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 was playing a game and my opponent stated that the assault cannon could go 360 with LoS because it was a turret, is this possible, for the assault cannon to move all the way around and fire backwards?

Sure it can, provided he can actually spin it and get the target within the firing arc....

pssst - he cannot, it is mounted too low, your friend was incorrect. I bet his LR was immobilized huh.

The Assault Cannon on a land raider Crusader/Redeemer is Hull mounted, not turret mounted.

Remember If it looks like it can shoot at it using True Line of Sight, then it can, if it does not look like it, it cant.

so he was wrong, i understand

You use true LOS. If the turret can turn and see something behind the LR, then it can shoot it. Work it out from there.

DeathReaper wrote:The Assault Cannon on a land raider Crusader/Redeemer is Hull mounted, not turret mounted.

Remember If it looks like it can shoot at it using True Line of Sight, then it can, if it does not look like it, it cant.

Pedantically hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arch from their mounting point. Unlike turret-mounted, no exception is made for modeling.

Edit. This is meant as an addition to DeathReaper's comment not in argument against anything he said.

Does this take into account firing downwards past the LR's own hull? if so, the 360 degree won't really help much firing down at anything anywhere within a foot of it since it's own sides block its angle of fire (unless you model it especially high up on the hull I guess)

it gets a 45 degree arc, it doesnt say anything about down, however, if your using true LOS, if you look down and can't see the models, then I guess you can't hit them, but they must be some small models!!!!

I don't have a land raider model, but I know it's about twice the height of a infantry model and the pintle mount isn't very high up. I am guessing something approximately like this:

Unless it's an awesome conversion ( like Machinator's ), your opponent was wrong.

However, more often or not, the line between "awesome conversion" and "modelling for advantage" might be blurry...

Guitardian wrote:Does this take into account firing downwards past the LR's own hull? if so, the 360 degree won't really help much firing down at anything anywhere within a foot of it since it's own sides block its angle of fire (unless you model it especially high up on the hull I guess)

Vehicle weapons get a 45 degree vertical firing arc as well, so 22.5 up and 22.5 down

kmdl1066 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The Assault Cannon on a land raider Crusader/Redeemer is Hull mounted, not turret mounted.

Pedantically hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arch from their mounting point. Unlike turret-mounted, no exception is made for modeling.

Actually, it's neither hull or turret mounted. None of the weapons have specified mountings on the landraider.

So, the only resricting factor is what it can point at.

BRB_FAQ:
Remember that the rule is: if it looks like you can point
the gun at it, then you can, even if it’s glued in place’. The
rest is just a set of guidelines about the arcs of fire of
weapons glued in place, and does not cover all possible
weapons mounting and vehicles. 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’. In the same way, the shuriken catapult mounted
under the hull of a Wave Serpent, Falcon, etc. looks like it
can rotate 360º, but it does not look like it can be fired
through the main hull right behind it, so we normally play
that it can be fired roughly in the 180º to the vehicle’s front,
which seems like an acceptable compromise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Vehicle weapons get a 45 degree vertical firing arc as well, so 22.5 up and 22.5 down

If only the rules actually said that. Unfortunately in typical GW fashion they say "swivel vertically roughly by 45 degrees." Which leaves several questions.
(1)To me "by" means start from the horizontal and swivel by 45 degrees up or 45 degrees down, but you obviously read "by" differently.
(2) Swivel starting from what point? We are left to assume from horizontal but if I wanted to be a jerk and argue 45 degrees from how the weapon is modeled (which doesn't have to be horizontal) could I be proven wrong?
(3) Roughly?!? How much is roughly? 46 degrees is roughly 45 degrees. How about 48 degrees? 50 degrees?

If you look at the diagram in the rule book, it shows 45° from the centre of the gun, so that would be 22.5 on each side

kmdl1066 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Vehicle weapons get a 45 degree vertical firing arc as well, so 22.5 up and 22.5 down

If only the rules actually said that. Unfortunately in typical GW fashion they say "swivel vertically roughly by 45 degrees." Which leaves several questions.
(1)To me "by" means start from the horizontal and swivel by 45 degrees up or 45 degrees down, but you obviously read "by" differently.
(2) Swivel starting from what point? We are left to assume from horizontal but if I wanted to be a jerk and argue 45 degrees from how the weapon is modeled (which doesn't have to be horizontal) could I be proven wrong?
(3) Roughly?!? How much is roughly? 46 degrees is roughly 45 degrees. How about 48 degrees? 50 degrees?

1) No, that would be 90 degrees of movement, and you're only allowed 45.
2) The point it is modelled at, same as everything else
3) 45.1 degrees is roughly 45. 46 is not, as it is an entirely significant figure different.

Lord Rogukiel wrote:If you look at the diagram in the rule book, it shows 45° from the centre of the gun, so that would be 22.5 on each side

That is horizontal swivel which is also clearly defined as a 45 degree arc. There is no diagram for vertical nor is the range of vertical swivel defined as an arc.

But that's arguing for the sake of arguing. I do think the most reasonable thing to do is use that horizontal arc diagram as a guide for how vertical swivel should work.

And, as stated: it doesnt need to.

If you move 45 degrees either direction, that is vertical movement of 90 degrees. You're only allowed 45 degrees.

Buried in this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/346928.page are people who read "by" the way you do and people who read "by" the way I do.

But the argument that all the other degree measures are specifically mentioned as being an arc therefore the vertical degree measurement should be treated as an arc is persuasive. I'll accept that even though GW wrote "by" they meant "through."

Argh...

Arc of Fire is determined by what the weapon can actually do(for mobile mounts, when unglued).

In cases of weapons that are not designed to physically move such as Chimera Heavy bolters/flamers(the hull mount) and the like you are limited to the Traverse arcs as defined in the BRB.

All traverse arcs(including the vertical swivel) are measured with the mounting being the center point of the arc(45* would be 22.5* in either direction).

This is not rocket science it is simple written rules. The Land Raider's Assault cannon/Heavy bolters have a traverse plain that encompasses everything you can draw a direct line to without passing through the hull, this is about 90* off center with more clearance to the model's right.

Edit. Never mind. Read the Komissar incorrectly.

kmdl1066 wrote:Buried in this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/346928.page are people who read "by" the way you do and people who read "by" the way I do.

But the argument that all the other degree measures are specifically mentioned as being an arc therefore the vertical degree measurement should be treated as an arc is persuasive. I'll accept that even though GW wrote "by" they meant "through."

For what it's worth, I agree with your reading.

My Lascannon is mounted horizontally on a Leman Russ. I target a "sniper high in a bell tower" and swivel my barrel "vertically by 45 degrees" to point 45 degrees up. Follows exactly what the books says and doesn't violate any rules.

Agreed that the other weapon arc images are good evidence of what they likely intended, but that's just speculation in my opinion since they all reference the "arc of fire" and not merely swiveling. I feel it's safer to assume they wrote that rule differently for a reason, rather than just randomly.

Long story short, this all could have been avoided with another image. But to be fair, you don't often shoot more than 22.5 degrees up anyway.

DoW

As others have pointed out - the LR Assault Cannon is not specified as hull mounted/fixed/etc.

The rules for any weapon that swivels is to check LOS after swiveling it. So, turn the gun to point at your target...if it has LOS, it can shoot; if not, then it can't.....pretty easy.