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.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Is there any possible way 5 guys can fire out of the cupola at the same time?

Could they possibly fire out of the double bay doors?

There is your Hatch.

No offense, but this is one of those 'I need to find justification so I'm turning to the real world, even though this still ends up making literally no sense' non-definitions.

The IG codex invalidates 'real world' reasoning with the statement that it's assumed dudes are firing from the side ports with lasguns sticking out. So we know that they're not actually opening up the top to fire out Vietnam PT-boat style, they're still in their armored compartment using the gun ports. The simplest thing GW could have done would have been to say 'it has 5 firing points, but measure from the side lasguns as it's assumed that's where the gunners are firing from', but instead they use the ambiguous and ill-defined 'hatch' as the origin.

In my opinion, going by the nebulous rules, there's absolutely no reason IG players can't declare they're firing from their pick of 'top' hatches. Or, rather, there's no solid ground for their opponent to dispute the turret hatch being a valid firing point.

This is why I'm glad all my vehicles are open-topped... too much confusion on all your metal boxes!!! lol

Dang it, i've always used the cupola. Now i'm not sure

go with what works at your FLGS. At the worst, its a house rule and you ask the TO when you go to a tourney.

Galador wrote:This is why I'm glad all my vehicles are open-topped... too much confusion on all your metal boxes!!! lol

Actually, since Inquisitoral Chimeras count as being open-topped if a model with armor save worse than 3+ fires from it, couldn't they fire from any point on the hull?

daedalus wrote:

Galador wrote:This is why I'm glad all my vehicles are open-topped... too much confusion on all your metal boxes!!! lol

Actually, since Inquisitoral Chimeras count as being open-topped if a model with armor save worse than 3+ fires from it, couldn't they fire from any point on the hull?

Any model would be able to fire from it if it counts as open-topped, irregardless of their armour save (unless there is something in the Inquisition codexes that states otherwise?)

Ah, nevermind, it's only open-topped for the purposes of being shot at our assaulted.

sourclams wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Is there any possible way 5 guys can fire out of the cupola at the same time?

Could they possibly fire out of the double bay doors?

There is your Hatch.

No offense, but this is one of those 'I need to find justification so I'm turning to the real world, even though this still ends up making literally no sense' non-definitions.

The IG codex invalidates 'real world' reasoning with the statement that it's assumed dudes are firing from the side ports with lasguns sticking out. So we know that they're not actually opening up the top to fire out Vietnam PT-boat style, they're still in their armored compartment using the gun ports. The simplest thing GW could have done would have been to say 'it has 5 firing points, but measure from the side lasguns as it's assumed that's where the gunners are firing from', but instead they use the ambiguous and ill-defined 'hatch' as the origin.

In my opinion, going by the nebulous rules, there's absolutely no reason IG players can't declare they're firing from their pick of 'top' hatches. Or, rather, there's no solid ground for their opponent to dispute the turret hatch being a valid firing point.

If you read my earlier statements this was more of a "common sense" justification that I added to what I had already stated.

In all reality this is just one of those things that us older gamers with lots of old fluff books+etc, just "know". "Top Hatch" is somewhat ill-defined in the cuyrrent codex, and it takes someone with one of the old posters, or who have been playing guard since 3rd edition(chapter approved, had a nice article on the fire-points of vehicles when they started using them), or in fourth edition when the Chimera was better defined and the 6 Las-guns could be shot by passengers, and the hatch between them could be opened to allow 1 non-lasgun weapon to fire from the crew compartment.

If you wanted more fluff on why it is not the cupola hatch(besides it saying top-hatch, not cupola-hatch, or turret hatch); that can be found in Imperial Armor 1 where they show you a diagram of the internal workings and you can plainly see the passengers have no access to the Turret.

There's no rulebook called "fluff" unfortunately. The issue is, it's not the top hatch itself that's firing, it's guys firing out of the top hatch. How high over the top hatch are you supposed to measure? Who knows...

Kommissar Kel wrote:In all reality this is just one of those things that us older gamers with lots of old fluff books+etc, just "know". "Top Hatch" is somewhat ill-defined in the cuyrrent codex, and it takes someone with one of the old posters, or who have been playing guard since 3rd edition(chapter approved, had a nice article on the fire-points of vehicles when they started using them), or in fourth edition when the Chimera was better defined and the 6 Las-guns could be shot by passengers, and the hatch between them could be opened to allow 1 non-lasgun weapon to fire from the crew compartment.

Gotta call BS on the 'Old Man' line of reasoning. GW changes games drastically between codices and editions. As anyone with a Chaos army knows, what happened before has 0 in-game relevance on what is possible today.

If you wanted more fluff on why it is not the cupola hatch(besides it saying top-hatch, not cupola-hatch, or turret hatch); that can be found in Imperial Armor 1 where they show you a diagram of the internal workings and you can plainly see the passengers have no access to the Turret.

You call it a cupola hatch, I call it a top hatch. Both of us is right, and neither of us is wrong because the rules have given us no reference for what counts as a top-hatch that doesn't also include the one on top of the turret. The passenger access is irrelevant; they're firing from the guns. GW simply tells you where to measure from for purposes of range and LoS. By the rules, an IG player is fully justified measuring from the turret hatch.

sourclams wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:In all reality this is just one of those things that us older gamers with lots of old fluff books+etc, just "know". "Top Hatch" is somewhat ill-defined in the cuyrrent codex, and it takes someone with one of the old posters, or who have been playing guard since 3rd edition(chapter approved, had a nice article on the fire-points of vehicles when they started using them), or in fourth edition when the Chimera was better defined and the 6 Las-guns could be shot by passengers, and the hatch between them could be opened to allow 1 non-lasgun weapon to fire from the crew compartment.

Gotta call BS on the 'Old Man' line of reasoning. GW changes games drastically between codices and editions. As anyone with a Chaos army knows, what happened before has 0 in-game relevance on what is possible today.

If you wanted more fluff on why it is not the cupola hatch(besides it saying top-hatch, not cupola-hatch, or turret hatch); that can be found in Imperial Armor 1 where they show you a diagram of the internal workings and you can plainly see the passengers have no access to the Turret.

You call it a cupola hatch, I call it a top hatch. Both of us is right, and neither of us is wrong because the rules have given us no reference for what counts as a top-hatch that doesn't also include the one on top of the turret. The passenger access is irrelevant; they're firing from the guns. GW simply tells you where to measure from for purposes of range and LoS. By the rules, an IG player is fully justified measuring from the turret hatch.

@ Sourclams: Most people who started playing more recently usually say something to this effect. But the truth is, its been clearly defined as the REAR top hatch for over a decade. I've seen the trend in recent times where the newer players try to get away with stuff becuase its not idiot-proof stated in ther rules. I've been playing IG since 2nd Edition, and it has never once came up that a passenger could fire from the turret hatch. And if you wanted to be logical (irrelevant in Warhammer, but for conversations sake) the turret hatch leads down into the vehicle crews' comparment. I wasen't even going to post on this thread when it first popped up, figuring the issue would be resolved in 2-3 post. But alas...

Another reson one can't use the Split Hatch doors on the turret, is that they disapper with a weapon destroyed result.

Cortez667 wrote:@ Sourclams: Most people who started playing more recently usually say something to this effect. But the truth is, its been clearly defined as the REAR top hatch for over a decade. I've seen the trend in recent times where the newer players try to get away with stuff becuase its not idiot-proof stated in their rules. I've been playing IG since 2nd Edition, and it has never once came up that a passenger could fire from the turret hatch.

One man's Sacred Cow is another man's hamburger. You can not create an actual rules argument that invalidates the turret hatch as the option for the firepoint.

And it's not like we've been using the same rules forever either, and a wonky BRB wording is the only change that shakes up the mechanics. A chimera has never had 5 fire points before. In 4th ed, the lasguns were functional and you had to open up the vehicle for a guy to physically pop his head out and shoot a weapon, making it open topped and vulnerable to all kinds of nastiness. That doesn't happen anymore. The gunners never leave the crew compartment.

And if you wanted to be logical (irrelevant in Warhammer, but for conversations sake) the turret hatch leads down into the vehicle crews' comparment.

Totally irrelevant, as the crew are firing from the fixed lasguns. The codex even says this. Yet somehow the IG Vet chimera's fixed lasguns fire plasma guns and the Inquisitorial chimera's fixed lasguns fire meltaguns. Until the henchmen get out and the Purgation squad gets in, then the fixed lasguns fire incinerators and psycannons. And if the Justicar wants to take a shot, the fixed lasguns fire stormbolters, too!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:Another reson one can't use the Split Hatch doors on the turret, is that they disapper with a weapon destroyed result.

No they don't.

Okay so you remove the turret, where's this hatch you're shooting out of?

So from reading all this text I think that you would have to shot from the hatch not the front turret, saying you cannot fire going directly straight, I never got a ruling but I will next week, until then it is up to dakka

ChrisCP wrote:Okay so you remove the turret, where's this hatch you're shooting out of?

Removing the turret when you roll a weapon destroyed is a popular convention... but not actually a rule. There is no rule that tells you to physically remove the weapon, or the turret it is mounted in.


That being said, regardless of what the rules say, I'm pretty firmly in the 'the top hatch is the big hatch over the passenger compartment' camp. But as I said last time this issue came up, I'll be happy to let you use the cupola instead... just so long as you actually model it with five guys sticking out of it.

There is a strongly worded suggestion thou "This helps with ease of transport and is a great way to represent Weapon Destroyed results – just take the relevant weapon off altogether." true they go onto "A different approach is to place a dice on or next to the vehicle" Page 57, it remains however that part of the vehicle is rendered functionless or 'Destroyed' how one is going to use a destroyed turrets hatch is beyond me!

I want to see the 5 guys too =P

insaniak wrote:
That being said, regardless of what the rules say, I'm pretty firmly in the 'the top hatch is the big hatch over the passenger compartment' camp. But as I said last time this issue came up, I'll be happy to let you use the cupola instead... just so long as you actually model it with five guys sticking out of it.

Now I am tempted to model five arms with lasguns and/or meltaguns sticking out, just to mess with everyone!

What about the front window? Its a "hatch"!

Happygrunt wrote:What about the front window? Its a "hatch"!

Yea, but its not on "top".

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:What about the front window? Its a "hatch"!

Yea, but its not on "top".

I could argue that its on "top" of the piece it is glued on, but as I dont really care, and just playing devils advocate, I wont.

GW is bad at wording things or they are to busy adding a wall of fluff to half of the page and a picture that covers the other half halfway. When they could of used some of that room to put all the rules that effect that vehicle and clearly define points like the "hatch".

There are only about 12 different vehicles in the whole game, not including whatever contraptions Orks might come up with.

GW ought to just specify the hatches and firing points in each vehicle.

IMO IG have enough advantage already with their cheap drive-by mechvet multiple melta Chimchims. There's no need to give them another buff.

Meh, in my gaming group, we are pretty loose and measure from the chimera's hull.

This is so a unit who fires at the transport can be shot themselves if both sides have the same range of gun.

This stops instances where unit A is able to fire at unit B, but unit B cannot fire at unit A when their weapons have the same range. (although transport and transportee's are two separate units, we assume they are on the same infinitesimal point for range purposes)

Why do you want to stop that? Reciprocity certainly isnt assumed in this game (for example, you can receive a cover save while not giving one in return)

Wow robbed because of denial of 5 shots?! Must have been a pretty special 5 shots.....

If they are finishing off a scoring SM unit, or killing a vehicle that is contesting an objective, they can be VERY special.

I've had games come down to a single shot before now.

Yeah no doubt, it does happen. Short of having 4 meltagunners within 6" of an empty Land raider contesting his home objective i dont really see how this lost him the game. I think it was an exaggeration on the OP's part. Fair enough being denied 5 guys shooting is annoying but i severely doubt it cost you the game. The all important 'single shot' is viewed with hindsight, i am sure there have been many games where you didnt get lucky from that 'single shot'.

Sorry, that really isnt true.

I have had a game literally determined by whether my surviving (2) marines were able to finish off a single Farseer plus DA Exarch (all that was left from all the other shooting) - if I had to charge there was a good likelihood that either chaos marine would be killed by the higher I exarch, especially before my fist got to strike. Due to wound allocation shenangigans it came down to 1 wond left on Farseer, so I needed to hit and wound with both BP shots.

well technically as the hatch has no elevation you cant shoot anything that is shorter than the hull of the vehicle anyway.

so people in a rhino could never shoot at infantry because they are shorter than the hull of the rhino. yet people shoot at infantry all the time from the top hatch. so if you allow people in rhinos to shoot at anything that is less than 2" tall, the question is how high is the person shooting out of the fire point? if its more than 1/2" then the turret prorbably doesnt matter.

its just like the cant shoot a flamer out of the fire point arguement.