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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Dreadnought weapons aren't Hull Mounted. The weapon mounts pivot down quite bit.

Reread the walker rules. They are indeed hull mounted.

Ah yes, you're quite right. My mistake.

It is a good point...

What do you do if you have a hull weapon, or one that uses similar 45 degree terminology, but it is mounted on part of the model that would be able to pivot in it's own right?

Only weapon mounts have permission to pivot.
There are no rules covering other parts.

I would point out how ridiculous not being able to raise or lower your own arms is, but that just puts it on par for all the other illogical stuff in Warhammer.

Still, while there is no rules for the pivoting of the arm joints, there are rules on where you measure line of sight from when using vehicles which takes the exact position into account. As the all models can be posed in a wide range of ways it does create an issue. While I do not have direct permission to move a models arm, but I do have permission to model them in different stances. Therefore I can combine the two and effectively turn a hull mounted weapon into a pivot one, if it is attached to a piece that I have permission to pose as I see fit.

Creates an interesting situation when viewed like that, doesn't it?

The easy solution is 'can't do it on the table' of course. It stands to logical reason that all the posing and building has to be done before the game. If you do not have a rule to adjust the models pose while it is on the table, then you simply do not have permission to do so. That would solve the issue quite nicely I think but there is still questions to be left.

If I knew I was going to play a fortification, and that I intended to start with a walker on top of it, what legally is stopping me from posing the model to take the best advantage of that?

This would be on par with all 'crouching lords' situation, a low blow for sure but one that is technically legal.

JinxDragon wrote:
Therefore I can combine the two and effectively turn a hull mounted weapon into a pivot one, if it is attached to a piece that I have permission to pose as I see fit.

Ignoring for a moment the lack of permission to modify models, that doesn't help walkers, since regardless of how their weapons are modelled the rules give them a strictly defined fire arc.

It wouldn't be modifying the models, it would simply be posing them. Given that you are allowed to, even encouraged to, pose your model in ways to make them different from each other it is more then plausible you could, if you where one of 'those guys' pose a walker to take the hight into account. It would be on the same grounds as the people who make their destroyer lords in a 'crouching' position so they can hide them from line of sight even easier. Of course, I can be wrong, so can you point me to a rule in the book that states all model have to be constructed in the same way?

Seeing you measure from along the weapon itself, the final position of the weapon would change where the 0 degree mark is. The rules state you don't just measure from the tip but along the length of the barrel itself. If the barrel is not parallel to the ground, but pointing towards it, a straight line would hit the ground itself. As a straight line is a 0 degree measurement, after all, every other angle would be measured off of it.

Wouldn't matter. The posing of the limbs don't give you permission to override what firing arc the rules give you. To argue otherwise is MFA.

Not denying it would be MFA, it is in 'that guy' territory after all. It is not something I would expect to see on the table, nor is it an argument I would accept in a real game. It is a thought experiment and nothing more.

One I am not entirely sure on which is why I bring it up.

The issue I am having is where the initial measuring spot for the weapons should be. The final position of the gun is easily explained, point it at the target and measure down the barrel, but the initial position is a little vague. A sensible answer is that you would measure from the the hull weapon mount, treating perpendicular to the vehicle and the ground as the initial reference point.

Yet what actually stops someone arguing the initial reference being the angle the hull gun is actually modeled on the vehicle, aside from being one of those **** guys?

Hull mounted weapons on a flyer really highlight this question. The stem can be a minimal distance of 5 Inch high, and at 45 degrees this means you could only ever fire at targets 12 inches away. The larger the stem gets, the further away the targets you are firing on would need to be in order to overcome this arc. You could, at least in theory, end up with a situation where a hull mounted weapon wouldn't never be able to fire at a target, period. Either through range limitation or because of the arc of fire.

Just glad I don't play any armies where this can become an issue, all of my flying units are swivel mounted weapons.

Yes, technically you could model you dreadnoughts with the weapons angled downwards so that they have a better fire arc from on top of a fortification our other tall terrain.

I would expect complaints, though.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, technically you could model you dreadnoughts with the weapons angled downwards so that they have a better fire arc from on top of a fortification our other tall terrain.

I would expect complaints, though.

It just depends how badly people will work to play the system in order to win a game.

To be fair, the whole vehicle LOS system is whack.

Having a rule system in place that changes what the vehicle can shoot depending on how you attach its arm, or whether or not it is sitting level on its flight stem, is just silly. Admittedly not much sillier than a non-vehicle model's LOS being different if it is standing up or kneeling down... but still silly.

Looking down on players for using the rules as GW decided to present them to us doesn't really achieve anything productive.

From my short stay on this board, I have come to realize a lot of things in the rules are 'whacked.'

Even if I would outright deny "Mr. King of the Castle" because that is just wrong. That situation would clearly be modeling for an advantage, as the walker would be useless in every other situation bar putting him on top of a fortress. Though if you had a way to move him anywhere else on the board via an ability it would be laughable.

That being said I would have a lot more leaway for a flyer and they are in the very same situation.

A zooming flyer would have to move onto the table the minimal 18 inch which is more then a quarter of the board. If the same flyer has a 35 cm stem that could easily give it a 'minimal range' that has to be more then a quarter of the board, if not closer to half. Even without crunching the numbers, it would mean the flyer could never shoot at anything on your half of the board on the turn it comes in. If it also zooms on the second turn, it would ensure it could never fire at a target that turn, given now it is on the second half of the board and can't turn to shoot back at units in your half...

Someone better then I at trig can figure it out: What would be the 'minimum distance' for a flier with a 15 cm stem, and one with a 35 cm stem, assuming it had hull weapons that where measured with a starting point parallel to the ground?

JinxDragon wrote:
Even if I would outright deny "Mr. King of the Castle" because that is just wrong. That situation would clearly be modeling for an advantage, as the walker would be useless in every other situation bar putting him on top of a fortress. Though if you had a way to move him anywhere else on the board via an ability it would be laughable.

The really funny thing here is when you take another look at the way most people assemble their Marine dreadnoughts, and realise that the ranged weapon on the close combat arm is already in this position to begin with...