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.

Nice assumption but that's assuming more than free movement on the mounting that attaches your forearm.

You know what they say about assumptions.

I was instructed to assume the gun can rotate. You assume the gun can only rotate so far. Why the second assumption?

 DJGietzen wrote:
I was instructed to assume the gun can rotate. You assume the gun can only rotate so far. Why the second assumption?

It says free to move on it's mounting, not free to move. Very different things.

Right, but a gun rotating 360 degrees on its mounting is still rotating on its mounting.

Not if its mounting only allows 90 degrees of movement. For the other 270 degrees, it's going to have to come off the mounting.

As above - it is a difference between design and assembly. The WAY it is assembled can be discounted, not the actual design of the model

If the turret can only rotate 90 degrees, then you cannot assume it can rotate 360 - as that isnt an assembly issue but a design one.

 insaniak wrote:
Not if its mounting only allows 90 degrees of movement. For the other 270 degrees, it's going to have to come off the mounting.

How do you figure? mountings do not allow or disallow and degree of rotation. The assembly of the model does. All a mounting does is provide the axis and plane of rotation. If I am told to assume the weapon can roatate on its mounting I have to assume it can rotate 360 degrees on its mounting. Anything less with out instruction is inserting my own bias.

nosferatu1001, all do respect, but don't bring up the design of the model again until you can find where the design of the model is mentioned in the BRB. Its an incompetent irrelevant and immaterial argument otherwise.

"due"

Incompetent? Really? Any additional insults?

You are allowed to ignore how the model is assembled. The fact "design" is not mentioned means you are unable to ignore the design of the model

The design of a mounting absolutely CAN restrict the degree of rotation. Saying otherwise belies reality.

 DJGietzen wrote:
How do you figure? mountings do not allow or disallow and degree of rotation..

Of course they do. If something is build on a swivel that only turns through 90 degrees (like a pedestal fan, for example) or is built into a fixture that only allows the pount to swivel through a certain arc (like a Leman Russ sponson) then that something can only turn on its mounting through that limited arc. Turning any further would require taking the something off its mounting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
nosferatu1001, all do respect, but don't bring up the design of the model again until you can find where the design of the model is mentioned in the BRB. Its an incompetent irrelevant and immaterial argument otherwise.

I would recommend toning down the snark a little if you wish to continue participating in this discussion...

saying an argument is incompetent is not an insult. It means the argument is based on a poor foundation.. An incompetent irrelevant and immaterial argument is one that is a poor argument based on information that while tetchily correct has no relevance to the discussion and ads no value.

I'm not sure that is an accurate interpretation of a mounting. Even so the mountings on a land raider's sponsons allow for a full 360 degree rotation.

 DJGietzen wrote:
saying an argument is incompetent is not an insult. It means the argument is based on a poor foundation.. An incompetent irrelevant and immaterial argument is one that is a poor argument based on information that while tetchily correct has no relevance to the discussion and ads no value.

That doesn't make it any less insulting when you use it that way. See Dakka's rule #1.

Even so the mountings on a land raider's sponsons allow for a full 360 degree rotation.

No, they don't, because the rest of the land raider gets in the way.

Exactly, the rest of the land raider is not the mounting! You can't point the gun at the target because of the assembly. If you did not assemble the land raider in the manor you did, the land raider's hull would not be in the way,

 DJGietzen wrote:
Exactly, the rest of the land raider is not the mounting!

No, but the design of the land raider means that the mounting can only turn through a limited arc. That's not an assembly issue. It's a design issue. The gun is only capable of turning through a limited arc.

If you did not assemble the land raider in the manor you did,...

...then you would have an incorrectly assembled land raider.

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Exactly, the rest of the land raider is not the mounting!

No, but the design of the land raider means that the mounting can only turn through a limited arc. That's not an assembly issue. It's a design issue. The gun is only capable of turning through a limited arc.

If you did not assemble the land raider in the manor you did,...

...then you would have an incorrectly assembled land raider.

The design of the land raider model has zero baring on the function of the land raider model. I am allowed to assemble it any way I want. I do not need to have assembled the land raider correctly to have met the requirements to assume weapons range of motion is different than what was literally possible. I have explained why I have this opinion several times based on what is written in the book. If you feel the design has any baring at all on the rules please point me to a single line in the rule book that supports this opinion. I understand this opinion makes sense. In the real world two surfaces can not move through one another. The games rules do not reflect the real world and on multiple occasions simulate the impossible.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The design of the land raider model has zero baring on the function of the land raider model.

In a game where the fire arc of the weapons is defined by how far they can turn on the model, this is blatantly false.

I am allowed to assemble it any way I want.

Really? Please quote the relevant rule that allows this.

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The design of the land raider model has zero baring on the function of the land raider model.

In a game where the fire arc of the weapons is defined by how far they can turn on the model, this is blatantly false.

The fire arc of the weapon is not defined by how far they can turn on the model, that is what the last two pages have been about. If you can't literally point the weapon at the model you get to assume you can. You only need to check for line of sight from the assume weapon position.

I have permsion to use my models in the game. This permison is not restricted to properly assembled models. You might assume that is implied but then you would be inserting your own bias into the rules. With out a restriction on the models I can use this permission allows me to use models that are assembled any way I want. The only reference to the instructions is on page 313. It reminds you that you should try and keep your moving parts moving when you assemble. The numerous references to model customization through out the books and the understanding that if the assembly of your model inhibits the gun movement you assume the gun can move anyway means the model should be assembled according o the instructions, but does not need to be.

How do you determine the proper weapon motion on a model that has no official model? With my understanding of the rules this is not an issue, with yours it is a big one.

 DJGietzen wrote:
. If you can't literally point the weapon at the model you get to assume you can.

And what people have been pointing out for the last 2 pages is that this is not what the rules mean.

What they are saying is that if you can not move the weapon, due to assembly or gluing it in place, then you can pretend that it moves.

Not that you can pretend that the weapon can move through an arc that it is not actually capable of.

I have permsion to use my models in the game. This permison is not restricted to properly assembled models.

That one isn't really a debate for this thread, because it descends into silliness very quickly, but essentially the game is designed to function with 'Citadel Models'. The common argument against 'creative' modelling to give yourself some sort of advantage over a base model is that once you assemble the model in a way other than how the instructions tell you to do it, it's no longer the correct Citadel Model to represent that model.

It's a shaky argument that a lot of people just find too silly for words though, and it's more common for people to just point out that deliberately modelling for advantage is a great way of not having people want to play with you.

How do you determine the proper weapon motion on a model that has no official model? With my understanding of the rules this is not an issue, with yours it is a big one.

Strictly by the rules, you wouldn't be able to use a unit that has no official model, as there is no Citadel Model to represent it.

In actual practice, it goes by however you have built your stand-in model... provided your opponent doesn't object to what you have come up with and refuses to let you use it.

What evidence do you have that we are not suppose to assume a weapon can rotate on its mounting free of restriction if the assembly of the model prevents us from pointing the vehicle's weapon at the target?

So you have to assume a mounting always allows totally free movement?

Even when that is demonstrably false?

 Order Knight wrote:
They're side sponsons, so their firing arc should be 180degree.

Just because a side sponson can potentially fire 180, not every one can do so. One is limited by the actual limitations of their model. Turn the sponsons on your crusader, this determines their firing arc.

 DJGietzen wrote:
I have permsion to use my models in the game. This permison is not restricted to properly assembled models. You might assume that is implied but then you would be inserting your own bias into the rules. With out a restriction on the models I can use this permission allows me to use models that are assembled any way I want. The only reference to the instructions is on page 313. It reminds you that you should try and keep your moving parts moving when you assemble. The numerous references to model customization through out the books and the understanding that if the assembly of your model inhibits the gun movement you assume the gun can move anyway means the model should be assembled according o the instructions, but does not need to be.

"Permission". You have "permission".

So, how do you feel about this:



I mean, those're war walkers, right? It has got all the bits assembled. They're just not assembled like in the manual, right? Right?

How about this one?


You sound like a walking talking apology for modeling for advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you have to assume a mounting always allows totally free movement?

Even when that is demonstrably false?

What is the foundation of this claim that it is demonstrably false? Assume the gun can rotate means just that, it can rotate. No limitation is placed on how far we should assume it can rotate. No mentioned of the intended or physical range . Inserting these limitations on your own is what I have an issue with. The additional instructions on how to determine if we have line of sight prevent us from always being able to always fire even though we can always point the gun at the target.

augustus5 wrote:

 Order Knight wrote:
They're side sponsons, so their firing arc should be 180degree.

Just because a side sponson can potentially fire 180, not every one can do so. One is limited by the actual limitations of their model. Turn the sponsons on your crusader, this determines their firing arc.

I don't think it does. The firing arc, in my opinion is 180-190 degrees on a land raider's side sponsons becouse the sponsons do not block line of sight like they do on a leman russ.

daedalus wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I have permsion to use my models in the game. This permison is not restricted to properly assembled models. You might assume that is implied but then you would be inserting your own bias into the rules. With out a restriction on the models I can use this permission allows me to use models that are assembled any way I want. The only reference to the instructions is on page 313. It reminds you that you should try and keep your moving parts moving when you assemble. The numerous references to model customization through out the books and the understanding that if the assembly of your model inhibits the gun movement you assume the gun can move anyway means the model should be assembled according o the instructions, but does not need to be.

"Permission". You have "permission".

So, how do you feel about this:



I mean, those're war walkers, right? It has got all the bits assembled. They're just not assembled like in the manual, right? Right?

How about this one?


You sound like a walking talking apology for modeling for advantage.

I am discussing the rules, not how I would play. If I felt my opponent was blatantly modeling for advantage he would not be welcome at a table with me. Please refrain from personal attacks, its not polite.

I apologize for being snide.

To throw your argument to the extreme, would you say that, were I to mount my sponsons directly atop the land raider, and on a vertical axis, they should be able to fire in 360 degrees?

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't think it does. The firing arc, in my opinion is 180-190 degrees on a land raider's side sponsons becouse the sponsons do not block line of sight like they do on a leman russ.

The sponsons on a russ don't block line of sight, it stops it rotating.
If we assume free movement like you are suggesting, the russ sponsons could easily target something behind the tanks. The barrel would be well clear of the sponson.
The diagrams show this isn't the case.

 DJGietzen wrote:
What evidence do you have that we are not suppose to assume a weapon can rotate on its mounting free of restriction if the assembly of the model prevents us from pointing the vehicle's weapon at the target?

You are supposed to assume that a weapon can rotate freely on its mounting if the assembly of the model prevents us from pointing the weapon at the chosen target.

What people are telling you is that this doesn't allow you to point the weapon somewhere it is not capable of actually going. It's just an allowance to assume that weapons that don't turn as intended should be assumed to be able to turn.

Turning freely on its mounting does not allow a weapon to rotate through the vehicle's own hull.

daedalus wrote:I apologize for being snide.

To throw your argument to the extreme, would you say that, were I to mount my sponsons directly atop the land raider, and on a vertical axis, they should be able to fire in 360 degrees?

Are you suggesting we rotate the sponson and h-bolter 90 degrees and mount it on the roof?

grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't think it does. The firing arc, in my opinion is 180-190 degrees on a land raider's side sponsons becouse the sponsons do not block line of sight like they do on a leman russ.

The sponsons on a russ don't block line of sight, it stops it rotating.
If we assume free movement like you are suggesting, the russ sponsons could easily target something behind the tanks. The barrel would be well clear of the sponson.
The diagrams show this isn't the case.

No, you check line of sight from the mounting point down the barrel of the gun to the target. Although the tip of the barrel would be outside the sponson the line of sight would still be blocked by the sponson. I believe this is exactly what the picture shows us.

insaniak wrote:

What people are telling you is that this doesn't allow you to point the weapon somewhere it is not capable of actually going. It's just an allowance to assume that weapons that don't turn as intended should be assumed to be able to turn.

That is the whole point of the rule. To let you point the weapon somewhere is not capable of actually going. This assumption that the rule is limited to models that don't move as designed/intended is a fallacy. Its only limited to models who can't literally point their guns at the target because of assembly or being glued in place. The rule allows you to assume the weapon can be pointed at the target and gives no restriction to this allowance.

No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you can try to play the game how you like. However if the moel is clearly unable to pivot, no matter how freely you let it rotate, because of the model getting in the way all by itself, noone I know will actually let you play it your way.

I imagine that is also the prevailing opinion - it certainly is this thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you can try to play the game how you like. However if the moel is clearly unable to pivot, no matter how freely you let it rotate, because of the model getting in the way all by itself, noone I know will actually let you play it your way.

I imagine that is also the prevailing opinion - it certainly is this thread.

I have not been proven wrong. All you have done is repeat the same thing over and over. I say the gun can rotate 360 degrees.You say it can only rotate 90 degrees because the model physically prevents any more. I ask you to document where in the rules the physical restrictions of the model are mentioned as a limit to the imaginary rotation. You say it can only rotate 90 degrees because the model physically prevents any more.

I have explained why I think the rules mean one thing. You have explained why your opinion is different, but have not supported your opinion with rules.

The poll for this thread shows most players disagree with you. They may not agree with my reasoning but they would let me play it my way.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The poll for this thread shows most players disagree with you. They may not agree with my reasoning but they would let me play it my way.

Although it has to be wondered just how many of those would change their vote once you show them the actual model and demonstrate the actual arc the the weapon can move in, because I would strongly suspect that a number of those votes are from people who just assumed that the Crusader's sponsons would have the same range of movement as the other Land Raider variants.

K... here it is. Land Raider Crusader, about as much of a top-down view as I could find in 3 minutes.



Red triangles are the firing arcs of your sponson-mounted weapons. Shaded blue areas are the areas the bolters cover.

Notice that neither sponson can fire through the tank its attached to. Why? Because it's not fething designed that way. Neither the model nor the vehicle in-universe is designed to shoot through itself.