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.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Kevin said the DV helbrute is only intended for use in a DV scenario, not intended for use as a CSM hellbrute model. I disagree with that completely.

The DV Helbrute doesn't have the option for swapping out/adding in weapons.
Meaning its only use outside DV is as a baseline Helbrute.

 BarBoBot wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
The arguement that the hellbrute model was only ever intended for the DV set fails when you open up the 6th edition csm codex and find several painted DV hellbrutes within its pages. :/

Fails at what? It's a hellbrute. It's got a multi melta. What exactly is your problem with it?

I have no issue with the hellbrute... I'm not sure how you got that from what I said....

Kevin said the DV helbrute is only intended for use in a DV scenario, not intended for use as a CSM hellbrute model. I disagree with that completely.

You're welcome to disagree, but I wasn't meaning that he can't be used with CSM armies. But giving him weapons and such that the model itself did not come with and then complaining about the model being a "fail" is just...not copacetic.

The model came with the dark vengeance box set, the DV box set came with it's own rules, the new CSM dex wasn't out when the DV box was released. So, I stand by my statement that this helbrute model was not modeled to be a standard helbrute for use in normal 40k games. Yes, it CAN be used, but that was not what it was released for. It's not part of the standard CSM model line.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Some of you rule lawyers really suck the fun out of this game. How is it that an arm cannot move to point a weapon?

Because the permissive ruleset tells us what we can do, the arm is not able to move to point, because the rules do not tell us we can move the arm.

So my furioso dread can only shoot straight forward because its guns are mounted on its arms and its arms can't swivel?





Edited for grammar.

45 degree arc, like every dread.

 Phiasco II wrote:
So my furioso dread can only shoot straight forward because its guns are mounted on its arms and its arms can swivel?

Walkers are an exception to the normal vehicle fire arc rules... Regardless of how their weapons are mounted, they have a 45 degree arc horizontally and vertically.

I suppose you could shoulder mount his bolter so that it's pointing in the right direction.

 insaniak wrote:

 Phiasco II wrote:
So my furioso dread can only shoot straight forward because its guns are mounted on its arms and its arms can swivel?

Walkers are an exception to the normal vehicle fire arc rules... Regardless of how their weapons are mounted, they have a 45 degree arc horizontally and vertically.

Are hellbrutes not a walker then?

 Phiasco II wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Phiasco II wrote:
So my furioso dread can only shoot straight forward because its guns are mounted on its arms and its arms can swivel?

Walkers are an exception to the normal vehicle fire arc rules... Regardless of how their weapons are mounted, they have a 45 degree arc horizontally and vertically.

Are hellbrutes not a walker then?

45 degree arcs horizontally and vertically from the weapon mounting.

Then what's wrong with assuming the hellbrutes arm is simply at the other extreme of that 45* of rotation walkers are allowed rather the the normal straight forward most walkers have their arms rested at? Seems very simple to me.

Because you don't measure the 45 degrees from the arm - you measure it along the barrel of the weapon.

That and the fact that it'd be hard to remember every time and it still wouldn't get what the OP wanted - both weapons firing at a single target.

In all honesty how often are you gonna care about firing the storm bolter? If you're engaging armour chances are the storm bolter won't be able to scratch it anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because you don't measure the 45 degrees from the arm - you measure it along the barrel of the weapon.

That and the fact that it'd be hard to remember every time and it still wouldn't get what the OP wanted - both weapons firing at a single target.

Correction: You measure from the mount, along the weapon barrel. You do not measure from the barrel.

So, for an arm mounted weapon, where is the weapon mount? The arm, of course. You would in fact be measuring from where the arm is mounted, along the weapon barrel.

SJ

 Crablezworth wrote:
In all honesty how often are you gonna care about firing the storm bolter? If you're engaging armour chances are the storm bolter won't be able to scratch it anyway.

It matters if you are firing at infantry or MCs. Not every army takes tanks, and when they do they aren't always in range. The other weapon might just be a heavy flamer also.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because you don't measure the 45 degrees from the arm - you measure it along the barrel of the weapon.

That and the fact that it'd be hard to remember every time and it still wouldn't get what the OP wanted - both weapons firing at a single target.

Correction: You measure from the mount, along the weapon barrel. You do not measure from the barrel.

So, for an arm mounted weapon, where is the weapon mount? The arm, of course. You would in fact be measuring from where the arm is mounted, along the weapon barrel.

From it's mounting along the barrel. A you measure from where the gun is mounted - the base of the gun. The base of the gun is not the shoulder of the arm.

Did 6th edition take out the wording regarding weapons that are glued down or posed and such? Why is this even an issue?

Hellbrute: That! I want to shoot that! Arm, what are you doing?!
Arm: Hey, what's that? Is that a bird over there?
Hellbrute: We can go that way later. Focus for a minute!
Arm: No! I want to go that way.

So are we assuming that the arm doesn't move? The gun I can agree with to an extent that it wouldn't move too much, but that arm would definately be able to point forward.

What if I modeled it with the arm facing forward? Is that modeling for advantage?

And shouldn't you be playing as what the model is vice how it's actually modeled? If I were to use a modified dread as a Hellbrute with the the arm pointing forward like a normal dread, would that be ok?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So are we assuming that the arm doesn't move?

Well this is a forum for rules debates, not necessarily how it should be played.
And the arm isn't the weapon mount. It's the mount that the weapon mount is mounted on (not easy to say out loud). And the rules don't allow for that to move.

 grendel083 wrote:
And the arm isn't the weapon mount. It's the mount that the weapon mount is mounted on (not easy to say out loud). And the rules don't allow for that to move.

I understand where you're coming from and I know the perspective if from RAW. It really is odd that they left out arms mounted weapons when making rules for walkers.

But I'm just asking if someone used a model other than the DV hellbrute, like an old chaos dread. Since the actual model, DV Hellbrute, is posed in such a way, you'd have to play it as the arm mounted weapons couldn't hit the same target as the other side's weapon.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Hellbrute: That! I want to shoot that! Arm, what are you doing?!
Arm: Hey, what's that? Is that a bird over there?
Hellbrute: We can go that way later. Focus for a minute!
Arm: No! I want to go that way.

You crafted a narrative!

I guess my problem with the DV helbrute is it is modeled to be more organic but still follows rigid walker rules.

On the plus side if a new helbrute model is released it will probably be more old-school in it's posing. Or it will be nigh unusable.

PolecatEZ wrote:
Did 6th edition take out the wording regarding weapons that are glued down or posed and such? Why is this even an issue?

It's an issue because the arm is pointing sideways.

Assuming that the weapon can move through its allowed arc even though the weapon physically can't doesn't help in this situation, because the arm is at roughly 90 degrees to the model's front, and the weapon only has a 45 degree fire arc. There is simply no way that a ranged weapon mounted on the model's powerfist can shoot to the model's front, unless it's glued on there sideways.

Well, Walkers are vehicles, and still follow all vehicle rule except where noted differently under the Walker entry. On page 72, 3rd paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentence: "On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the mpdel is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

So, the question boils down to the word "mounting". The hard-liners here seem to consider the how the weapon is attached to the model to be its "mounting", which means that if the arm is pointed down the weapon can only be aimed down. Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

Game Workshop has given specific permission for arm mounted weapon to used in the game. They created the mount, gave use rules to use the model, and have stated that the model may use the weapons legally purchased for it via its army list entry. Rules as Practical point to the arm being able to swing as an arm should, allowing the weapon to be used as it has been given permission to be used. Per the rules I quoted, we can assume the weapon can be moved into the correct position, and therefore may be used as if it was in the correct position.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, Walkers are vehicles, and still follow all vehicle rule except where noted differently under the Walker entry. On page 72, 3rd paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentence: "On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the mpdel is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

So, the question boils down to the word "mounting". The hard-liners here seem to consider the how the weapon is attached to the model to be its "mounting", which means that if the arm is pointed down the weapon can only be aimed down. Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

Game Workshop has given specific permission for arm mounted weapon to used in the game. They created the mount, gave use rules to use the model, and have stated that the model may use the weapons legally purchased for it via its army list entry. Rules as Practical point to the arm being able to swing as an arm should, allowing the weapon to be used as it has been given permission to be used. Per the rules I quoted, we can assume the weapon can be moved into the correct position, and therefore may be used as if it was in the correct position.

SJ

This.

I like the use of the word 'practical'. Lets use our heads people, and not for being a$$hats. Use your common sense and stop rules lawyering. I can't believe that people would argue that because the arm is modeled pointing sideways that its firing arc is centered in that direction. COMMON SENSE people, please use it.
stepping down now

 Phiasco II wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, Walkers are vehicles, and still follow all vehicle rule except where noted differently under the Walker entry. On page 72, 3rd paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentence: "On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the mpdel is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

So, the question boils down to the word "mounting". The hard-liners here seem to consider the how the weapon is attached to the model to be its "mounting", which means that if the arm is pointed down the weapon can only be aimed down. Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

Game Workshop has given specific permission for arm mounted weapon to used in the game. They created the mount, gave use rules to use the model, and have stated that the model may use the weapons legally purchased for it via its army list entry. Rules as Practical point to the arm being able to swing as an arm should, allowing the weapon to be used as it has been given permission to be used. Per the rules I quoted, we can assume the weapon can be moved into the correct position, and therefore may be used as if it was in the correct position.

SJ

This.

I like the use of the word 'practical'. Lets use our heads people, and not for being a$$hats. Use your common sense and stop rules lawyering. I can't believe that people would argue that because the arm is modeled pointing sideways that its firing arc is centered in that direction. COMMON SENSE people, please use it.
stepping down now

As most will tell you, just because someone argues a certain rule, they don't necessarily play that way.

HJ what you say is true, but in reality I really feel its counter productive.

Basically, I found dakka while searching for a rule that I was confused about.

When I read my first YMDC thread I was looking for an answer about how the rule was supposed to be played, and I assumed that the answers given were just that... How it SHOULD be played. The reality, however, is that most of the regular posters in YMDC don't ague the position as they feel it was intended, but rather a strict RAW, even when RAW is clearly wrong.

Those same regulars will openly admit from time to time that even though they argue for strict RAW, its not how they would actually play it.

I know that now, but even though many of the regulars state they argue for RAW even though they wouldn't play that way, there are so many players that come to the YMDC section not looking for hardline RAW at all costs but rather how it was meant to be... I feel that there are alot of people that don't realize YMDC isn't meant for HIWPI and end up using a WAAC interpretation in a friendly game environment... And that's not fun for anyone.

If the weapon is mounted on the forearm of the model, we assume from that point it can swivel 45 left/right and up/down as stated in the rules.

We then need to make further assumptions as to the range of motion regarding the other arm joints (shoulder and elbow joints), as there are no rules for this listed.

Larger weapon set-ups (TL AC and LC, for example) may supercede the elbow joints and possibly even the shoulder joint, being directly attached to the main body of the model. Even this should allow the 45 degree lateral traverse as well as a much wider range up-down pivot.

The Hellbrute has clearly retained the shoulder joint on his multi-melta arm, so he at least has that additional mobility adding to the 45 degrees of the weapon rules. Wrist mounted weapons would have the advantage of a full (organic looking) shoulder and elbow joint, in addition to the 45 degree weapon mounting.

This being said, I don't think GW is ever going to dignify this with a FAQ bullet, so the argument is moot.

 BarBoBot wrote:

I know that now, but even though many of the regulars state they argue for RAW even though they wouldn't play that way, there are so many players that come to the YMDC section not looking for hardline RAW at all costs but rather how it was meant to be... I feel that there are alot of people that don't realize YMDC isn't meant for HIWPI and end up using a WAAC interpretation in a friendly game environment... And that's not fun for anyone.

There are only a couple of those guys, they just like to post 50 times in a single thread. It doesn't take long to realize who to ignore but you are right it can be confusing for a new reader.

 BarBoBot wrote:
HJ what you say is true, but in reality I really feel its counter productive.

Basically, I found dakka while searching for a rule that I was confused about.

When I read my first YMDC thread I was looking for an answer about how the rule was supposed to be played, and I assumed that the answers given were just that... How it SHOULD be played. The reality, however, is that most of the regular posters in YMDC don't ague the position as they feel it was intended, but rather a strict RAW, even when RAW is clearly wrong.

Those same regulars will openly admit from time to time that even though they argue for strict RAW, its not how they would actually play it.

I know that now, but even though many of the regulars state they argue for RAW even though they wouldn't play that way, there are so many players that come to the YMDC section not looking for hardline RAW at all costs but rather how it was meant to be... I feel that there are alot of people that don't realize YMDC isn't meant for HIWPI and end up using a WAAC interpretation in a friendly game environment... And that's not fun for anyone.

I understand your frustration. The problem lies with your assumption that you could read 1-2 threads and know how the community works. This is why the stickies exist. To learn from a community you must understand how they work - the stickies document that arguments are by default RAW.

@ BarBoBot: Plus, if you do not ask for how we think it should be played or HIWPI then we will give a RAW answer.

If you need a "How it should this be played" answer, then we will let you know "How it should this be played" along with the actual RAW if the RAW and the "How it should this be played" do not match.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

The problem with this definition is that it goes completely against the idea that walker weapons only have a 45 degree arc, as the arm is clearly capable of a much wider arc of movement.

This would have a spill-back effect on other walkers. If you're going to argue that the Hellbrute can fire a weapon with a 45 degree fire arc at something that is at 90 degrees to the direction the weapon is facing, then you're going to have to allow every other dreadnought to also fire sideways.

Which is clearly wrong, since walkers have a very strictly defined 45 degree fire arc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phiasco II wrote:
I can't believe that people would argue that because the arm is modeled pointing sideways that its firing arc is centered in that direction.

Yes, in a game that relies on the physical position of the model to determine its fire arc, it is just unbelievable that people would use the physical position of the model to determine its fire arc.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Others are of the opinion that the weapon's "mounting" includes the entire arm,meaning that where the arm can reasonably swing defines where the weapon may be aimed.

The problem with this definition is that it goes completely against the idea that walker weapons only have a 45 degree arc, as the arm is clearly capable of a much wider arc of movement.

This would have a spill-back effect on other walkers. If you're going to argue that the Hellbrute can fire a weapon with a 45 degree fire arc at something that is at 90 degrees to the direction the weapon is facing, then you're going to have to allow every other dreadnought to also fire sideways. Which is clearly wrong, since walkers have a very strictly defined 45 degree fire arc.

There is no "strictly defined 45 degree arc", please go back and read the wording in the BRB. They are assumed to go 45 degree from "the mounting", strictly defined as where the weapon is attached to the model. The remainder of the model (including joints of the arms, legs, etc) is NOT defined anywhere in the rules. Previous editions have said things like "if it looks like the model can do it, it can". The arm is clearly capable of a wider range of movement, and then the 45 degree mounting helps to fine tune that aim. As was stated in the previous post, the GW models for various weapons for the different dreadnaught models have differing mobility, from direct attachment to the model (missile launcher, for example) to wrist mounting (underslung storm bolter, for example). The missile launcher would be subject to the very hard "45 degree" angle rule, being very fixed to the main body with no intervening joint, while the wrist mount would be 45 degrees from wherever the wrist could reasonably swing.

Again, there are NO rules definitions at all regarding the way walker arms can function and move in this edition. There is absolutely no way to argue for or against the OP using strictly RAW.