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.

 CrownAxe wrote:

No, the weapon is called a Tesla Sphere. Nothing proving that it is just a sphere. Still no proof that the sphere is the barrel of the gun

Uh ... do you have a copy of the book.

The book reads "tesla sphere" and not "Tesla Sphere" so without a doubt we are talking about a physical sphere here folks.

col_impact wrote:
...and if you add the 45 degrees you get for free with the rules...

Er... The what now?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

No, the weapon is called a Tesla Sphere. Nothing proving that it is just a sphere. Still no proof that the sphere is the barrel of the gun

Uh ... do you have a copy of the book.

The book reads "tesla sphere" and not "Tesla Sphere" so without a doubt we are talking about a physical sphere here folks.

Fluff has no bearing on a rules debate so stop bringing it up

col_impact wrote:


Per the fluff description

Yet wonder turns swiftly to horror as the Obelisk’s weapons cycle up, glowing tesla spheres irising open to spit crawling skeins of lightning that reduce those nearby to blackened, twitching husks

You have no choice but to point to the sphere as the actual weapon (as the 'barrel') and the LOS vectors being drawn from the back wall of the sphere through the iris/sphinctor.

As already pointed out this provides a 120 degree cone all its own and the 90 degrees on top of that make it 210 degrees.

And if you further take the directive of the FAQ to treat the Tesla Sphere as sponson-mounted, then you can rotate the Tesla Sphere in its 'eye socket'.


So my proof far outweighs your zero proof.

As others have already said fluff =/= rules. You have stated yourself that the metal part is the muzzle which means its part of the barrel. The only part you can trace from is along the barrel to the muzzle.

LOS vectors being drawn from the back wall of the sphere through the iris/sphinctor

If by iris/sphinctor you mean the metal part you have been calling a muzzle then there is no more debate here. You are straight up saying that is where you trace along the barrel from. Nothing more to say on the matter.

OK, lets check everything we (mostly) agree on.

1. You need a "barrel" to draw LoS. Eiher the sphere or the "muzzle" that looks like the head of a Tesla carbine must be the barrel

2. Sponsons are not well defined in the BRB. At best, the arc is how far the weapon "could" physically move. For Leman Russ tanks, this is about 100 degrees, for Land Raiders this is about 190-200 degrees. RAW you literally have to look at the model and determine what it "CAN" do. Honestly this is getting into "fluff" territory since high technology "could" allow a lot.

So given that GW has defined it as a Sponson, we now have to determine 1 & 2.
I personally don't see why #1 matters as much *IF* we figure out #2. As has been shown, the "muzzle" is fixed on a track that appears to only allow up & down movement, which would indicate "hull mounted". But GW didn't say "hull mounted", they said "sponson". So clearly we cannot treat it as hull mounted.

So the basic argument here has little to do with rules interpretation, and more to do with what we all "think" the Sphere can do. Some are saying that it can only move up & down because they see the logically "fixed" metal pieces.
Others, like myself, realize that Necron tech does not have to fit the logic of Imperial tech. They have a rule called "Living Metal" afterall. So when I look at the model, I can easily imagine (because that is what we do with our plastic soliders: we "imagine") that when the Sphere goes to turn left or right, the vertical track dissipates (T:2 style) into the Sphere and a horizontal track appears to allow side to side movement. If you check the model again, you can see 2 horizontal pieces at the left and right of the Sphere that look just like those at the ends of the vertical "track"

RAW you look at what the model can do. The above is a movement the Necron tech could allow. THAT is my RAW proof.

-

 Ghaz wrote:

Qlanth wrote:
Why would they bother answering the question about the Tesla Spheres and say they specifically aren't hull mounted if they intend for them to be locked in place with a 45 degree angle. If that was what they wanted they would have just ruled it as hull mounted. There is literally no point in even saying they are sponsons otherwise.

I think it's pretty obvious what they intend they just failed to clarify it correctly.

Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.

You and I are in agreement. RAW makes this very confusing.

However, I think if we step back and remember that the people who wrote this are humans, and humans make mistakes, we can deduce what they intended by this call.

There is already a rule in place for when a weapon to fixed to the hull and cannot move. That is Hull-Mounted weapons. The FAQ clearly states they are not hull-mounted, but sponson mounted... in reality when you and I look at this we say, "it seems fixed in place, it must be 45 degrees only?". But I think that it's clear that by NOT ruling it hull mounted, they must believe that it could swivel or move somehow. Therefor it is not a 45 degree angle of fire. If they intended it to be a weapon which is fixed to the hull and has a 45 degree angle of fire, they would have ruled it as a Hull-Mounted weapon.

RAW - extremely confusing. RAI - Seems very clear.

They need to make this much more clear in the final draft.

Qlanth wrote:
However, I think if we step back and remember that the people who wrote this are humans, and humans make mistakes, we can deduce what they intended by this call.

There are several examples in this very thread where we believed we knew what GW intended and yet the draft FAQ proved otherwise.

 Ghaz wrote:

Qlanth wrote:
However, I think if we step back and remember that the people who wrote this are humans, and humans make mistakes, we can deduce what they intended by this call.

There are several examples in this very thread where we believed we knew what GW intended and yet the draft FAQ proved otherwise.

And there have been a few cases where a following FAQ actually reversed the answer or changed it to something else.

I think the most recent example I can think of is the Heldrake's mouth cannon. Admittedly, it happened at the beginning of 7th Edition, but it DID happen.

 Ghaz wrote:

Qlanth wrote:
However, I think if we step back and remember that the people who wrote this are humans, and humans make mistakes, we can deduce what they intended by this call.

There are several examples in this very thread where we believed we knew what GW intended and yet the draft FAQ proved otherwise.

Why would they specifically say it is not a hull-mounted 45 degree arc of fire if it is instead a sponson-mounted 45 degree arc of fire? Just for semantics? They have words for things that are fixed to the hull and only fire one way. They specifically say it is not that thing.

It's a bad answer, through and through. I can clearly see why they answered the way they did but they need to clarify. I posted on FB so hopefully the final draft will clarify specifically using degrees of movement.

And the more I think about this the more I think sponson-mounted is an arbitrary ruling and they need to review that entire rule for the next edition. These conversations aren't fun I don't think anybody wants to have these debates. Every codex should clearly show the arc of fire on every vehicle. It would take 5 minutes in photoshop to throw this together.

I would like to point out that the claim that "A weapon needs a barrel" is completely untrue and does not prove anything.

And quite honestly, people don't have to prove that the metallic protusion is not the barrel, you have to prove that it IS a barrel.

For all I care, the lightning shoots directly from the sphere without the need of a barrel, there're precedents of weapons not needing a barrel, why would a Tesla sphere need one? I say the lightning shoots forth from the sphere itself. Can anyone prove me that this is not the case?

As has been noted numerous times already, just being called 'sponson' doesn't give it a specific arc. The arc is still based on how fat the weapon can physically turn.

DaPino wrote:
I would like to point out that the claim that "A weapon needs a barrel" is completely untrue and does not prove anything.

And the vehicle rules say that you draw line of sight "... from each weapon's mounting and along it's barrel...". No barrel means you have no way to determine line of sight without resorting to house rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
As has been noted numerous times already, just being called 'sponson' doesn't give it a specific arc. The arc is still based on how fat the weapon can physically turn.

Or perceived to turn if physically immobilized when built (either deliberately, by accident, or due to repairs to the model).

The question on this, and not actually answered, is what is the mounting for the Tesla Sphere? Is it the green sphere behind that silver piece in the picture, or just the black supporting piece over the sphere? Or is it both?

Just copying from the tactics thread.

Options it boils down to.
A tesla sphere has something that looks like a barrel. You can measure along this to get a 45 fire arc that is 100% playable but people don't like.
Or you can say that it doesn't have a barrel, which makes the weapon unplayable without resorting to house rules. At this point you could just skip a step and house rule the fire arc!

The problem is that too many people are trying to use Option C and are claiming that the written rules for Sponsons allow the greater arc than what is physically possible and are denying that what looks *exactly* like the muzzle on one tesla weapon isn't a muzzle on another tesla weapon and therefore get to draw line of sight from anywhere on the sphere.

I hope you guys are having as much vigorous debate on the FB page as you are here. There is no reason to leave GW out of the pain they have caused.

 JimOnMars wrote:
I hope you guys are having as much vigorous debate on the FB page as you are here. There is no reason to leave GW out of the pain they have caused.

The problem with the Tesla Spheres being 'sponsons' have been brought up numerous times, starting almost as soon as the FAQ dropped.

 Ghaz wrote:
The problem is that too many people are trying to use Option C and are claiming that the written rules for Sponsons allow the greater arc than what is physically possible and are denying that what looks *exactly* like the muzzle on one tesla weapon isn't a muzzle on another tesla weapon and therefore get to draw line of sight from anywhere on the sphere.

I have no issue with using that muzzle/barrel thing for drawing LoS. My issue is with what it "looks" like it could do. That is so subjective it is ridiculous.
Why does that center beam that the muzzle is on HAVE to restrict its left-to-right movement?
Couldn't that just be a structutre used to containt the sphere?
Couldn't the "muzzle", which is clearly a focus point for the Tesla energy, float freely left-to-right at any point on the sphere, but the designers just left it in the center?
What if the pieces to the left and right of the sphere are actually meant to extent toward the center and allow the focal point to move left-to-right?

None of us are Necron engineers and have no idea how the technology is supposesd to work. Since the RAW for sponsons are to draw an Arc within the range of the ACTUAL weapon's movement from left to right, how are we supposed to agree on that?
Group A thinks the muzzle has to stay on the track, limiting it's movement to 45 degrees
Group B thinks it can float around the sphere (like a sponson) and gain left to right movement.

-

Again, please provide an actual rule to back up your claims. So far you've refused to do so. The only rule we have to determine a weapon's arc is what it could physically turn to face when properly assembled. I have a rule to back up my position. You do not. Either support your claims or stop wasting everyone's time with baseless assumptions.

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, please provide an actual rule to back up your claims. So far you've refused to do so. The only rule we have to determine a weapon's arc is what it could physically turn to face when properly assembled. I have a rule to back up my position. You do not. Either support your claims or stop wasting everyone's time with baseless assumptions.

I am not "refusing to provide rules" I just don't have my BRB with me to quote them properly. I am going off of the same rule you are using: "look at the model to judge how the weapon is supposed to move"
I am trying to assert the point that we cannot do so in this context because the model's design

It is easy to see how a Leman Russ or Land Raider weapons can move. You just move them side to side. But since the design of the Tesla Sphere is effectively "glued in place" we are left to imagine how it is supposed to move, just as we would for a LR that has its weapons glued.
Initially it looked Hull mounted, which was unfortunate. Now we are give information that they should be sponsons.
So how are they supposed to move side to side like a sponson? The only way I can think of is that the focus point can float left to right around the sphere, which it actually CAN be properly assembled with that focal piece at any point on the sphere, not just on the center track

-

I have to agree with Ghaz, sponson mounted means what it can be pointed at *NOT* what it looks like it should be able to point at. (RAI what you are saying is perfectly valid)

The relevant passage

"on some models, It will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to swivel on their mountings. In the rare case where it matters assume the guns can swivel 45 degrees vertically"

There is no mounting for a sphere to swivel on, as it's a single moulded piece.
If someone assembles a model incorrectly a mobile sponson may be prevented from swiveling, and this stops someone claiming that you get a smaller fire arc for assembling wrong.

It only gives you a contingency for immobile sponsons from model assembly not model design, because they shouldnt have sponsons immobile by design because they arent sponsons then.

harkequin wrote:


"on some models, It will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to swivel on their mountings. In the rare case where it matters assume the guns can swivel 45 degrees vertically"

There is no mounting for a sphere to swivel on, as it's a single moulded piece.

So we are ignoring that fact that the "muzzle" actually IS a separate piece that can be glued onto any part of the sphere, not just on the center track?

And the rule you quoted doesn't say WHY it's impossible to move the gun. Why do we have to assume it is because it was "glued", rather than how it was "designed"?
How the model is "assembled" could apply to either situation, whether assembled by design (a single piece) or by gluing multiple piece.

The funny thing is that I have no idea why I am so vested in this discussion. I don't even play Necrons and have never actually seen anyone play this thing. (though I have seen the model in person)

-

 Galef wrote:

harkequin wrote:


"on some models, It will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to swivel on their mountings. In the rare case where it matters assume the guns can swivel 45 degrees vertically"

There is no mounting for a sphere to swivel on, as it's a single moulded piece.

So we are ignoring that fact that the "muzzle" actually IS a separate piece that can be glued onto any part of the sphere, not just on the center track?

And the rule you quoted doesn't say WHY it's impossible to move the gun. Why do we have to assume it is because it was "glued", rather than how it was "designed"?
How the model is "assembled" could apply to either situation.

-

You can glue the muzzle anywhere on the sphere the same way you can glue the demolisher cannon anywhere on the tank, but you are explicitly instructed otherwise in the instructions.

"on some models, It will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled."

Impossible to move because of the way the model is assembled. It isn't assembly that prevents the "sponson" swiveling, as there is literally no way to assemble it so that it can swivel. Its the design of the model, how the pieces are moulded and how they are instructed to be fit together.

Ok, so I think I need to bow out of this discussion for 3 reasons.

1) I see this issue as RAI & RAW having the same outcome, but just can't seem to adequately express this
2) I don't really need vindication when the FAQ has given that already
3) I don't even play Necrons.

See you gents (and possibly ladies) in the next debate. Have a great day.

-

No problem mate, Have a good day.

So tesla spheres being sponsons are unfair, but breaking the heldrakes neck is just fine right?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So tesla spheres being sponsons are unfair, but breaking the heldrakes neck is just fine right?

The issue with the Tesla Sphere isn't that it's unfair. It's that they're trying to make an immobile weapon mount count as a sponson without providing any clarification on just how that's supposed to work.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So tesla spheres being sponsons are unfair, but breaking the heldrakes neck is just fine right?

The issue with the Tesla Sphere isn't that it's unfair. It's that they're trying to make an immobile weapon mount count as a sponson with providing any clarification on just how that's supposed to work.

Pretty much. Which part is the mounting that moves? Can it move across the entire sphere or is it just that metal track on top of the sphere?

I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.

Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes

How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?

Thanks

Nid-Veng wrote:
I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.

Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes

How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?

Thanks

We don't know. It was criminally under-specific.

Currently, I'm working on the assumption that the invasion beam works both ways, so the same process you use for disembarking is the one you use for embarking. I don't have a Necron codex, but I believe that's by passing over the unit with the flyer.

Nid-Veng wrote:
I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.

Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes

How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?

Thanks

Ask the FAQ FB thread. That's what it's there fore.

SJ