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.

Kiwidru wrote:
For the people claiming partial firing arcs, how to you play bike mounted bolters... they can only fire directly ahead? What about vertical firing arcs?

iirc all weapon mounts have a 45 degree arc vertically

 Bausk wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:
For the people claiming partial firing arcs, how to you play bike mounted bolters... they can only fire directly ahead? What about vertical firing arcs?

iirc all weapon mounts have a 45 degree arc vertically

For vehicles, yes, however Bikes are not vehicles.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You can look at the deathray, it's fairly clear. Similarly the Heavy bolter/Assault cannon turret on a LR doesn't get to shoot behind it.

You still haven't answered the question of if you cannot move the moved freely on it's mountings beyond a certain point, messed up assembly not withstanding, why you give the 180 degree arc to a LR but not a Leman russ. In both cases the mountings impose a maximum arc.

The Heavy Bolter/Assault Cannon IIRC is a hull mounted weapon. Pg 72 limits the hull mounted weapons to a 45 degree forward arc. For the sake of argument, lets say its a 360 degree arc. When the weapon rotates to face the rear you cannot draw line of sight from the barrel the target because the hull of the land raider will be in the way. Its the same with the sponson on a Leman Russ. Those sponsons are closed in the back so the mounting for the weapon blocks line of sight. The land raider's sponsons are 'open' and will never block line of sight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
FIring arcs in general are not documented, only examples of such are.

And all of the examples perfectly match up to what I am saying.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Due to the way the model is assembled" means you only consider deviations from design in assembly, NOT the design itself.

Does it? I think my understanding is quite clear, and a big part of it was no mention of HOW the model was assembled. This statement must include all forms of assembly, not just incorrect ones. Anything else is inserting a preconceived notion into the text.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are not given allowance to ignore the DESIGN of the model, so if the DESIGN of the model only allows an arc of X, then no matter how you assemble it you only get to have an arc of X.

I think you clearly are given that allowance. More to the point you are never explicitly restricted to the physical range of motion of the model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are, strictly, wrong, as you are ignoring what the statement is actually say.

This adds nothing to the discussion. The only aproipriate response it "No I'm not, you are."

 DJGietzen wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You can look at the deathray, it's fairly clear. Similarly the Heavy bolter/Assault cannon turret on a LR doesn't get to shoot behind it.

You still haven't answered the question of if you cannot move the moved freely on it's mountings beyond a certain point, messed up assembly not withstanding, why you give the 180 degree arc to a LR but not a Leman russ. In both cases the mountings impose a maximum arc.

The Heavy Bolter/Assault Cannon IIRC is a hull mounted weapon. Pg 72 limits the hull mounted weapons to a 45 degree forward arc. For the sake of argument, lets say its a 360 degree arc. When the weapon rotates to face the rear you cannot draw line of sight from the barrel the target because the hull of the land raider will be in the way. Its the same with the sponson on a Leman Russ. Those sponsons are closed in the back so the mounting for the weapon blocks line of sight. The land raider's sponsons are 'open' and will never block line of sight.

Firstly the turret isn't hull mounted, it seems you are either not very familiar with this tank or what hull mounted is. Hull mounted is where the gun is build into the hull with a very limited amount of mobility such as the weapon in the hull of a leman russ chassis. Where as the turret on the LR is a turret with the ability to cover over 90 degrees in the horizontal plane and a bit further with a 22.5 degrees of an inclination or declination.
The hulls are not blocking line of sight for the russ, the sponsons are blocking traversing just as with the LRC. You've introduced a false dichotomy here for no reason. A Leman Russ moves as it would going by proper assembly but we don't use the propper assembly of a LRC we just assume free rotation.

BTW it's a preconceived notion in the text that you assembled the model correctly, they did give you the instructions on how to assemble it and that's how you make the model and 40k uses GW models. Otherwise why talk about funny glueing?

DJ - no, you still aremaking up additions

You are allowed to ignore how the model is assembled

Now, is "assembly" the same as "design"? No, clearly not. There is no way to explain other than - no, they are not hte same thing

How you assemble something, and being able to ignore assembly, does not give you any form of permission to ignore the design of the model.

You are, strictly, wrong on this. You have created a new word - "design" - and inserted it into the allowance on what you are allowed to ignore when determining fire arcs

You can ignore assembly, NOT the design
You cannot ignore design, you CAN ignore the assembly

Two entirely different concepts.

I have both the older metal sponsons on one crusader and the newer plastic ones on another. I know (with shields) that the metal one rotates 180. I've never tried with the plastic... Think I will when I get home after work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - no, you still aremaking up additions

You are allowed to ignore how the model is assembled

Now, is "assembly" the same as "design"? No, clearly not. There is no way to explain other than - no, they are not hte same thing

How you assemble something, and being able to ignore assembly, does not give you any form of permission to ignore the design of the model.

You are, strictly, wrong on this. You have created a new word - "design" - and inserted it into the allowance on what you are allowed to ignore when determining fire arcs

You can ignore assembly, NOT the design
You cannot ignore design, you CAN ignore the assembly

Two entirely different concepts.

Nothing tells me to fallow the design of the model. The only thing that matters is if I can move the gun to point at the target or not. If I can't becouse the model does not move that way, for any reason, I have to pretend that it could, then try and draw line of sight.

The sponsons or mountings on a leman russ only have an opening that presents a 270 degree arc. The inability to move the gun past the opening does not limit the firing arc, the fact that once you pretend the model can move that way the line of sight would be blocked by the walls of the sponson. The hull of the tank further lowers the arc to about 95 degrees.

The Sponsons or mountings on a land rader do not have any walls and as a result present a 360 degree arc. The land raiders hull will lower the arc to about 190 degrees.

 Lobukia wrote:
I have both the older metal sponsons on one crusader and the newer plastic ones on another. I know (with shields) that the metal one rotates 180. I've never tried with the plastic... Think I will when I get home after work.

I have the old metal in front of me right now, the shield bumps against the sponson mounting flush in the rear, limiting the model to 90 degrees.

The bolters should be right next to the shield, with the ammo bins in the doorway.

It looks like the new plastic connects to the mounting for a 90 degree.
Here are a few Images that show its farthest movement. None of these images are mine because my damn cable to connect my phone to my computer is busted.

Not the best picture but it is here:


A better image and better showing of the full traverse:


Here is a properly assembled old metal crusader:

Now you tell me that can traverse more than 90 degrees.

Here is a side/back view of an old Metal crusader at full traverse:


And another:

Yeah. Still not home, but I can't see mine being any different. I'd have to say 105 degrees from front (slightly in due to being out from the LRC) to back is the best you'll get in actual rotation. As most arc pics in the BRB give about anothe 15, that's 120 tops... which certainly rules out rear-firing.

Funny though, positive that I'd done it before... Must have been one of the godhammers or the redemmer (not sure on that now either).

The redeemer's I know can rotate all the way around, I have done so on my redeemers, so you may have been thinking of that Lobukia.

DJGietzen wrote:
Nothing tells me to fallow the design of the model.

Except you have no permission to ignore the design of the model, just the assembly. You are told you get the arc the model looks like it COULD move through, nothing more.

DJGietzen wrote:
The only thing that matters is if I can move the gun to point at the target or not. If I can't becouse the model does not move that way, for any reason, I have to pretend that it could, then try and draw line of sight.

I have bolded the part you have, frankly, made up.

You get to ignore LOS issues due to the way the model isassembled. You have no other permission to ignore how the model actually looks like it would rotate - none at all.

If a model is on a turret mount, but has two thin uprights directly either side of the barrel meaning in total it could only LOOK like it could rotate 1 degree, then that is all the movement it is allowed - because the assembly is not affecting the traversal, but the design IS

ok i made this post a poll post..since so much debate is going on!!! go poll poll!!!

you made the poll wrong.

The figures do not matter, they are just pretty pictures to illustrate the rules.

I go option D: They can only shoot where the models can turn to or look like they can turn to when glued in place.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I go option D: They can only shoot where the models can turn to or look like they can turn to when glued in place.

Totally this.
Option D needs adding.

well NO they are not just pretty pictures..theya re diagrams to help you understand the way models look and shoot so D is invalid cause you can have glued guns in any 3 options i gave...glued guns or not it really dosent matter... the thing is the arc range of the weapons

No; as we have pointed out, the DESIGN of the weapon tells you the firing arc. Nothing more

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DJGietzen wrote:
Nothing tells me to fallow the design of the model.

Except you have no permission to ignore the design of the model, just the assembly. You are told you get the arc the model looks like it COULD move through, nothing more.

I also don't have permission to not punch old ladies in the face. Do you know why I don't punch old ladies in the face? Because I never was required to in the 1st place. Lack of permission to ignore something does not implicitly create that something.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DJGietzen wrote:
The only thing that matters is if I can move the gun to point at the target or not. If I can't becouse the model does not move that way, for any reason, I have to pretend that it could, then try and draw line of sight.

I have bolded the part you have, frankly, made up.

You get to ignore LOS issues due to the way the model isassembled. You have no other permission to ignore how the model actually looks like it would rotate - none at all.

I have no requirement to limit the rotation of a weapon based on the surrounding model. This is something that, frankly, you have made up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If a model is on a turret mount, but has two thin uprights directly either side of the barrel meaning in total it could only LOOK like it could rotate 1 degree, then that is all the movement it is allowed - because the assembly is not affecting the traversal, but the design IS

If the assembly of the model prevents you from rotating that turret because you assembled the model to include two thin uprights directly on either side of the barrel.

Any problem preventing you from pointing the weapon at the target will undoubtedly be traced back to the assembly of the model (ergo 'for any reason'.)

No; some issues are assembly, some are design.

It is a simple difference, one you are claiming doesnt exist

The game tells you what permission you have. You have created more permission than the rules give you

AKA cheating

Sikamikanic0 wrote:
well NO they are not just pretty pictures..theya re diagrams to help you understand the way models look and shoot so D is invalid cause you can have glued guns in any 3 options i gave...glued guns or not it really dosent matter... the thing is the arc range of the weapons

No they are just pretty pictures without the accompanying rules.

They are diagrams that illustrate the rules. The rules tell you what to do in the case of Guns that cannot move(Whether by glue or model design); you have a field of fire in whatever arc it looks like the gun can turn to.

model assembly, not model design

By design the Deathray has an effectively hull mounted arc, even if you look like you could swivel it out the way, pretend that the rigid cables are infinitiely long and flexible, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No; some issues are assembly, some are design.

It is a simple difference, one you are claiming doesnt exist

The game tells you what permission you have. You have created more permission than the rules give you

AKA cheating

Did you assemble the design? Is there some sort of force of nature that prevents a weapon from being pointed at the target with out the model being assembled? Design issue are all assembly issues. Design is never even mentioned as a potential cause of problems because of this.

There are a few models with turrets that have a ring and peg; it should be a turret, it looks like it can traverse 360 degrees, but the design of the model prevents it from actually rotating.

The sentinel is 1 example of a gun that looks like it can traverse vertically 90 degrees with comfort, but the model design does not allow the physical movement; you use the rules for where it looks like it can swivel.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No; some issues are assembly, some are design.

It is a simple difference, one you are claiming doesnt exist

The game tells you what permission you have. You have created more permission than the rules give you

AKA cheating

Did you assemble the design? Is there some sort of force of nature that prevents a weapon from being pointed at the target with out the model being assembled? Design issue are all assembly issues. Design is never even mentioned as a potential cause of problems because of this.

Another assertion with no basis

Problems due to assembly != problems due to design. Clear difference

Prove you are allowed to ignore problems with the design of the model, as opposed to problems with the assembly of the model. Or concede

Vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets
in order to shoot at them. When firing a vehicle's weapons,
point them at the target and then trace line of sight from
each weapons' mounting and along its barrel to see if
the shot is blockedby terrain or models. If the target unit is in
cover from only some of the vehicle'sweapons,then work out
the target's cover saves exactly as if each firing weaponon the
vehicle was a separate firing unit.

On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally
move the gun and point it towards the target because of the
way the model is assembled or because the gun has been
glued in place. In this case, players should assume that
the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their
mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that
guns can swivel vertically up to 45°, even if the barrel on the
model itself cannot physicallydo that! Additionally,assume
all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45°.

At no point is the design of the model made an issue. I do not have to ignore the design of the model because its design is irrelevant. If you would like it to be relevant you will need to prove that it is.

If I can not literally point the weapon at the target because of the way the the model is assembled (not if the model is assembled incorrectly, just because of the way it is assembled) I am given permission to assume the gun and rotate or swivel on its mountings (not that it can rotate or swivel a certain amount, just that that is can rotate or swivel) and I only need to draw a line of sight from the mounting along the barrel to the target with out passing through a model or terrain.

Non-hull mounted weapons can rotate horizontally on its mounting 360°. I'm not making a baseless assertion. We are given permission to rotate the weapons, the only limitations on how far we should assume a weapon can rotate or swivel is 45° horizontal for hull mounted weapons and 45° vertically for all weapons. A weapon that can rotate that is not given a restriction or limitation on that rotation would rotate 360°. It is the belief that there is an undocumented limitation for this rotation based on the models design that is baseless.

In the case of the Land Raider Crusader I assume the hurricane bolters can rotate on its mountings If I rotate the h-bolters 180° away from the forward facing and draw a line from the mounting down the barrel of the h-bolter to a target the model of the land raider it self will not block line of sight because the back of the sponson is open.

In the case of the Leman Russ I assume the sponson mounted weapons can rotate on its mountings If I rotate the weapons 180° away from the forward facing and draw a line from the mounting down the barrel of the gun to a target the model of the Leman Russ it self will indeed block line of sight because the back of the sponson is closed.

 DJGietzen wrote:
At no point is the design of the model made an issue.

Because it's not. It simply tells us how far the weapons can turn.

If you have glued your weapons in place, or if you, say, have a crewmember hanging off the side of the vehicle, you assume that the weapon can still pivot through the arc that it could go through if it was free to move normally. If the vehicle is physically designed for the weapon to only move through a certain proscribed arc, then that is how far it can go.


You can not swivel the hurricane bolters 360 degrees, because the design of the vehicle prevents it. You don't need a rule to spell that out, because the rules tell you to use the model as a reference for how far the weapons can swivel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The sentinel is 1 example of a gun that looks like it can traverse vertically 90 degrees with comfort, but the model design does not allow the physical movement; you use the rules for where it looks like it can swivel.

Vertical movement is slightly different, since all vehicle weapons are limited to 45 degrees vertically, regardless of how they are mounted.

 insaniak wrote:

You can not swivel the hurricane bolters 360 degrees, because the design of the vehicle prevents it. You don't need a rule to spell that out, because the rules tell you to use the model as a reference for how far the weapons can swivel.

And what rule is that?

You already quoted it:

When firing a vehicle's weapons,
point them at the target and then trace line of sight from
each weapons' mounting and along its barrel to see if
the shot is blockedby terrain or models.

If the weapon isn't designed to turn as far as you want it to go, then you can't do this.

I also quoted this

On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally
move the gun and point it towards the target because of the
way the model is assembled or because the gun has been
glued in place. In this case, players should assume that
the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their
mountings.

Again, I'm not told to assume the guns can rotate or swivel a little bit, I'm not told to limit the amount they rotate or swivel based on what a properly assembled model can normally do. I'm not told to limit the swival at all, so why should I? These imitations are being inserted by your bias and are not present in the text.

Ok, let's try it this way. Can your elbow move freely? Can you bend it in suck a way to touch the back of your hand off your tricep?

Free movement of a joint =/= as move in any direction. Free movement is that it doesn't stick or jar within it's range of movement. Anything more is an assertion.

No it can't because of the way my body is assembled. But If I assume my lower arm can rotate on its mounting (my elbow) and I'm not told to assume how far it can rotate then yes, the back of my hand could touch my tricep. Anything less is assertion.