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.

insaniak wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Small correction, that would be the arc in which the weapon can see. "arc of sight"

No, it would be exactly what I said.

Page 59, second bullet point:
"Hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arc from their mounting point."

Note: Can fire. Not can see.

But not for turret or sponson weapons apparently? Or weapons that aren't glued? That wording is used only re hull-mounted and pintle-mounted. Furthermore, those bullet points are used only if the weapons are glued in place.

If they are not then you "point the weapon at the target and trace line of sight". The only reference to arcs is "arcs of sight" - there is no reference to "arcs of fire".

insaniak wrote:If the weapon can not point at the target, it can not fire at it. You need to be physically able to fire at the target in order to have LOS to it.

Do you actually have a quote for that because I'm not seeing anything?

This is way I just got the FW turret versions. New models for manticore are silly. I need turret mounted earthshackers now!

Scott-S6 wrote: Furthermore, those bullet points are used only if the weapons are glued in place.

Which hull-mounted weapons will be.

If they are not then you "point the weapon at the target and trace line of sight".

Right. It doesn't tell you to point hull-mounted weapons at the target because they're not capable of turning. You have to have pointed the tank in the right direction in the Movement phase, because the weapon can only fire in a 45 degree arc.

For sponson and turret weapons, you point the weapon at the target. That defines the weapon's fire arc, and establishes LOS.

insaniak wrote:If the weapon can not point at the target, it can not fire at it. You need to be physically able to fire at the target in order to have LOS to it.

Do you actually have a quote for that because I'm not seeing anything?

It's implicit in the rules that require you to point the weapon at the target, and specifically in the case of a hull-mounted weapon, through the fact that the rules define the arc in which it can fire.

And yet the diagram for hull mounted weapons indicates the "arc of sight" rather than arc of fire.

insaniak wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

insaniak wrote:If the weapon can not point at the target, it can not fire at it. You need to be physically able to fire at the target in order to have LOS to it.

Do you actually have a quote for that because I'm not seeing anything?

It's implicit in the rules that require you to point the weapon at the target, and specifically in the case of a hull-mounted weapon, through the fact that the rules define the arc in which it can fire.

These would be the rules that tell you to point the weapon at the target in order to establish LoS? In a section entitled "vehicle weapons and line of sight"?

Scott-S6 wrote:And yet the diagram for hull mounted weapons indicates the "arc of sight" rather than arc of fire.

That doesn't change the fact that the rules also specifically define the arc in which the weapon can fire.

The fact the the Vehicle LOS section deals with both LOS and the arc in which the weapon can fire has been my point all along.

Restrictions to arc of fire are mentioned only in the bullet points for glued hull and pintle weapons. Nowhere else.

I agree totally that it should work that way but it's not well put together in the rules at all.

Pg.58 reads as follows:

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace line of sight..."


The first part of firing a vehicles weapon is turning to face; this is for all vehicle weapons. So that basi idea would not work ((nor would I want it too)).




Now; I'm still wondering if anyone has some answers to this threads original question. Since the GW model suffers because of its hull mounted firing system for the Manticore launcher; would it be fair or unfair to use the model depicted in the codex ((the FW Manti-core model)) BECAUSE it has the turret which means its immobilized result will not hamper its firing arc?

It is not unfair, just use whichever model you have.

I think you have to go with 'fair', as, like you say, they have it depicted as such in the codex. I'm not sure if converting all the artillery pieces you have to have turrets would make you tfg or not, but I would think a basi w/ turret would start to get pretty cheesy. Might as well use slices of processed cheese to represent them. The rockets, ok, but what about say the grif? Tilta-whirl mortars?

Someone has a sig that says 'modelling to your advantage isn't specifically against the rules, but how much do you really need to win your games of toy soldiers?'

Given the pic snd not having the actual model, I would say it would be fairly easy to make a simple dual-plate style "turret" to turn the rocket rack toward the enemy.

murdog wrote:I think you have to go with 'fair', as, like you say, they have it depicted as such in the codex. I'm not sure if converting all the artillery pieces you have to have turrets would make you tfg or not, but I would think a basi w/ turret would start to get pretty cheesy. Might as well use slices of processed cheese to represent them. The rockets, ok, but what about say the grif? Tilta-whirl mortars?

Someone has a sig that says 'modelling to your advantage isn't specifically against the rules, but how much do you really need to win your games of toy soldiers?'

I agree completely. I think anyone converting a griffon/medusa/colussus/basilisk to have a turret is sorta pushing their luck. In this instance though it shares the same turret as the hydra, and no one is gonna argue that an AA tank would have a turret.