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 guys

Just wondering what this situation would be according to you (or rahter RAW). I checked several fora and the BRB ofc, but could not find an answer that my friends and i can take without discussion :-)
A soulgrider is immobilized.
1. In shooting pahse, can it use its arm or mouth weapons to shoot at targets that are behind him?
2. In close combat, can it turn so the attacker from behind targets its front armour?

In the wall of text below are the quotes i found in rulebooks. I did not find anything in inat faq or GWs fac.

About question 1: p57 brb. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement Phase counts as stationary (However, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot). p61 brb: Immobilized result: An immobilized vehicle may not turn in place but its turret may continue to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arc of fire. p45 Demon codex: Mawcannon, Harvester are not defined as turret or anything else, nor is their angle specified. So do they behave according to standard rules? On p72 brb: When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that his guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons on a walker can swivel 45 degrees, like hull-mounted weapons). Can they fire behind them? Common sens tells me they can, bcs they can turn head annd arms. Rulebook points me in the direction of: they cannot.

About question 2: In close cobat, walkers are hit on the front armour, even if attacked from the back. p73 brb: Models hitting a walker in close combat always roll fro penetration against its front armour.... Immobilized or stunned walkers fight close combat with one less attack tyhan usual, (to a minimum of 1), but otherwise attack normally. Answer seems: even though they are immobiolized, they can still turn to face attackers with front armour.

kim wrote:1. In shooting pahse, can it use its arm or mouth weapons to shoot at targets that are behind him?

No, All Walker Weapons have a 45 Degree Arc of fire. Furthermore, if it is immobilised, it cannot pivot. At all. In Any Phase.

Page 72: "all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45°, like hull-mounted weapons"

2. In close combat, can it turn so the attacker from behind targets its front armour?

In Close Combat, ALL attacks are resolved on its front armour, regardless of it being mobile or not.

Page 73: "Models hitting a walker in close combat always roll for penetration against its front armour"

GWAR! You are mighty fast. Thank you for your reply.

You use the rear armour if a walker is immobilized. I reckon maybe its arms could fire backward. Can it actually move it's head/arms? I know that it's a daemon, but when in the physical realm, wouldn't it be restricted by physical laws slightly? Also, it's a mix of material/immaterial. So, like all roughly humanoid beings wouldn't he have a spine? Or at least a general co-ordinator? Heck, you can see a spine at the back of the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn you Gwar, you beat me to it.

karimabuseer wrote:You use the rear armour if a walker is immobilized.

Nope, sorry. Not any more All being immobilised does now is reduce the Walkers attacks by one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kim wrote:GWAR! You are mighty fast. Thank you for your reply.

Glad to oblige

as far as shooting goes i thought the rules provided in the BGB simply say if it looks like it can fire swivel that far than it can, as a general rule. I understand specific rules written for walkers would nearly always take precedence over a general rule for vehicles but it is worth pointing out.

I'm too lazy to get my rulebook out and cite page numbers, sorry.

As Gwar noted, Walkers have specific arc of fire rules, which override the more general rules for vehicle weapon arcs.

As a general note, it's usually a bad idea to post a muddy recollection of a rule to contradict someone else, particularly when that other person has quoted the rules. Better to check your book before posting.

Gwar! wrote:

karimabuseer wrote:You use the rear armour if a walker is immobilized.

Nope, sorry. Not any more All being immobilised does now is reduce the Walkers attacks by one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kim wrote:GWAR! You are mighty fast. Thank you for your reply.

Glad to oblige

And allow you to hit with grenades using WS instead of needing a 6.

Mannahnin wrote:As a general note, it's usually a bad idea to post a muddy recollection of a rule to contradict someone else, particularly when that other person has quoted the rules. Better to check your book before posting.

I wasn't contradicting Gwar. I was simply adding a notable wrinkle to the conversation to better understand the rules from different angles.

Relax Honcho

But the Tenets of YMDC tell us that we should have rules to back up our posts, which you did not.