Ordnance battery fire ark.

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.

**HoverBoy**

There was a question that came up recently, if an ordnance barrage weapon tries to fire outside of its fire ark, does that mean its an automiss or does it fire as if it had no LOS?

**Gwar!**

HoverBoy wrote:There was a question that came up recently, if an ordnance barrage weapon tries to fire outside of its fire ark, does that mean its an automiss or does it fire as if it had no LOS?

It depends. Did you declare it as firing Barrage? If so it fires as if it had no LoS. Did you declare firing it directly? If so, you made a boo-boo as you couldn't have declared it as you didn't have LoS!

**HoverBoy**

I allways declare how im shootin

**don_mondo**

We just discussed this on our club's forum. The key is that vehicle mounted weapons don't actually have fire arcs, they have LOS arcs. So for most weapons (that require LOS), these are effectively one and the same. But for Barrage, it seems that, odd as it may be, your Basilisk can fire Barrage sideways as it does not need LOS. And here I've been turning my vehicles to face the target while exposing my side armor to other units.

**HoverBoy**

Coolness this'll be helpfull since my artylerry usually have no LOS to begin with

**don_mondo**

Yep, I disagreed at first but had to agree once they pointed out that the rulebook calls it a LOS arc.

**Lorne**

Yeah we have a player who parks his bassies backwards against the nearest building and shoots behind them so his rear armor is not exposed. Though while thinking about it the side armor is the same and nothing comes on the table from behind.

**DapperDave**

I'm sorry, but the BRB (pg 59, second bullet point) is pretty clear about where a hull mounted weapon can fire - period - it mentions nothing about line of sight.

**MekanobSamael**

Welcome to DakkaDakka, Dave.

The rules for firing vehicular weapons are all about LOS. The BRB reads, "Just like Infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot them" and then specifies how this is done. Notice also that all of the images on page 59 read "arc of sight." Now, the barrage rules state that the weapon "can fire at a target they cannot see." This means that the arc of sight/LOS rules do not apply for barrage weapons.

**Boost One**

DapperDave wrote:I'm sorry, but the BRB (pg 59, second bullet point) is pretty clear about where a hull mounted weapon can fire - period - it mentions nothing about line of sight.

As I understand it, the vehicle rules say to assume all weapons have a 360 degree fire arc unless stated that the weapon is turret mounted, hull mounted etc. The Guard artillery never specifies that the artillery is hull mounted.

**MasterSlowPoke**

They've moved away from really mentioning mounting, but an Earthshaker is pretty obviously hull-mounted and gets a 45 degree arc of sight. As noted above, this doesn't matter for firing indirectly.

**Boost One**

What is this "common sense" nonsense you're foisting onto me?

**DapperDave**

The second bullet on page 59 very clearly says "Hull mounted weapons can fire in a 45* arc..."

It doesn't say "hull mounted weapons can draw a line of sight..."

page 59 is also pretty clear that weapons are either turret mounted, hull mounted, pintle mounted or sponson mounted and I'd say it's pretty obvious when which is which. An earthshaker is not on a turret, it's not a sponson, and it's not pintle mounted.

I understand the distinction you're making about drawing LoS and actually firing, but you need to read and consider all the rules and how they interact.

**MekanobSamael**

The fact that we disagree with you does not mean that we have not read the rules, nor does it mean that we have not given any consideration to their implications. This issue has been debated extensively already. I am reporting the generally agreed-upon interpretation of the rules. Common-sense and the RAW often conflict. That is why we have forums for discussing these things.

Here are the rules and how they interact: This entire section of the rules is a discussion of, as the heading says, "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight." This section is about how much leeway you're allowed to have when determining line of sight from a vehicular weapon. It specifies that sponsons cannot see through the tank they are attached to, for example, and the hull-mounted guns cannot turn to get LOS to targets behind the tank. Right next to "Hull mounted weapons can fire in a 45" arc" it says "see diagram," and the diagram is very clearly marked "arc of sight." The barrage rules read: "Barrage weapons can fire at a target they cannot see." Here's how they interact: They don't. No considerations need be made to satisfy LOS requirements, such as those detailed on page 59, when the weapon does not require LOS.

**Gitsplitta**

@Mekanob: That is a very shaky logic string... based largely on the caption of an illustration... which could all too easily have been incorrectly worded. A shell fired from one direction on a side-mounted tank gun can not magically change direction 180 degrees after it's left the barrel and hit something on the other side of the tank just because it's indirect fire. Doesn't pass the smell test. Firing arcs are physical limitations on the positioning of guns. LOS may be circumvented by indirect fire, that makes sense. Firing arcs? That makes no sense.

**DapperDave**

It doesn't matter if a diagram is labeled as a "LoS" arc... that doesn't change the fact that it says a hull mounted weapon can fire in a 45 degree arc from it's mounting.

There's a hierarchy of restrictions when firing a weapon.

To fire on a unit, you need to target it. To target, you need LoS. Now there are exceptions; barrage lets you ignore the need for LoS to target. But you still need to actually fire the weapon. And the rules (and common sense) say you can only fire that weapon in a limited 45 degree arc.

**Crablezworth**

Do you not still have to turn a basilisk or a griffon or whatnot to face the direction they're firing regardless of it being barrage? Are people really going to say an immobilised barrage firing tank still has a 360 fire arc?

**MekanobSamael**

It's based on the name and premise of a set of rules. I am aware that this interpretation doesn't make any sense. GW has crappy editing and makes mistakes with some of its wording. I know this. None of the above, however, make it not what the rules say. This game absolutely falls apart if you apply logic to most of it. This is a thread about how to interpret the rules. And they are pretty clear.

**Gitsplitta**

Well, I've give you that.... GW's gaming rules and reality never really intersect.

**kirsanth**

DapperDave wrote:There's a hierarchy of restrictions when firing a weapon.

But there are not restrictions on firing the weapon, only conditions to do so. LOS and range. See page 15+

Crablezworth wrote:Do you not still have to turn a basilisk or a griffon or whatnot to face the direction they're firing regardless of it being barrage? Are people really going to say an immobilised barrage firing tank still has a 360 fire arc?

Unless you are firing directly, the direction you can see has no bearing on what you can hit.

**insaniak**

Crablezworth wrote:Do you not still have to turn a basilisk or a griffon or whatnot to face the direction they're firing regardless of it being barrage? Are people really going to say an immobilised barrage firing tank still has a 360 fire arc?

Yes, you have to be able to point it at the target.

The vehicle LOS rules define set fire arcs for all vehicle mounted weapons. These fire arcs define what is in LOS, because they define the directions in which the weapon can be pointed... but they specifically refer to the arc in which the weapon can be fired, not just the arc in which the weapon can draw LOS.

Nothing in the barrage rules suggests that they ignore the usual requirement to point the weapon at the proposed target. You simply don't need LOS to fire. So the target would still need to be within the weapon's fire arc.

**Catachan_Devil**

insaniak wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:Do you not still have to turn a basilisk or a griffon or whatnot to face the direction they're firing regardless of it being barrage? Are people really going to say an immobilised barrage firing tank still has a 360 fire arc?

Yes, you have to be able to point it at the target.

The vehicle LOS rules define set fire arcs for all vehicle mounted weapons. These fire arcs define what is in LOS, because they define the directions in which the weapon can be pointed... but they specifically refer to the arc in which the weapon can be fired, not just the arc in which the weapon can draw LOS.

Nothing in the barrage rules suggests that they ignore the usual requirement to point the weapon at the proposed target. You simply don't need LOS to fire. So the target would still need to be within the weapon's fire arc.

+1 to that

**Seriphis**

+1 to not being able to fire a weapon with a 45 degree arc 360 degrees.

In the case of a basilisk, simply ignore any tall object that is blocking line of site when targetting, not ignore the orientation of the vehicle.

Now how many of you are turning a basilisk during the shooting phase? naughty naughty.

**Scott-S6**

Boost One wrote:As I understand it, the vehicle rules say to assume all weapons have a 360 degree fire arc unless stated that the weapon is turret mounted, hull mounted etc. The Guard artillery never specifies that the artillery is hull mounted.

You understand incorrectly - the rules say to assume that guns can pivot as per their mounting on the model.

brb wrote:players should assume that guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings

BRBFAQ 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.

Neither of these support your point.

**DapperDave**

kirsanth wrote:
DapperDave wrote:There's a hierarchy of restrictions when firing a weapon.
But there are not restrictions on firing the weapon, only conditions to do so. LOS and range. See page 15+

But there are. Page 59, bullet two: "Hull mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arc" that is an exact quote. It doesn't mention LoS or range, it says "fire." And, for the record, the words "conditions" and "restrictions" as used above are synonyms.

**Gwar!**

DapperDave wrote:
kirsanth wrote:
DapperDave wrote:There's a hierarchy of restrictions when firing a weapon.
But there are not restrictions on firing the weapon, only conditions to do so. LOS and range. See page 15+

But there are. Page 59, bullet two: "Hull mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arc" that is an exact quote. It doesn't mention LoS or range, it says "fire." And, for the record, the words "conditions" and "restrictions" as used above are synonyms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym
Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique.

So being Synonyms means nothing.

**Mad Rabbit**

Seems clear to me looking at the Basilisk model that the big gun cannot rotate, and LOS or no, the gun has to be able to point at its target.