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.

So I'm playing Blood Angels at the moment and I noticed that the Razorback has the Twin Linked Plasma/ Lascannon option. I was curious as to whether the Twin Linked Plasma Gun should be placed on the turret along with the Lascannon or if it could be placed elsewhere on the vehicle.

And for argument's sake lets say that the Twin Linked Plasma Guns are on the turret. If the turret gets a weapon destroyed roll does that mean I would get to choose between the lascannon and the Plasma or do both of them go since they are both on the same turret?

The damage result is Weapon Destroyed. The attacker chooses one weapon to destroyed. Turrets have no bearing on it.

The only time Weapon Destroyed can destroy more than one is when a given weapon is described as being PART of another; like the storm bolter built-into a dreadnought CCW.

Technically I think you're free to model the plasma guns somewhere else than the turret. I've seen a pretty good conversion with the plasmaguns pintel-mounted over one of the little circular ports at the front of the razor. Back when GW produced an official model the turret had both guns as one metal piece, with the plasmaguns mounted on either side of the lascannon barrel. I've seen some nice new plastic conversions of that too, including Flavius Infernus' version:

Thanks for the info. I find it surprising that you can move the Twin Linked Plasma Guns to the front of the vehicle since technically it affects how far the plasma gun can shoot from that point and in some ways its usually going to be better to have it towards the front than the back.

WOW that looks amazing. I really want to convert that kit to look like that now.

Yeah, it's a little funny that GW doesn't specifically define weapon mountings. I think part of it has to do with there being multiple generations of certain models out there, which may not completely match one another.

Remember that the rule is also "If you can actually turn the gun to fire at the target, then it can fire". I suppose if you made a turret like one above, but made it immobile (for some reason), one could argue that it can't fire except as hull-mounted.

I think.

Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, it's a little funny that GW doesn't specifically define weapon mountings. I think part of it has to do with there being multiple generations of certain models out there, which may not completely match one another.

That would explain why they never define it then. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

TheRedArmy wrote:Remember that the rule is also "If you can actually turn the gun to fire at the target, then it can fire". I suppose if you made a turret like one above, but made it immobile (for some reason), one could argue that it can't fire except as hull-mounted.

I think.

I'm a little confused by what you mean by immobile? Are you saying that if I mounted the TL Plasma Gun on the front of the Razorback but it was firmly mounted so that it could not spin I could only consider it as a hull-mounted weapon that cannon rotate?

See the first paragraph on page 59. It's based on what traverse it looks like it has, even if it's glued in place.

Mannahnin wrote:See the first paragraph on page 59. It's based on what traverse it looks like it has, even if it's glued in place.

Good. Ignore my post.

Wait. Does that mean if I took a Leman Russ and put it's heavy bolter on top right in the front that I could spin it 180 or so and count it as such, even though it says "Hull-Mounted"?

Mannahnin wrote:See the first paragraph on page 59. It's based on what traverse it looks like it has, even if it's glued in place.

That easily explained it and makes a lot of sense since some people glue stuff in place even though it should move anyways.

TheRedArmy wrote:
Wait. Does that mean if I took a Leman Russ and put it's heavy bolter on top right in the front that I could spin it 180 or so and count it as such, even though it says "Hull-Mounted"?

I think if it specifically states it's hull-mounted, it's supposed to be hull-mounted. Although I can't remember if there are rules for different types of weapons mounts in the current rulebook. I know the previous edition specifically stated the firing angles for turrets/pintles, sponsons and hull-mounted weapons (360, 180 and 90 degrees respectively).

and the codexes *don't* specify that the twin-linked plasma guns are turret mounted with the lascannon? sounds like modelling for advantage here...

Looking back at the codex, it doesn't look like it read that the lascannon or the plasma guns are separately mounted weapons. why not just mount the lascannon on one of the crew mounts? nowhere does it say that it has to be on the turret provided...

c'mon, people!

leman russ specifies that the Hull-mounted weapon is well... hull mounted, so even if you put the gun on the turret it can only fire in the 45* hull mounted fire arc(which on the Russ model is the front).

As for undefined mounts you may mount them as you please; if your mounting is Hull-mounted; they have a 45*, if it is pintle or turret you have a 360* fire arc(less if there are items/hull that limit that arc); if you mount the weapons as sponson then they would have a fire-arc as defined by what it looks like they could traverse.

In a moment I will edit this with a Pic of my LRC to show some of this.





These show my Multi-melta which is hull-mounted(that was how the codex defined it when I built the model)

When did a codex list a multi-melta as hull mounted?

4th edition, exact quote: "Weapons: The Land Raider is armed with a hull-mounted Twin-linked Assault Cannon, a Hull-mounted Multi-melta and a pair of sponson-mounted hurricane bolters."

wow... learn something new every day!

It needs clearing up in regards to the las-plas razorback.

The most recent FAQ says

Q: When a Damaged - Weapon Destroyed result is rolled and a weapon is destroyed are any built-in,combi or co-axial weapons attached to it also destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes.

So a lascannon and plasma gun mounted on the turret should be destroyed right?

obsidianaura wrote:It needs clearing up in regards to the las-plas razorback.

The most recent FAQ says

Q: When a Damaged - Weapon Destroyed result is rolled and a weapon is destroyed are any built-in,combi or co-axial weapons attached to it also destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes.

So a lascannon and plasma gun mounted on the turret should be destroyed right?

Q. If a Razorback armed with a lascannon and
twin-linked plasma gun suffers a weapon
destroyed result, does it destroy both (ie. the
lascannon and the plasma gun) or just one?
A. Only one weapon – either the lascannon or the
twin-linked plasma gun.

Space Marine FAQ, its pretty dang clear.

tiber55 wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:It needs clearing up in regards to the las-plas razorback.

The most recent FAQ says

Q: When a Damaged - Weapon Destroyed result is rolled and a weapon is destroyed are any built-in,combi or co-axial weapons attached to it also destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes.

So a lascannon and plasma gun mounted on the turret should be destroyed right?

Q. If a Razorback armed with a lascannon and
twin-linked plasma gun suffers a weapon
destroyed result, does it destroy both (ie. the
lascannon and the plasma gun) or just one?
A. Only one weapon – either the lascannon or the
twin-linked plasma gun.

Space Marine FAQ, its pretty dang clear.

How did i miss that :S.

Nevermind