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.

There really is - find rules allowing you to assume the arm moves.

There's no way to make a "reasonable" definition of how it moves. Rifledreads, for example. Can their arms flip and shoot behind them? Can nor al arm dreads flip at the shoulder? Why or why not?

Since you ignored the portion of my post where I quoted the rules allowing the arm to swing, I'd suggest you re-read pg 72, 3rd paragraph,

SJ

It wasn't ignored. It was already pointed out earlier in the thread why it doesn't apply.

Walker weapons only have a 45 degree arc. It doesn't matter how far it looks like the arm can move, the weapon has a 45 degree arc, because it is mounted on a walker.

As above. In 5th and 6th there is no allowance for a walker weapons to move more than 45 degrees, and no rule allowing the arm to have any bearing on the situation.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Since you ignored the portion of my post where I quoted the rules allowing the arm to swing, I'd suggest you re-read pg 72, 3rd paragraph,

I ignored nothing.
Why are you asserting that the entire arm is the mounting? You don't move your shoulder to point your wrist in a different direction, do you?

"When firing a Walker's WEAPONS, pivot the Walker on the spot so that the guns are aimed at the target (assume that WEAPONS mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees). Range is measured from the WEAPON itself and line of sight is measured from the mounting point of the WEAPON and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles."

I would say the important term in the rules is "weapon". For a dreadnought, the arm is the weapon. If a weapon destroyed is rolled on the damage table, the entire arm is destroyed, not just the bolter/flamer. And, as the arm is the weapon, the mounting for the weapon would be the shoulder.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
For a dreadnought, the arm is the weapon.

It's really not. The arm is not a Storm Bolter. People remove arms when they're destroyed because it's convenient, not because the arm is the weapon.

Forgive me; I shouldn't have said arm.

The chaos codex says that Helbrute has
Wargear:
Multi-Melta
Powerfist

So the powerfist is the weapon. And that a powerfist can incorporate either a combi-bolter or heavy flamer.

Again, a weapon destroyed destroys the fist, which as the bolter/flamer in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And people don't remove arms when the bolter is destroyed; they remove the bolter when the fist is destroyed.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
So the powerfist is the weapon. And that a powerfist can incorporate either a combi-bolter or heavy flamer.

Again, a weapon destroyed destroys the fist, which as the bolter/flamer in it.

Right, so the mounting for the power fist is the wrist. The mounting for the bolter/flamer is the Power Fist. So you measure from the mounting point (the fist) and along the barrel.
You still have absolutely zero permission to "move" the arm at the shoulder, and in fact you're agreeing that the 45 degree angle is measured from the mounting of the gun - meaning it's pointing off to the side on the Helbrute.

Could you point the rules to me to say that the mounting for the power fist is the wrist and not the shoulder. As far as I know, there is no reason, as far as the rules go, to say the mounting is one or the other. So I am going by the model since I know of no rules other wise.

I agree that the gun is mounted on the fist. However, the rules don't say measure along the gun's mounting; it says to measure along the weapon's mounting, and I still stick with the weapon being the power fist, itself.

And let's say that the power fist is mounted on the wrist. And let's say that you measure from the gun's mounting. Then, you should be able to swivel the fist 45 deg on it's mounting, and then swivel the flamer another 45 deg on it's mounting.

But this brings up an interesting question: If the flamer is mounted on the power fist, is it technically not mounted on the walker? Because the rules state that only weapons mounted on the walker can swivel.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Could you point the rules to me to say that the mounting for the power fist is the wrist and not the shoulder. As far as I know, there is no reason, as far as the rules go, to say the mounting is one or the other. So I am going by the model since I know of no rules other wise.

And on the model - is the fist attached to the shoulder or the wrist?

I agree that the gun is mounted on the fist. However, the rules don't say measure along the gun's mounting; it says to measure along the weapon's mounting, and I still stick with the weapon being the power fist, itself.

So the gun isn't a weapon?

And let's say that the power fist is mounted on the wrist. And let's say that you measure from the gun's mounting. Then, you should be able to swivel the fist 45 deg on it's mounting, and then swivel the flamer another 45 deg on it's mounting.

No, you have permission to swivel the gun on it's mounting. You don't have permission to swivel the mounting and the gun.

"Fist" is the rule. Is your "Fist" attached at the shoulder or your wrist?

THe weapon is the Storm Bolter / Flamer. It is attached to *another* weapon. You may contend differently, but that isnt what the rule actually states.

Going by precedents set by dreadnought models? I would say the fist is attached to the shoulder.

The gun isn't a weapon as far as weapon destroyed is concerned. You don't destroy the flamer and then destroy the fist.

The rules say "assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees". The powerfist being a weapon, why can't it swivel?

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Going by precedents set by dreadnought models? I would say the fist is attached to the shoulder.

What model does that?
I don't know of a single one.

The gun isn't a weapon as far as weapon destroyed is concerned. You don't destroy the flamer and then destroy the fist.

Um. Except you can. If you kill the power fist, the flamer goes, but you can kill the flamer and leave the power fist.

The rules say "assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees". The powerfist being a weapon, why can't it swivel?

Because it's not shooting? The flamer is.

1) Nope, the fist is attached to the arm which attaches to the shoulder, using the actual models.
2) Yes it is. You may not have spotted this in 6th ed yet, but in 6th edition there is no rule that states you destroy both anylonger. For weapon destroyed it is 100% a weapon - prove it isnt.
3) The flamer is the weapon you are shooting, so you get to swivel that - from its mounting, which is the fist. This has been repeated a few times this thread already, I suggest you reread it.

I concede. I accept your arguments (other than that the fist is attached to the wrist, but since it can't swivel it is a mute point).

However, Nosferatu1001, suggesting that I reread the forum because it has been mentioned several times that the flamer itself swivels does nothing. If I am disagreeing with that point, it doesn't matter how many times it was said in the forum. When trying to convince somebody, I'd suggest trying to give an argument other than rereading the forum.

aww just when I was going to point out the flamer/combi-bolter is "incorporated" into the powerfist, so the Fist IS the weapon and can therefor swivel.

I asked you to reread the thread, where it has been proven more than once that it is the weapon that swivels, and the flamer is the weapon. Not the forum as a whole. You can disagree however stating a position with no rules support, when the contrary rules support has been given more than once, suggests you havent read the thread which comes across as rude.

It would be either the gun is incorporated into fist, in which case the fist can swivel but the gun can't.
-or-
The gun is mounted on the fist, in which case the gun can swivel but the fist can't.

Both of these lead to the same result.

rigeld2 wrote:

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Going by precedents set by dreadnought models? I would say the fist is attached to the shoulder.

What model does that?
I don't know of a single one.

Apologies, I don't know how to make the picture smaller.
Official Chaos Dreadnaught model, though I suppose you could say it's not a Hellbrute.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
It would be either the gun is incorporated into fist, in which case the fist can swivel but the gun can't.
-or-
The gun is mounted on the fist, in which case the gun can swivel but the fist can't.

Both of these lead to the same result.

Not really.

There is no basis on which to assume the mounting for a powerfist on a walker is the wrist.


Remember that it is a vehicle not a human. It doesn't have "wrists." The powerfist could be the whole arm up to the "elbow" joint or the whole arm is itself.

It is apparelty all based on the model, since there is no helbrute with a storm bolter(combibolter), you have to convert the existing one. While doing that you can point the storm bolter any way you like, but if you want to fire it and the other gun, make sure it points within 90 degrees of the other gun (45+45=90)

Quanar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:
Going by precedents set by dreadnought models? I would say the fist is attached to the shoulder.

What model does that?
I don't know of a single one.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/437534-Picture%20uploaded%20to%20prove%20a%20point%20only.html
Apologies, I don't know how to make the picture smaller.
Official Chaos Dreadnaught model, though I suppose you could say it's not a Hellbrute.

Correct - note that the wrist doesn't mount to the shoulder - at best it's the elbow.

I'm a little puzzled as to just what all the argument over the wrist vs shoulder mounting is supposed to accomplish.

Given that the arm is sticking out more or less straight sideways, either interpretation makes no difference to whether or not the weapon can swivel to point forwards when it has a defined 45 degree fire arc...

Wow... talk about over-complicating a situation... this isn't the Middle East.

Anyways, simple solution: nomjnate a place on the base as the front of the model. Then, the firing arcs wold be based 90° off to the right and left of that point.

/thread.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Wow... talk about over-complicating a situation... this isn't the Middle East.

Anyways, simple solution: nomjnate a place on the base as the front of the model. Then, the firing arcs wold be based 90° off to the right and left of that point.

/thread.

The whole thing is just dumb though. They should have just said dreads shoot like normal infantry. 360 degrees. Just make them av 12 all around, never understood why they made them av 10 in the back. It isn't like the back has less plating than the front.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm a little puzzled as to just what all the argument over the wrist vs shoulder mounting is supposed to accomplish.

Given that the arm is sticking out more or less straight sideways, either interpretation makes no difference to whether or not the weapon can swivel to point forwards when it has a defined 45 degree fire arc...

Given the position of the arm, the further back you go from the wrist the more visibility you have, i.e firing arc. Think of it as zooming in or out on a camera lens.

So perhaps this can help illustrate it.

Say you have a Hellbrute near the top of the hill still facing slightly up the hill and wants to shoot at a unit just barely on the other side of the hill.

If the firing arc is determined by the "wrist" mounting, chances are good that the Hellrute will not be able to "see" the enemy. However if the mounting point is the "elbow" or "shoulder" then the LOS is increased significantly.

Just use your own arm as an example. Position your arm, same as the Hellbrute, now move just your hand at the wrist, then keep your hand straight but move your arm at the elbow. See the difference?

I would like to note that just because a point is repeated in a forum, it does not mean that the point is correct. The hang up of the hardliners is the rule defining firing arcs for weapons mounted on a walker. The folks pointing out the rules supporting the arm assembly moving are being ignored because it goes against the hardliners "position" (pun intended).

In the end, a storm bolter mounted to a dreadnought power fist has been given permission to be used by GW. It is only the hardliners on this forum that state differently. I guess it is up to you, the players seeking wisdom on this issue, to make their own call. The hardliners are being too stuck in their interpretation of the rules to admit they have tunnel vision on this issue.

The vehicle rules as written give us permission to assume a vehicle's weapons are capable of being aimed within the boundaries of the way the weapon is modeled. If you mount a storm bolter to the power fist of the Helbrute, the rules as written do support the arm moving to allow aiming of the weapon. Just because the hardliners are ignoring this fact doesn't mean the rules to support it are missing.

To the OP and anyone else reading this thread, please remember that GW has given you permission to use the options available to each unit in your army. The rules to use those options are guidelines to assist with understanding how to use those options in a game. GW has given specific permission to assume a model can move to achieve its designed goals, within the limits of what the model appears to able to accomplish. In the case of the Helbrute, it is within reason to assume the arm can be pointed forward to cover a 45 degree firing arc, thus allowing the storm bolter mounted to the power fist to be aligned to its target. This assumption is fully support in the vehicle rules (walkers are vehicles, after all).

I've said my peace. The hardliners are wrong in their assumption that the rules as written should be used to limit your options rather than expand upon them. Good luck with the thread. I'm out.

SJ

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Anyways, simple solution: nomjnate a place on the base as the front of the model. Then, the firing arcs wold be based 90° off to the right and left of that point.

Where are you getting 90 degrees from?

Kevlar wrote:... never understood why they made them av 10 in the back. It isn't like the back has less plating than the front.

Er... clearly it does... otherwise it wouldn't have lower armour.

40k-noob wrote:Given the position of the arm, the further back you go from the wrist the more visibility you have, i.e firing arc. Think of it as zooming in or out on a camera lens.

Yes, I'm aware of that. On a 1-inch long arm, it makes minimal difference, and still doesn't allow a weapon mounted along the arm to point to the walkers front when it only has a 45 degree fire arc.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I would like to note that just because a point is repeated in a forum, it does not mean that the point is correct. The hang up of the hardliners is the rule defining firing arcs for weapons mounted on a walker. The folks pointing out the rules supporting the arm assembly moving are being ignored because it goes against the hardliners "position" (pun intended).

They really aren't being ignored. They aren't valid because they have no rules support.

The vehicle rules as written give us permission to assume a vehicle's weapons are capable of being aimed within the boundaries of the way the weapon is modeled. If you mount a storm bolter to the power fist of the Helbrute, the rules as written do support the arm moving to allow aiming of the weapon. Just because the hardliners are ignoring this fact doesn't mean the rules to support it are missing.

False. There is no rules support. None has been cited. Please stop being insulting.

To the OP and anyone else reading this thread, please remember that GW has given you permission to use the options available to each unit in your army. The rules to use those options are guidelines to assist with understanding how to use those options in a game. GW has given specific permission to assume a model can move to achieve its designed goals, within the limits of what the model appears to able to accomplish. In the case of the Helbrute, it is within reason to assume the arm can be pointed forward to cover a 45 degree firing arc, thus allowing the storm bolter mounted to the power fist to be aligned to its target. This assumption is fully support in the vehicle rules (walkers are vehicles, after all).

It's actually not. Cite the page and paragraph to support your assertion. Just saying "It's there!" isn't enough.

I've said my peace. The hardliners are wrong in their assumption that the rules as written should be used to limit your options rather than expand upon them. Good luck with the thread. I'm out.

The rules can only expand options - because by default you can do nothing. You have to be allowed to do things - and nothing in the rules allows you to assume the arm moves.

Please don't come in and insult "the hardliners" because you disagree.