screw it! - just assume they're all hull-mounted weapons". I come to this reasoning because it's a specific rule to walkers which seems to override the general rules of vehicle weapons. The FAQ is more addressing things that haven't been given defined arcs (which walkers have).

Walker weapons are probably considered hull mounted because the authors didn't want to deal with arm-mounted versus head-mounted versus torso-mounted fire arcs.

In any event, the rulebook says, on page 72 in the section Walkers Shooting, "[The pivoting to directly face the target unit] in the Shooting phase does not count as moving..." Because the pivoting to face the target doesn't count as movement, it isn't prohibited by the immobilized result, so despite the walker being unable to move it still can (and in fact must) be turned to face its target when firing.

doesn't the immobilised rules say however that you cannont pivot

Well, Immobilised says that "An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place but its turret may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arc of fire." Since walkers do not have "turrets" only hull mounted weapons, they don't get to rotate? Maybe? Damn it, where is Gwar!?! Blast, under Walkers it says "assume that all weapons mounted on a walker swivel 45 degrees, LIKE hull-mounted weapons." So, I guess not, but maybe? The upper body of a walker could be argued as the "turret" by a TFG or a rules laywer. My final answer is no, you can't turn anymore.

I think this is one of those situations where you just have to blow the darn thing up to avoid the headaches it will invariably cause. Either that or take a 4+ cover save from all of GW's red tape blocking LoS to the way to play it.

I would say no, it cant.

The point of pivoting is to face your attacker so you can shoot at them. A strategy to losing units, or the idea of shooting with certain units first, is to force your opponent/avoid not having anything to shoot at with tanks. If it can rotate 360 degrees, theres no point to proper positioning with walkers. Also, what do you then consider rear armour? The back of the top or the back of the bottom?

To me its far more simple to leave it as is. I only rotate my dreads when something charges its side/rear in CC, because they have to hit front armour. Im not even sure if these are the rules, but since I just have a TL bolter and flamer, its not a big deal if I win and can shoot.

Kitzz wrote: Either that or take a 4+ cover save from all of GW's red tape blocking LoS to the way to play it.

Lol Kitzz I'm sigging that! And though it makes sense to be able to pivot, rules dont go by common sense so I say probably no pivoting.
Perhaps the immobolised result in the Soul Grinder represents a broken back so it can move below the waist or something?

Madgod wrote:

Kitzz wrote: Either that or take a 4+ cover save from all of GW's red tape blocking LoS to the way to play it.

Lol Kitzz I'm sigging that! And though it makes sense to be able to pivot, rules dont go by common sense so I say probably no pivoting.
Perhaps the immobolised result in the Soul Grinder represents a broken back so it can move below the waist or something?

And a broken neck, so it can't turn it's head to use the tounge mounted one.

I thought the whole point of Dreads (and Defilers) was that hey COULD pivot at their waists like a turret? Isn't this why you always fight against front armor in CC with a Dread?

I personally would play it as if you could. My Defiler (that I never use anymore) was modeled with magnets at the waist so it could pivot like it's supposed to be able to...