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.

I've been holding back on buying one of the new manticore/deathstrike lists for a bit of a stupid reason. The forgeworld version is on a turret but the new fancy gw version is not. Having an expensive ordnance delivery system like the manticore immobilised makes it pretty useless. If it was on a turret at least I'd have a chance of getting a shot or two off.

Basically I just want to know what people's opinions are on the matter. In the guard codex it doesn't say the storm eagle rockets are turret mounted, but the picture of the manticore shows the forgeworld model, which has them mounted on a turret. In reality the codex isn't really specific in any of the vehicles listings as to how the weapons listed are mounted on said vehicle with the exception of sponson or pintle. Now the obvious argument I would make is like most people I have eyes and can see how a model is supposed to be put together and how each weapon is mounted.

Still though, I don't want want to be seen as modelling for advantage if I try and convert the GW manticore so that the missiles are turret mounted just like the forgeworld one. Opinions?

There looks to be only a marginal difference in height.
I would buy the one without the turret.
Simply because imho it looks a lot neater

If you prefer the turreted version go with it. It looks a bit like a mounted version of the Rapier AA system

I'd say no one would realise, and that anyone willing to spend money on a forge world one deserves the benefits. Go ahead, Id allow it, IT IS a 12 10 10 vehicle after all, needs all the mobility it can get.

You Do know the Manticore is Barrage, and doesn't need LOS right?

Yes, LOS is a Bonus, but when are you ever really gonna have it to the enemy you are shooting?

I play Ordnance Barrage weapons all the time, and you'd be amazed at how many times you get the LOS bonus. (all you need to do is see any part of the body of a model, or any part of hull/turret of a vehicle).

The only drawback is the 45 degree left right fire arc from fixed turrets. You have to commit to a single target with Fixed fire turrets where as 360 turrets give you options.

For example, What if I have to change targets because during the shooting phase the target I was going to fire at with my fixed turret weapon is now gone, and there are no other targets in my 45 degree fire arc

My question would be can you purposely mod a fixed turret weapon (like a Basilisk) so that it now has a 360 Turret?

don't you need LOS to the center of the template and not just the vehicle?

Don't know if that was a question about my statement Warboss, so just in case I'll try to explain.

You need LOS to any part of the vehicle's Hull/Turret, then once you establish LOS, you can place the Blast Marker so that the the center hole is over any part of the hull (BRB pg: 60)

I hope this helps Warboss, let me know if I'm getting this wrong.

Gwar! wrote:You Do know the Manticore is Barrage, and doesn't need LOS right?

Yes, LOS is a Bonus, but when are you ever really gonna have it to the enemy you are shooting?

My concern is it being immobilised and thus stuck with very few if any targerts. I tend to only want to use them in larger games and apoc so it's important to be able to engage many different targets. You still need to turn to face to fire ordnance barrage do you not?

My concern is that this is a grey area. I could argue from a rules standpoint that a leman russ's battle cannon isn't listed as a turret and thus cannot shoot 360 degrees. The downside of that argument is people have eyes. Let's think of this another way. Recently GW has come out with a new leman russ kit with all the missing variants. The vanquisher gun for the new GW model is much shorter than some of it's forgeworld brothers. Would I now be a douchebag if I got one of the forgeworld vanquisher turrets to gain an extra few inches?

mrfantastical wrote:My question would be can you purposely mod a fixed turret weapon (like a Basilisk) so that it now has a 360 Turret?

There are no rules covering conversions. It's between you and your opponent.

All 4 of the options in the ordnance battery squadron all have hull mounted weapons.

The manticore in the codex shares the same turret as the hydra in the codex. They're both vehicles that fluf wise can deal with aircraft, the manticore of course having a different payload than the codex (ref fw apoc 2 book).


I think the reason the gw model doesn't have a turret OR resemble the image in the codex is mainly because they wanted to make a 2 model kit where the second option is the deathstrike instead of the hydra/manticore we all thought would come out. I feel it got shafted because it had to be able to be built as a deathsrtike too.

Gwar; I don't think the issue that Crablez is raising has to do with LOS but more arc of fire. For instance, let's say you can ignore terrain with a hull mounted Heavy Bolter; would you allow it more than the 45 degree arc of fire.

Even the Basilisk must turn to face its target even if it has no Line of Sight before it can fire. If it gets immobilized, it can no longer turn to face and thus now only has a 45 degree arc of fire.


Crablez: I hear what you're saying on them wanting to get two models in one, but that said they could have easily done a turret mounted Death Strike. I built one; mind you it doesn't have a wide arc of fire either when the missile is pointed skyward.

Gwar is correct actually, as its barrage los isnt needed. There is no such thing as "fire arcs" there are arcs of sight, which show what weapon can see what.

Rules don't have to "make sense".

kill dem stunties wrote:Gwar is correct actually, as its barrage los isnt needed. There is no such thing as "fire arcs" there are arcs of sight, which show what weapon can see what.

Nope, sorry, that's not actually true.


The rules for firing vehicle weapons (pp58 and 59 of the rulebook) tell us that in order to have LOS with a vehicle, you need to be able to point the appropriate weapon at the target.

However, they also define the weapons' fire arcs. Specifically for the topic at hand:
"Hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arc from their mounting point."

Note that it doesn't just restrict LOS to that 45 degree arc. It defines the arc in which the weapon can fire.

The Barrage rules negate the need for LOS. They do not alter the arc in which the weapon can fire.

Two internet cookies to Insaniak!

This is where many bring up immobilization results to models like the Dreadnought. Which can not turn to shoot 360 degrees even though if you look at the model itself; it is designed in such a way that it SHOULD be able to pivot at the waist line a full 360.


But in this case; the Manticore, Baslisk, Medusa, Deathstrike and ANY other hull mounted weapon would be stuck with a 45 degree firing arc if immobilized. Its one of the negative factors as to why I have been holding back on the urge to build multiple Medusa's for Apoc games because of their low point cost, but with their weak armor and an immobilization could REALLY hurt their usefullness. It truly is better at that point to take a bunch more Hydra's as you can ALMOST but not quite get two Hydra's for the cost of one Medusa; you can if you take Bastian Breachers for the Medusa as that adds 5pts to be 140 for the model. But the Hydra has a turret; or at least the FW model does, and I use the AEGIS line quad cannon for converting my own hydras so it has turrets as well. Meaning that its just another illustration that the turret has the upper hand with 360 firing arc if immobilized where the fixed weapon is lacking.


To be honest though; I would not mind if they wrote a rule in for the eagle or death strike missiles that they don't have a narrow firing arc. Because really they're more like cruise missiles than point and shoot shoulder rockets. But then I'm a guard player as well so I suppose I'd be a bit Biased there.


I do enjoy watching how upset some people get when they first go up against the Manti-core and the model does that 1 in 100 chance shot of getting ALL 4 templates AND hitting with all four; it can be VERY devastating. But the reality is, that the manti-core is not a very "consistent" weapon choice. I usually see it only get one or two templates, three the odd time, but only twice seen it get all four templates and only once where it got hits with all them templates. That guy was so super upset, too; he launched everything he had at it; managed to miss and the rest the game it did almost nothing ((actually I think it killed only ONE Chaos Marine one round after and got destroyed)).

Insaniak, the section about pointing your weapon at it and drawing LOS is irrelevant, for one its under the section, vehicle weapons and line of sight, which the gun doesnt need.

With your logic you can never fire indirectly at all, even if not immobilized, as you cant satisfy the requirement to point it at the enemy and trace los, which if not possible to do it says the shot may not be fired.

"just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to trace a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them" Immediately after this (next sentence in paragraph) is the instructions to point and draw los which youre indirect firing vehicle cannot do, hence cannot ever fire? ...

Lastly, its not like i have a vested interest in this ... my manticore is forgeworld and turret mounted lol.

Kill dem stunties: It is very relevant.


If it was not; then my hull mounted las cannon can fire any direction from my Lemon Russ. Or the Hull flamers from my Chimera; or any of the sponson weapons I have.


The rule sites what directions the weapon CAN fire; line of sight dictates whether or not the weapon can HIT the target of choice. They're two very different rule aspects and in the case of the turret vs. hull mount can be a very difficult problem to deal with when immobilized.

I should have clarified that statement, it is not relevant "TO WEAPONS THAT DONT NEED TO TRACE LINE OF SIGHT."

can your lascannon fire indirectly? if not then that passage is relevant to you.

Better?

kill dem stunties wrote:Insaniak, the section about pointing your weapon at it and drawing LOS is irrelevant, for one its under the section, vehicle weapons and line of sight, which the gun doesnt need.

It's in the LOS section because LOS and arc of fire are in most cases the same thing.

With your logic you can never fire indirectly at all, even if not immobilized, as you cant satisfy the requirement to point it at the enemy and trace los, which if not possible to do it says the shot may not be fired.

No, with my logic you always need to point the weapon towards the target, but only need LOS when the weapon needs LOS.


You don't need LOS for indirect fire because the Barrage rules say you don't. But you still need to follow the rules for the weapon's fire arc.

kill dem stunties wrote:Insaniak, the section about pointing your weapon at it and drawing LOS is irrelevant, for one its under the section, vehicle weapons and line of sight, which the gun doesnt need.

With your logic you can never fire indirectly at all, even if not immobilized, as you cant satisfy the requirement to point it at the enemy and trace los, which if not possible to do it says the shot may not be fired.

"just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to trace a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them" Immediately after this (next sentence in paragraph) is the instructions to point and draw los which youre indirect firing vehicle cannot do, hence cannot ever fire? ...

Lastly, its not like i have a vested interest in this ... my manticore is forgeworld and turret mounted lol.

So you're saying I could squeeze a basilisk sideways behind terrain and that would have no effect on its ability to engage targets... it's shells just spin around mid air and have their own guidance system?

No, you cant arbitrarily only follow half of the rules insaniak, it doesn't say point it, now trace LOS if able.

The immediately preceding statement says if you cant trace los you cant fire. Then says point and trace los.

as said you cant just decide what parts to follow ...

my point being that there is no interaction at all with this entire passage in the rules, and weapons firing indirectly, as a section telling you how to trace line of sight on a shot that doesnt need line of sight is irrelevant.

kill dem stunties wrote:No, you cant arbitrarily only follow half of the rules insaniak,

I'm not arbitrarily following half of the rules. I'm following the half of the rules that the Barrage rules don't say to ignore.

The immediately preceding statement says if you cant trace los you cant fire. Then says point and trace los.

And the Barrage rules say that tracing LOS is not required. So you're left with just pointing the weapon towards the target, which the Barrage rules don't tell you not to do.

No, its not correct to apply a section of the rules dealing only with vehicle weaponry and the line of sight of said vehicles weaponry, to something that doesnt need los.

Thats as asinine as trying to use the rules for shooting when moving infantry, the sections don't deal with each other.

kill dem stunties wrote:No, its not correct to apply a section of the rules dealing only with vehicle weaponry and the line of sight of said vehicles weaponry, to something that doesnt need los.

The point is that the section in question doesn't only deal with LOS. It also deals with the weapons' arcs of fire, and does so in the same section because LOS and AoF are generally hand-in-hand.

Thats as asinine as trying to use the rules for shooting when moving infantry, the sections don't deal with each other.

It's not even remotely similar.

The section covers LOS and fire arcs. A specific rule tells us to ignore the LOS rules. It doesn't tell us to ignore the weapon's fire arc. So we ignore the LOS rules, and continue to apply other rules as normal.


Here's a breakdown of the shooting process:
- Choose what you want to shoot at
- Turn the model to face their chosen target
- Check LOS to the chosen target
- Measure the range to the chosen target
- Make your rolls to Hit.


For vehicles, this process is slightly altered, as non-walker vehicles are not permitted to turn and face their target. Instead, their weapons are given set fire arcs depending on their mounting. So we replace the second step with turning the weapon to point at the target rather than turning the whole model. We are also told that if the target lies outside of the arc in which the weapon can turn, the weapon can not fire.


The Barrage rules remove the LOS step, as no LOS is required. Nothing in the Barrage rules suggests that you do not turn and face the target as normal. So infantry firing Barrage weapons are still turned to face their target, and vehicle's firing Barrage weapons still need to point their weapons at their target. The sole change made by Barrage is that you don't need to establish LOS.

Here's a breakdown of the shooting process:
- Choose what you want to shoot at
- Turn the model to face their chosen target
- Check LOS to the chosen target
- Measure the range to the chosen target
- Make your rolls to Hit.

For vehicles, this process is slightly altered, as non-walker vehicles are not permitted to turn and face their target. Instead, their weapons are given set fire arcs depending on their mounting. So we replace the second step with turning the weapon to point at the target rather than turning the whole model. We are also told that if the target lies outside of the arc in which the weapon can turn, the weapon can not fire.


The Barrage rules remove the LOS step, as no LOS is required. Nothing in the Barrage rules suggests that you do not turn and face the target as normal. So infantry firing Barrage weapons are still turned to face their target, and vehicle's firing Barrage weapons still need to point their weapons at their target. The sole change made by Barrage is that you don't need to establish LOS. [/q

uote]

Amen Brother! Thank you for saving me a lot of typing.

insaniak wrote:We are also told that if the target lies outside of the arc in which the weapon can turn, the weapon can not fire.

Small correction, that would be the arc in which the weapon can see. "arc of sight"

This is the difference which leads to the controversy with Barrage weapons. Why they could not have called them "arcs of fire" or something instead I do not know.

The rules re pointing the weapons are to establish LoS - "point them against the target and then trace the line of sight". All of these rules are in the section titled "Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight" which starts "Just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them." Everything in this section then talks about using the movement of the turrets to establish line of sight ("arcs of sight" in the diagrams), etc.

It's definately not how I'd play it but I don't see how you can claim that the pointing the weapon is required for a barrage weapon when the pointing of the weapon is used as a mechanism to determine LoS. If the weapons are glued then you use the diagrams to establish LoS - not arcs of fire.

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.

The arc of the weapon determines its LOS. But it [i]also[i], in order to determine that LOS, dictates where the weapon can fire. If the weapon can not point at the target, it can not fire at it, and by association can not draw LOS to it.


You need to be physically able to fire at the target in order to have LOS to it.

Hmm, I always imagine the missiles to be a bit heat-seekey, so if the unit inside the vehicle can see the target, it can probably use the cogitator to point it out to the missile, which turns around in mid-air.
Obviously if the crew can't see the target unit, they're relying on luck and radar!

I dunno, that's probably a real-lifey sort of answer rather than rules, but I can't imagine missiles that powerful just being chucked at the enemy with no guidance systems!

insaniak wrote:

You need to be physically able to fire at the target in order to have LOS to it.

Remember, I side with you on this, but I have also been thinking that possibly this is all screwed up because the lack of identifying weapons properly. Ie. turrets in many cases are no longer defined as turret weapons ((look through entire Guard dex and you won't find it, another good example are Whirlwinds)).




But back on first track of thinking, according to some here I don't have to point my Basilisk in the direction of intended target. Cool, so what I'm going to do is turn it backwards, hide it up against a building so the weaker rear armor can't be "seen" or hit, and then because you measure from the end of the barrel, I will also reduce minimum firing range on the 4x4 table so that I can hit targets that are CLOSER to the tank. Ie. min range is 12in ((Don't have dex handy and it might be more, I don't use the basi often anymore, sorry.)) Still, its 12in. from the end of the barrel, but when I turn the tank around it will move the minimum firing like to be 6 inches from the back of the tank, because measurement is taken from the barrel. ((I guess I should point out that I am being a bit sarcastic too guys ))


I wonder how long before everyone things I'm a dick for even thinking of that, let alone even trying to play that by the theory that "indirect" means not needing to be able to point the weapon in the right direction. Though I'm not happy about finding that particular poor writing on GW's part on page 59 where it says in text "Hull mounted weapons can fire in a 45degree arc from their mounting point" which WOULD mean you have to turn to face to be able to fire; but then the diagram shows "Hull mounted arc of sight" with that and page 58 saying barrage does not need to "see" the target. Still; it does not say "it does not need to turn to face" which was illustrating in the previous pages about the shooting phase for vehicles, walkers, and infantry.

Interestingly enough, the GW model is set up perfectly for finding the firing arc of the rockets. Being as they are mounted on the REAR of the vehicle, the arc can be effectively drawn through the front corners of the tank, which is also very nearly the same as the arc for hitting the front armor.

It should also be noted that most modern indirect fire weapons still nee to be pointed in the right direction. As illustrated in the film 'Stripes'. (can't find the clip) Sgt Hulka gets "Blowed up" by a mortar fired while pointing the wrong way.

Dracheous wrote:Remember, I side with you on this, but I have also been thinking that possibly this is all screwed up because the lack of identifying weapons properly. Ie. turrets in many cases are no longer defined as turret weapons ((look through entire Guard dex and you won't find it, another good example are Whirlwinds)).

That's exactly the problem. The rulebook says that weapons are defined in their respective codexes, but then they got bored and didn't bother following through with that idea. So most vehicle weapons aren't actually defined, and you have to go by how the model is built.