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.

The Malcador Defender doesn't have a turret. And the main gun doesn't swivel sideways anyway.

I'm not seeing a problem with the Vulcan Macharius. The turret is clearly above the tracks.

Was talking about the HB sponsons on top the cupola re the defender.

Measure from the end of Vulkan gun on the Mach to the front. The treds block line of site unless the tank is pointed directly at the target.

I'll throw in another one: the HB turret on the back of the Marauder.

This isn't the only oddity like this. Vehicle mounted heavy flamers wouldn't work, since part of the template would almost always be over the hull of the vehicle.

BaronIveagh wrote:Was talking about the HB sponsons on top the cupola re the defender.

Measure from the end of Vulkan gun on the Mach to the front. The treds block line of site unless the tank is pointed directly at the target.

You might have an issue with blind spots firing at angles across the tracks, but directly forwards, or to the sides they have no problems at all so far as I can see.

But really, Forgeworld vehicles can't really be held up as an example of the core rules not working, since they're not designed to be a part of the core game rules.

This isn't the only oddity like this. Vehicle mounted heavy flamers wouldn't work, since part of the template would almost always be over the hull of the vehicle.

Flamers are a different issue entirely, that has been debated to death in the past.

Yeah, but the valks are a design that jumped over. Valks were a FW design that wasn't meant to work with regular GW rules.

Heck, look at embarking/disembarking. We had to wait for a FAQ to be able to do either of those things with them.

I still think that based on how they play, they should have been modeled as attack helicopters.

insaniak wrote:
If you're going to claim that fixed-in-place weapons can only go up and not down, you're going to need to define a set angle for those who glue their turret weapons in place, otherwise everybody's tanks will have a different arc of fire depending on where they glue the weapon pointing... which clearly contradicts the rule saying that weapons glued in place should be assumed to have the same arc as those that can move freely.

Not so, all weapons are assumed to be able to move as if they weren't glued. The 45degree provision is for weapons that are not able to elevate to that extent. If a turret weapon was able to point further up than that (e.g razorback) then it can regardless of gluing.

ETA, are you suggesting that the 45degrees of vertical movement should be measured from the position the weapon is modelled at? If so, that's incredibly open to abuse. Surely it should be measured from the horizontal?

Scott-S6 wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Can the predator rotate it's sponsons so that one can draw line of sight down the barrel to see a target on the other side? That's the limitation, not the hull of the predator. Remember, you draw LOS down the length of the gun when it is pointed at the target. If you can't point it at the target because the mounting won't allow it, you can't shoot it, as the LR and pred examples show.

Yes, the predator can point the sponsons at it's own hull.

Wehrkind wrote:Granted, I think this rule was written without a thought of the vehicle itself blocking LOS one way or the other, but it definitely says that units can't block LOS to themselves.

Maybe they didn't make provision for that because you're wrong. See the BRB FAQ for an example that explicitly mentions the vehicle model blocking line of sight for it's weapons:

BRB FAQ wrote: 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’.

You will note that the FAQ question also talks about "acceptable compromises" and how they "normally play."

Look, if you guys want to run that sort of a strict house rule I am not against it. I am simply saying that at least in the case of a Valk that is in a squadron of 1, it can't block LOS to itself because it is a member of the unit. Baron Iveagh seems to be on the right track, though he is reading the rule with an incorrectly limited meaning. It is not that two valks in a squadron do not block LOS to one another, it is that members of the same unit/squadron never block LOS to members of the same unit/squadron. Not other members, just members. So again, unless a valk isn't a member of its own unit/squadron, it can't block LOS to itself.

Now, obviously the rules are not 100% clear, and judging by the FAQ they had something more rigorous in mind, but GW didn't write it more rigorously. If you want to decide amongst your gaming group that a tank can block LOS to itself whether it can point the gun at the target or not, go for it. All I am saying is that popping that requirement out during a game is likely to get you some arguments from your opponent, and really the rules would support him.

So you think it's okay for tank sponson weapons to fire through the tank? If that's how you want to play that's fine but it's not what the rules say despite your insistance to the contrary.

ETA - vehicles draw line of sight from the weapon. I don't know how much more clear you want it.

I might point out that according the rules, before they were FAQ'd, valks also could never embark or disembark the unit they carried, since you could not put them within 2" of the hull.

That said: sponsons on tanks are designed to have limited fields of fire. (IE leman russ sponsons can only fire in a 45 degree arc) and the model is made to represent this.

The problem with valks was that the model was made for a flier. When mounted on the flight base, which is how they're supposed to be mounted, not sitting directly on the table, the sponson has a clear LOS. The problem, of course, is that people aren't basing them, and sitting them on the table like tanks.

IIRC, any mini or model not on it's 'official' base must be played as though it were on that base, which is one of the few exceptions to WYSIWYG. The onnly way tht those sponsons do not have a clear LOS on a target in range is if it's sitting on the table, off it's base, OR if you have equipped hellfire missiles that are hard glued on.

Remember, hellfires that have been fired are not there, even if they're glued down. They've been expended and are no longer actually present on the mini.

Scott-S6 wrote:So you think it's okay for tank sponson weapons to fire through the tank? If that's how you want to play that's fine but it's not what the rules say despite your insistance to the contrary.

ETA - vehicles draw line of sight from the weapon. I don't know how much more clear you want it.

Yes, because the rules state that members of a unit do not block LOS to members of the unit. Unless you can demonstrate that that rule does not apply, you are not following what the book says.

Basically it comes down to whether or not the mount allows the gun to point at the target. If it does, even if you would have to put the round through the tank, you can shoot it. If it doesn't, you can't.

Do I think the rules are written well? No, but that doesn't change what they say. If you can point out where it says a model can block LOS to itself, go for it. The FAQ suggests it, but then describes what they do as a house rule. A fairly sensible house rule, but not the official rules.

Look at this another way, would you give a target unit a cover save if say LOS from the turret passed through your smoke launchers? You are shooting at a unit through another unit then. 4+ save for the target?

The rules are abstract, and not terribly well written. If you want to add a level of realism, then say models block LOS/give cover saves from themselves. Expand it to include all members of units for extra sense. Unless you can show me the line where it says a model can block LOS to itself, considering that it does state that units NEVER block line of sight to themselves, you are arguing RAI not RAW.

Scott-S6 wrote:The 45degree provision is for weapons that are not able to elevate to that extent. If a turret weapon was able to point further up than that (e.g razorback) then it can regardless of gluing.

Not according to the vehicle shooting rules.

The rulebook actually says that all weapons are assumed to be able to move 45 degrees vertically even if they can not physically do so.

Not just if, but even if... which means that this rule also applies to those weapons that actually can move further. In the same way that walker weapons are confined by the rules to a 45 degree fire arc to the walker's front, regardless of how the weapon is modelled.

ETA, are you suggesting that the 45 degrees of vertical movement should be measured from the position the weapon is modelled at? If so, that's incredibly open to abuse. Surely it should be measured from the horizontal?

It would be measured from the horizontal if the rules said to do so... but as it stands, it would have to be from the position it is sitting on the model, as no other definition is given. So in the case of movable weapons, you just move the weapon. In the case of immovable weapons, they would have a 45 degree arc from wherever they are modelled... but since most people model their weapon barrels horizontal or close to, it effectively comes to more or less the same thing.

And in practice, from my experience, most people actually play that vehicle weapons can be depressed far enough to target models on the ground regardless of the actual angle.

Wehrkind wrote:Yes, because the rules state that members of a unit do not block LOS to members of the unit. Unless you can demonstrate that that rule does not apply, you are not following what the book says.

Basically it comes down to whether or not the mount allows the gun to point at the target. If it does, even if you would have to put the round through the tank, you can shoot it. If it doesn't, you can't.

Do I think the rules are written well? No, but that doesn't change what they say. If you can point out where it says a model can block LOS to itself, go for it. The FAQ suggests it, but then describes what they do as a house rule. A fairly sensible house rule, but not the official rules.

No, they aren't well written. LOS is not locked by a member of the same unit. This could well be interpreted to mean "other member". The diagrams for the predator and the FAQ both support this interpretation.

Wehrkind wrote:
Look at this another way, would you give a target unit a cover save if say LOS from the turret passed through your smoke launchers? You are shooting at a unit through another unit then. 4+ save for the target?

No, this is nonsense as the smoke launcher is not "another unit" it's the same unit. Either the weapon has line of sight or it does not.