Chimera opening hatch

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.

**sHOEbOX**

Will the turret on the front of the chimera block line of sight for models firing from the hutch? If this is the case then the models will not be able to fire forward.

**kirsanth**

It will if LoS goes through a solid object, those block LoS.

Do you mean from embarked units? (rarely played as such, but easily argued)
From itself/another part of the vehicle? (not sure how it can, but in theory, yes)
From other units? (Yes)

**sHOEbOX**

sorry, i didn't put enough information in, i'll correct it now.

**Jaon**

I say no. You can fire through your own unit (if you belong to that unit). For the purposes of firing I think you can fire through the chimera turret. The only reason a land raiders lascannons cant fire through its front to get someone standing in front of it is because its firing ark stops.

**kirsanth**

sHOEbOX wrote:Will the turret on the front of the chimera block line of sight for models firing from the hutch? If this is the case then the models will not be able to fire forward.

kirsanth wrote:Do you mean from embarked units? (rarely played as such, but easily argued)

Jaon wrote:I say no. You can fire through your own unit (if you belong to that unit). For the purposes of firing I think you can fire through the chimera turret. The only reason a land raiders lascannons cant fire through its front to get someone standing in front of it is because its firing ark stops.

The chimera and the unit embarked are not the same unit.

**chromedog**

^ What he said.

Transports and embarked units are NOT the same unit.
They do NOT have to fire at the same target (if they were part of the same unit, this would NOT be the case).

The turret WILL block LOS forward just like shooting through any other model.

**insaniak**

Jaon wrote:I say no. You can fire through your own unit (if you belong to that unit).

But not through yourself. From the rulebook FAQ:

Games Workshop wrote:If the structure the gun is
pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of
rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola,
then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of
fire. 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’.

Besides which, as already pointed out, the embarked unit is a separate unit to the transport. LOS is from the hatch... so will be blocked by the turret.

**sHOEbOX**

Well that's a bit crap, there's loads of people who talk about using the chimera as a firing platform but if 90% of the front view is blocked what use is that? Disembarking the unit means that the squishy guardsmen are going to get krumped straight away, and as the hatch is at the back they won't be able to fire the turn they get out.

Looks like I'm re-writing my list...

**don_mondo**

All you have to do is angle the chimera just a little bit so that the embarked unit can see, and given that pivoting in the movement phase does not count as movement for purposes of shooting, you can always (well, unless it's immobilized) clear that LOS for the embarked unit while (usually) keeping your front armor to the highest threat.

**Ruckdog**

don_mondo wrote:All you have to do is angle the chimera just a little bit so that the embarked unit can see, and given that pivoting in the movement phase does not count as movement for purposes of shooting, you can always (well, unless it's immobilized) clear that LOS for the embarked unit while (usually) keeping your front armor to the highest threat.

Yep, that is pretty much what I have found too. Another good thing to remember is that you measuer the firing from the "top hatch." Note that it doesn't say which part of the hatch, though. This allows you to use one of the rear corners to check LOS, minmizing the angle you need to take in a lot of circumstances (assuming that corner is still in range, of course!).

**em_en_oh_pee**

Also, if you want to be a total RaW jerk, you can call the top of the turret the "top hatch", as it is not specified clearly as to which "hatch" to use. So, you can shoot from atop the turret mount.

**Gwar!**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Also, if you want to be a total RaW jerk, you can call the top of the turret the "top hatch", as it is not specified clearly as to which "hatch" to use. So, you can shoot from atop the turret mount.

You can't, because Hatch is not the same as Cupola.

**SaintHazard**

Gwar! wrote:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:Also, if you want to be a total RaW jerk, you can call the top of the turret the "top hatch", as it is not specified clearly as to which "hatch" to use. So, you can shoot from atop the turret mount.
You can't, because Hatch is not the same as Cupola.

The cupola has a top hatch, doesn't it? Most do.

In fact, on Tau vehicles, the hatch is replaced by a hatch atop the cupola of the turret.

It's all about which hatch you're referring to.

**Gwar!**

But the Hatch on a Cupola is a Cupola Hatch, not a Hatch, the same way that a Storm Bolter is not a Bolter.

**Haddi**

Gwar! wrote:But the Hatch on a Cupola is a Cupola Hatch, not a Hatch, the same way that a Storm Bolter is not a Bolter.

All I see is that right there.

**Gwar!**

Haddi wrote:
Gwar! wrote:But the Hatch on a Cupola is a Cupola Hatch, not a Hatch, the same way that a Storm Bolter is not a Bolter.

All I see is that right there.

What do you see? Are you trying to say that a Storm Bolter is a Bolter and thus all rules pertinent to Bolters apply to Storm Bolters?

**Haddi**

Gwar! wrote:
Haddi wrote:
Gwar! wrote:But the Hatch on a Cupola is a Cupola Hatch, not a Hatch, the same way that a Storm Bolter is not a Bolter.

All I see is that right there.
What do you see? Are you trying to say that a Storm Bolter is a Bolter and thus all rules pertinent to Bolters apply to Storm Bolters?

Of course I am/sarcasm

That last part was an accident.
I do agree that the turret Cupola is not a legitimate Firing Point (Aren't firing points clearly outlined in the vehicle statline?) and that the LoS is blocked towards the front.

I was just being stupid I guess.

But what I was TRYING to get at, is your phrasing is what comes off wrong. A hatch is a hatch, whether cupola or no. A Storm Bolter is a bolter, Storm or no. Not trying to say that Storm Bolter uses bolter rules, or Cupola is legitimate firing point. I was poking fun at your phrasing, not the meaning.

**Gwar!**

Haddi wrote:But what I was TRYING to get at, is your phrasing is what comes off wrong. A hatch is a hatch, whether cupola or no. A Storm Bolter is a bolter, Storm or no. Not trying to say that Storm Bolter uses bolter rules, or Cupola is legitimate firing point. I was poking fun at your phrasing, not the meaning.

The whole reason why the Cupola Hatch isn't a legitimate firing point is because a Storm Bolter is not a Bolter.

**Haddi**

Gwar! wrote:
Haddi wrote:But what I was TRYING to get at, is your phrasing is what comes off wrong. A hatch is a hatch, whether cupola or no. A Storm Bolter is a bolter, Storm or no. Not trying to say that Storm Bolter uses bolter rules, or Cupola is legitimate firing point. I was poking fun at your phrasing, not the meaning.
The whole reason why the Cupola Hatch isn't a legitimate firing point is because a Storm Bolter is not a Bolter.

If you want to argue semantics, isn't a Storm Bolter simply two bolters side to side in a fancy casing?
This really does NOT need to be an arguement.

Cupola Hatch is not valid firing point. End of story/thread.

**deejaybainbridge**

You can rotate on the spot without moving as many times as is required in a turn, so no it does not block line of sight coz you can just piviot on the spot to enable the hatch to see the intended target!

**Gwar!**

deejaybainbridge wrote:You can rotate on the spot without moving as many times as is required in a turn, so no it does not block line of sight coz you can just piviot on the spot to enable the hatch to see the intended target!

No, you can't. You can pivot in the MOVEMENT PHASE ONLY. After that, you are stuck.

**JSK-Fox**

And chances are, your vehicle's 'butt' is facing the enemy, and unless your a land raider, you might as well be sticking your behind out to a new prison buddy.

**deejaybainbridge**

Gwar! wrote:
deejaybainbridge wrote:You can rotate on the spot without moving as many times as is required in a turn, so no it does not block line of sight coz you can just piviot on the spot to enable the hatch to see the intended target!
No, you can't. You can pivot in the MOVEMENT PHASE ONLY. After that, you are stuck.

Hu! looks like i need to re-read that rule then, like most of em to be honest, Ha-ha.

**SaintHazard**

Gwar! wrote:
Haddi wrote:But what I was TRYING to get at, is your phrasing is what comes off wrong. A hatch is a hatch, whether cupola or no. A Storm Bolter is a bolter, Storm or no. Not trying to say that Storm Bolter uses bolter rules, or Cupola is legitimate firing point. I was poking fun at your phrasing, not the meaning.
The whole reason why the Cupola Hatch isn't a legitimate firing point is because a Storm Bolter is not a Bolter.

Actually, both Bolters and Storm Bolters have rules.

In the vehicle rules, the words "cupola hatch" or even "cupola" are never used.

In real-world terms, that's what it would be called, but in real-world terms a bolter would be a rapid-fire armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenade launcher, not a bolter.

Since the word "hatch" is used regularly, but no distinction is made between "hatches" and "cupola hatches," one can reasonably assume that when the fire point is the "hatch," the "cupola hatch" is a perfectly good hatch to pick.

**insaniak**

SaintHazard wrote:... one can reasonably assume that when the fire point is the "hatch," the "cupola hatch" is a perfectly good hatch to pick.

...until your opponent points out that there is no way more than a single model is going to be firing from the cupola hatch, and asks you to start playing properly.

I think we're done here. Yes, the wording is vague on exactly which 'hatch' we're supposed to use. But it's exceedingly clear which hatch they actually mean. Moving on.