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.

copper.talos wrote:
As an engineer I can tell you that cables are used in such constructions to allow movement. If the gun was to be immobile then no cables would be necessary and any conduits needed would be fixed on the hull.

I have a lot of respect for engineers, a fine profession, no matter the field. However...
Those cables are made of plastic. The rules don't allow for you to pretend they're made of flexible alien robot metal.
You need to physically point the gun at the target. If the gun won't move, you have permission to pretend the mounting will move freely.
Those cables are not part of the mounting. Can you find a rule that lets you pretend that non-mounting parts of the vehicle can move?
If so please quote it.

I like how you have continued to make demands of other posters but have yet to answer most questions I have put forth.
The top two are:
Where is your permission to limit the arc of sight in the section off a weapon not moving?
The section tells you to assume it can move freely it does not give any way to limit that movement. You are making a claim that is should be but have yet to back it up with a quoted rule. What you are saying is that the way you put forth is the way that you do it..... because that is the way you do it. There is no rule to compare the assumed movement to it's assumed path and limit the firing arc. If you can't post a rule telling you to do so all your demands that someone else post a rule are moot. You are doing something not listed in the rules and nullifying the rules for the weapon and ignoring the fact that there are no limitations put on the free movement.
Do you limit the arc if sight of tanks from the point up when the barrel of the weapon can move up but not down due to the way GW has had you assemble it?
If you want to do it evenly you measure the movement it has subtract it from the 45, cut the difference in half and add that to how far to the top and bottom of their existing arc. To do it any other way gives them an advantage that is not granted in the rules. Which also limits the usefulness of tanks the same way you are limiting the usefulness of the Death Ray but i don't see you applying the same level of restriction on them.....
I like how you are saying that we should apply real world physics like limits of movement based on length of cables/hoses and the appearance of blocked rotation but when someone who's job is designing these kind of things points out the flaw in your argument you tell him his expertise doesn't matter.

No, it says it can move freely on its mount

It does not say it can move freely ignoring anything in the way

Until you find that rule, you are done.

Gravmyr wrote:
Where is your permission to limit the arc of sight in the section off a weapon not moving?

That rule allows you to assume the mounting can move freely. Nothing else. Only the mounting. You have to point the gun at the target, or in the case of a weapon that can't move, assume the mounting can move freely. If the mounting moves freely, but another part if the model prevents rotation, then the weapon cannot be pointed at the target, can it?

The section tells you to assume it can move freely

It says the mounting can move freely. Nothing else, but you continue to claim it's a blanket statement on the whole weapon, the hull and everything else

it does not give any way to limit that movement.

If you can't point the gun at the target, it's out of Arc of Sight. There is a physical requirement in the rules. If the mounting won't move, pretend it does. Again, mounting only.

You are making a claim that is should be but have yet to back it up with a quoted rule.

The rules itself supports this, it's been quoted enough.

What you are saying is that the way you put forth is the way that you do it..... because that is the way you do it. There is no rule to compare the assumed movement to it's assumed path and limit the firing arc.

The rule says "assume", are you saying there's no rule that says you must assume, when it says assume?

If you can't post a rule telling you to do so all your demands that someone else post a rule are moot. You are doing something not listed in the rules and nullifying the rules for the weapon and ignoring the fact that there are no limitations put on the free movement.

There is a limitation. You must point the gun at the target to draw LOS. If the mounting won't move freely, assume it does. I feel like this has been mentioned before?
You still suggest this allows you to ignore non-mounting parts of the model. Please quote this rule.

Do you limit the arc if sight of tanks from the point up when the barrel of the weapon can move up but not down due to the way GW has had you assemble it?
If you want to do it evenly you measure the movement it has subtract it from the 45, cut the difference in half and add that to how far to the top and bottom of their existing arc. To do it any other way gives them an advantage that is not granted in the rules. Which also limits the usefulness of tanks the same way you are limiting the usefulness of the Death Ray but i don't see you applying the same level of restriction on them.....

Are you talking about the vertical Arc of Sight again? The book states this is 45*. The actual vertical movement of the weapon is not used. You're talking about using vertical movement to effectively increase the Arc of Sight, or at least position the arc where it's most advantageous to you. This is not what the rule allows.
And the Vertical Arc has nothing to do with the movement of the death ray.

I like how you are saying that we should apply real world physics like limits of movement based on length of cables/hoses and the appearance of blocked rotation but when someone who's job is designing these kind of things points out the flaw in your argument you tell him his expertise doesn't matter.

Real world physics do apply, because you're using an actual model that you're require to move parts of. You can't pass a gun through a wall can you? The rules follow this.
The rules also don't tell you to pretend that a peace of plastic is also alien-elastic-metal.


Now again, the rules allow the assumption that the Death Ray mounting can move freely. The cables are not part of the mounting, and being solid plastic prevent the gun from rotating at all. Do you have an actual rule that contradicts this?

You have not posted a quote ever concerning the comparison you are making. Still waiting.

Gravmyr wrote:
You have not posted a quote ever concerning the comparison you are making. Still waiting.

That you must point the gun at the target?

BRB p72 wrote:When firing a vehicle' weapons, point them at the target and then trace Line of Sight from each weapons' mounting along its barrel

That if the mounting can't move, assume it does? The mounting only, and nothing else?

BRB p72 wrote:Players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings

Combine these two rules. Assuming the mounting of the Death Ray moves freely, how can the weapon point at the target, when parts of the vehicle get in the way? And when the cables still stop it moving at all?

Still waiting for an answer for this, or even a relevant rules quote.

Can it move freely in the mounting using your proposed idea that the cables and anything else inhibits moving?

There is no limitation put on this movement in the cannot move section. You cannot physically move the gun at all if it is fixed. You still haven't pointed out any rule concerning a gun that cannot move. You are still saying that you have to move the gun in essence. It can't. You seem to ignore this restriction when tanks are concerned. Why is it so imperative that you do this with Doomscythes but not tanks? I think maybe you are just a little biased. I have applied my reading both directions but it does appear you are willing to ignore the body of a tank and ignore what movement it already has in terms of movement but as far as the Doomscythe is considered you want to limit it through assumption. You are assuming that if there is another limitation which is not addressed that you can apply it. So again if anything stops movement can it move freely in it's mount?

The mounting is free

The cables attached to the gun, not part of the mounting, do not move freely

Or do you have a rules quote yet?

Gravmyr wrote:
Can it move freely in the mounting using your proposed idea that the cables and anything else inhibits moving?

The cables are not part of the mounting. They have no permision to move freely. Neither are the Teslas. Nor is the Hull. Only the Mounting can move freely.
You're claiming that the rule allows these parts to be ignored, or moved. This is false. There is no rule allowing it.

You cannot physically move the gun at all if it is fixed.

The rule allows you to asssume it can move. The mounting only.

You still haven't pointed out any rule concerning a gun that cannot move.

I've quoted that rule serveral times. Here it is again:
"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"

You are still saying that you have to move the gun in essence. It can't.

The rule says you must. If it can't assume the mounting can move freely. If it still can't than it isn't within the Arc of Sight.

You seem to ignore this restriction when tanks are concerned. Why is it so imperative that you do this with Doomscythes but not tanks?

Iv'e not ignored this, I've mentioned it serveral times. I've listed serveral examples of mountings that are limited by the design and construction of the model. The turret on a Landraider cannot point at a target behind it. Nor can the Turret on a StormRaven.

I think maybe you are just a little biased.

Appologise for this commet please.

I have applied my reading both directions but it does appear you are willing to ignore the body of a tank and ignore what movement it already has in terms of movement but as far as the Doomscythe is considered you want to limit it through assumption. You are assuming that if there is another limitation which is not addressed that you can apply it.

I've brought up the body of a tank many many times. Guns cannot rotate if part of the model prevents it. Why is the DoomScythe any different?

So again if anything stops movement can it move freely in it's mount?

The mount is assumed to move freely, what rule lets you ignore other parts of model that get in the way? Parts that are nothing to do with the mount?
If a Landraider turret is glued in place, by your logic I can rotate it through it's own hull and point the weapon at a target behind it. No rule allows this.

Again you are adding a restriction not mentioned. Can it move freely in the mounting if as you ascert the tesla and hoses impede it? It does not limit it to only the mounting moving it says the guns moves freely in it's mount. There is a difference.

It says the mounting may move freely

Prove that applies t anything attached to the Gun. Not the mounting.

Try again. Waiting on your permission to ignore these, and assume "mountings" means "able to pass through matter"

Page and graph please. Your contuinued refusal means I assume you are now stating HYWPI.

Tempted to cut the cables off my Doom Scythe by this point, no coolant system is worth this.

Gravmyr wrote:
Again you are adding a restriction not mentioned. Can it move freely in the mounting if as you ascert the tesla and hoses impede it? It does not limit it to only the mounting moving it says the guns moves freely in it's mount. There is a difference.

The turret on a Landraider cannot point at a target behind it.
If this turret is not glued in place, then the mounting can indeed move freely. It still can't point at a target behind it though.
You're claiming extra freedom that is not in the rule.

And I'm still waiting for an appology from your "biased" comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scarey Nerd wrote:
Tempted to cut the cables off my Doom Scythe by this point, no coolant system is worth this.

We're talking rules here, altering your model is not part of the rules. And in this case is Modeling for Advantage.

Scarey Nerd wrote:
Tempted to cut the cables off my Doom Scythe by this point, no coolant system is worth this.

And the guns as well? Anymore modelling for advantage you would like to do while you are at it, like shortening the stem so it is harder to shoot at it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Scarey Nerd wrote:
Tempted to cut the cables off my Doom Scythe by this point, no coolant system is worth this.

And the guns as well? Any more modelling for advantage you would like to do while you are at it, like shortening the stem so it is harder to shoot at it?

Wow, relax. I was being facetious, I'm not actually going to tamper with the model, I wouldn't be bothered with the hassle for a start. What I meant was everyone in this thread seems to be getting a little heated over this. I thought it would have had a straight forward answer but since it doesn't, I'll just ask people when I play with them how they want me to do it.

Yet it IS a straightforward answer -even if it can move freely on its mountings, its fire arc is *incredibly* limited due to the way the model is designed. As such playing is as Hull Mounted is simplest, and probablya little generous.

Since it is clear that you have made your opinion up despite anything else I'm going to assume that all these posts are just for giggles. I have pointed out why they move freely. You cannot point out anything in the rules for how the gun does move once it is assumed that it does move. You have yet to address my question of does it move freely per the rules if the restrictions you have put forth are viable. The fact that it does not mention that anything else affects it means that moving freely covers all of these conditions. This again is backed up by the use of anywhere in the use of the weapon.

My thoughts of anyone are not something I ever apologize for. Why should the way that I or anyone else thinks of you be an insult unless you have some belief of the same.... Either way I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you waiting for an apology on my thoughts and feelings.

No, you have pointed out the mounting can move freely

That ball joint? That can move freely. That gun that cannot swing past the tesla? That cannot

You cannot provide ANY applicable rule, just your made up version that the "weapon" can move "freely", when the ACTUAL rule is that the *mount* can move freely.

You broke the tenets fo the forum by assuming bias in the person, when no evidence of that was available. You should apologise for being rude AND wrong.

Gravmyr wrote:
My thoughts of anyone are not something I ever apologize for. Why should the way that I or anyone else thinks of you be an insult unless you have some belief of the same.... Either way I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you waiting for an apology on my thoughts and feelings.

You said I was ignoring rules and was biased.
So I cheat for my own benefit?
This is acceptable conduct for a rules debate? To insult anyone that has a different opinion? And you don't feel this deserves an apology?

So does the Death Ray rule in the Necron Codex specifically state it is a Hull-mounted weapon? Or does it not specify? Just wondering, I didn't see a full posting of the actual verbatim rules for it.

As with most vehicle weapons, it doesn't specify.

Ah, now I understand

I noticed the new Apocalypse book doesn't specify the mounts for the Thunderhawk, just as an example. So if somebody mounts the turbo-laser destructor on a model part that can swivel or rotate, can it then target and blast things off to its side? .And then if they mount the tesla guns on the wing edges of a Doom Scythe so that Death Ray could swivel sideways or all around, is that modeling to advantage? What if I just think it looks cool? If a cool looking arrangement of weapons somehow provides an advantage in any scenario, is it then unfair? An extra skull on the end of my lascannons could give an extra 1/4" of range afterall.

This is a huge recurrent failing on GW's part, and not just with the Death Ray. Vehicle weapons need some mandatory mounting profiles in addition to 'Heavy' or 'Rapid Fire', etc. Then any amount of interesting model making, which is an inevitable and awesome part of this hobby, wouldn't complicate things.

As I read this thread Gravmyr is trying to cling to a faulty argument, and reads likes he "wants his Crons to Pwn more."

The rules are clear, it can swivel freely, but its LOS is clearly limited by the underslung Tesla and the hull of the vehicle. End result is a quite limited LOS and playing it as Hull Mounted is more than fair.

As above.

Gravmyr - you need to find an actual rule that says being able to move freely on your mountings means something other than the mounting moving freely. As in, you need a rule stating you can ignore pesky obstructions, like the attached cabling, the guns etc that would stop a freely moving mounting from rotating completely.

Unless and until you can do so you have no rules support, and are just arguing HYWPI.