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.

Maybe GW will FAQ it.

Maybe this will help?


(for what it's worth, it looks like a turret to me too)

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1600092a
( there is a 3d composite image here; you can spin the doom-scythe around and view it from all angles. it's pretty nifty!)

I would think that GW would have said in the rulebook if it's a turret mount though. I mean, most every weapon in other codices say if they are turret/pintle/hull. I don't know why it didn't just say in our book but considering every other weapon we have on our vehicles is hull mounted I don't see why this would be any different.

Actually it's not uncommon for the rules-text on a vehicles' weapons to not list the type they are; presumably the model itself is enough of a guide in most cases. I was skimming the grey knight codex for example and found many more weapons with no such listing than I did listings which specifically indicate what type of mount is used. (and of course pretty much none of the necron ones have the mount listed)

I believe we are told to 'pretend' that the gun can move in it's mounting even if it literally can't: "... on some models it will actually be impossible to literalIy move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model has been assembled... ...players should assume that the guns on the vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings..."

Question is, does that small mount-shaped assembly on the top of the deathray constitute a 'mount' of some sort?

There's no way the cables could prevent it from rotating.

It looks alot like the FW TL-Lascannon upgrades for the Vendetta model. Which is Hull mounted.

Dozer Blades wrote: There's no way the cables could prevent it from rotating.

I agree. The two flexible-looking cables and a small round (mount-like?) pillar near the back of the deathray are the only places it is attached to the bottom of the hull.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There's no way the cables could prevent it from rotating.

Going from a mechanical perspective, Those lil wires will prevent it from spinning. They're more than likely the Power for the gun, if it was meant to Spin freely it would be located above the swivel point and ran inside of the joint.

 Neorealist wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote: There's no way the cables could prevent it from rotating.

I agree. The two flexible-looking cables and a small round (mount-like?) pillar near the back of the deathray are the only places it is attached to the bottom of the hull.

Sure they're flexible looking. That doesn't mean they give enough for 360 degree movement.
The mount like pillar gives it some traversal, sure - but there's no way it's 360.
And isn't that picture missing one of the TL Teslas (specifically the one closest to the camera)?

Edit: yes, the picture in this thread is missing a TL Tesla that's definitely hull mounted... Which means its not possible to traverse past the tesla guns.

I believe the nightscythe (and by logical extension the doomscythe given it has the same chassis) are described as having the dual tesla destuctor barrels on a turret; the only way this would work is if the 'entire' underslung gun assembly on the bottom swiveled around? Sadly that does not appear to be borne out by how the model is put together; at least in the case of the tesla weapons themselves. (they're affixed to the hull and have no clearance to swing left and right around where the central axis would be for such a configuration).

rigeld2 wrote:Edit: yes, the picture in this thread is missing a TL Tesla that's definitely hull mounted... Which means its not possible to traverse past the tesla guns.

Sure it could: The crystal apparatus on the front looks like it can tilt downward too so it should fire underneath the tesla barrels just fine, no reason it'd fire 'through' them.

 Neorealist wrote:
Maybe this will help?


(for what it's worth, it looks like a turret to me too)

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1600092a
( there is a 3d composite image here; you can spin the doom-scythe around and view it from all angles. it's pretty nifty!)

From here it does look turret mounted too, i still have doubts it can rotate past the tesla guns as those are quite clearly fixed to the aircraft's hull.

I went to the GW site and viewed the 360 degree pan for the Doomscythe... The Tesla destructors are off a ways on either side from the death ray (symmetrical)... Looks to me like they don't limit swiveling the centrally located death ray.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I went to the GW site and viewed the 360 degree pan for the Doomscythe... The Tesla destructors are off a ways on either side from the death ray (symmetrical)... Looks to me like they don't limit swiveling the centrally located death ray.

I checked it myself, and disagree strongly.

Check this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/454688.page for better images. Judging from those pictures it looks like that even if the Death Ray was turret mounted, it would still not be able to rotate past the obviously hull mounted tesla destructors.

IIRC someone in Dakka actually tested how the Death Ray turns on practice, I'll try to find that thread.

Luide wrote:
Check this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/454688.page for better images. Judging from those pictures it looks like that even if the Death Ray was turret mounted, it would still not be able to rotate past the obviously hull mounted tesla destructors..

That's actually a really nice look to get a good view.

Mechanically, the Death Ray would indeed have trouble moving 180 past the Telsa Destrcutors, and the wires would certainly prevent it from turning 180 degrees. Ironically, the wires look like they would only stretch so far as to allow the Death Ray a 45 degree radius . At very least, even if you assume the mounting of the Death Ray allows it to swivel, the wires would certainly strain and break before it could turn 360.

Additionally, I always thought that that line in the rules regarding static turrets (where it states where in rare occasions the turret has been glued down) referred to how it was built by the player, rather than how the model was designed.

So, if a player glued down their turret, or if they built their model in such a way that prevents it from turning, use these rules, etc.

Not that really helps with any argument, as it's kinda highly subjective :p

That turret, judging from the picture, could likely turn 45 degrees each way, for a 90 degree arc. If the wire weren't there it could turn360 by depressing itself 45 degrees and then turning past the out Tesla destructors.

 Kharrak wrote:

Luide wrote:
Check this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/454688.page for better images. Judging from those pictures it looks like that even if the Death Ray was turret mounted, it would still not be able to rotate past the obviously hull mounted tesla destructors..

That's actually a really nice look to get a good view.

From those pictures, it appears to me that it is intended to be turret mounted.

So you're ignoring the "power lines" and the fact that it's limited by the Tesla guns?

Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

Fragile wrote:
Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

Turrets on models intended to move 360 are always, in my experience, rotatable to show as such - unless the player has glued them in place, or built the model so that it can't fully turn.

And yes, you look at the model to see what type of weapon it is. Does this gun rotate? It does! Well, then it's a turret / sponson / etc.

Again, by your argument, Dreadnoughts and Chaos Defilers could turn around and fire 360 degrees, even when immobilized. Ork walkers could fire behind them when immobilized, because their guns are on ball mounts.

The two large cables attached to the rear of the weapon significantly restrict rotation due to the very short length and location. In order to pivot 180 degrees horizontally from front to rear, there must be enough slack in both cables to allow it to do so. Rotating the weapon to the left, the right rear cable will become taught after a very short distance travelled stopping rotation. Second, the poor design of the cable placement by attaching it on the side of the weapon and not on the top, also restricts horizontal travel as the rear of the weapon will contact the cable after a very short travel as well.

 Kharrak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

Turrets on models intended to move 360 are always, in my experience, rotatable to show as such - unless the player has glued them in place, or built the model so that it can't fully turn.

And yes, you look at the model to see what type of weapon it is. Does this gun rotate? It does! Well, then it's a turret / sponson / etc.

Again, by your argument, Dreadnoughts and Chaos Defilers could turn around and fire 360 degrees, even when immobilized. Ork walkers could fire behind them when immobilized, because their guns are on ball mounts.

Only if you disregard all the other rules for shooting with walkers.

You have to look closely when you believe a Codex rule gives permission to override a BRB rule. The BRB has restrictions to be able to fire a weapon and two of these are a weapon must fire in its arc and must have LOS. Does the Death Ray give specific permission to override both these rules? I believe it does not. The Death Ray rule states you nominate a point anywhere on the battlefield. Does this give specific permission to override a weapon's arc restriction? Or LOS? No, as it would have to specifically state so. Indirect fire specifically addresses giving permission to override LOS as well as GK Astral Aim. I'm sure there are other specific permissions that override LOS, but the Death Ray doesn't state so. "Anywhere" may appear as a permission that overrides both these BRB rules, but it doesn't as it doesn't state the Death Ray "ignores this weapon's arc" and "ignores LOS". Therefore, "anywhere" means "anywhere within the weapon's arc and LOS"

Fragile wrote:
Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

So you're accepting the mount but ignoring the power lines.
It does t appear that it can, because of those power lines. Therefore it can't.

I am pretty sure if its turret mounted it is specified in the rules. Just because it looks one way doesn't mean you can ignore the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Yes, it looks like its ball mounted and is intended to be able to turn 360. The actual design may prohibit it but the rule states that if it appears that it can, then it can.

So you're accepting the mount but ignoring the power lines.
It does t appear that it can, because of those power lines. Therefore it can't.

Well I'm not going to argue whether power lines are flexible enough to turn 180 on a plastic toy if it were real. Your mind is set your way, just spam GW with it so they FAQ it.

Yes, because the standard is "does it look like it could turn" - when it doesnt look like it could turn, because it is modelled to not be able to turn, that is the only conclusion you can draw.

Does it look like it can turn? Yes.

Pg 72... 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........

Is there something in the way ? Yes... then....

.......In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings.......

Free to swivel in a ball mounting is free to swivel 360*

Fragile wrote:
Does it look like it can turn? Yes.

Pg 72... 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........

Is there something in the way ? Yes... then....

.......In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings.......

Free to swivel in a ball mounting is free to swivel 360*

No, it doesn't look like it can turn 360 degrees.
A) the TL Teslas are in the way.
B) those power cables you keep ignoring

Also, the design of the model is what makes it not a turret. Not the way it's assembled.
Or are you going to argue that the hull mount on a Leman Russ has a 360 degree pivot also?

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Maybe not, but I've shown that some rules just can't work in a pure RAW sense.

If you are talking about pure RAW, the the Hive Guard Impaler cannon and Tau SMS missiles don't work. They can fire at a unit out of LOS, but they can't allocate wounds to it.
If you are also talking about pure raw, then the Out of Sight rule doesn't apply to vehicles. Thus, if you can somehow hit a vehicle out of LOS, then you can damage it.
Sometimes, you have to make a logical assumption in order to have a particular rule work by RAW. Otherwise it just doesn't and there is no need for that rule in the first place.

Impaller cannons ignore jink and any terrain or effect that gives cover, other than the cover the target is in or touching.
The smart missiles target gets cover for anything they are in, touching, or inbetween, totally different than the impaller.

What is the same is that both of those examples specifically say that they can fire on units out of line of sight.

Seems to me that the initial point on the ground is the target, and must be in line of sight. After that, draw your 3D6" line where ever you want.
Like the scattering blasts, GW hasn't said a word about allocating wounds, even though they list it as a different step in the shooting process.


-Matt

I'm not talking about cover.

Yes, it does say that they (Impaler cannon, SMS, purgation Astral Aim) can fire at a unit out of LOS. However, the rules never say that you can allocate wounds on a unit out of LOS.

What you are doing is assuming that because it can fire without the need for LOS, then you can allocate wounds to them.

The same goes for the death ray. It gives the gun permission to fire out of LOS (if you assume that 45 degree is its arc of LOS) but does not say anything about allocating wounds out of LOS. Basically, you would be making the same "leap of faith" assumption with the death ray as you would those other weapons.

 Kharrak wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
From looking at the model it actually looks like a turret mounted weapon to me. The reason for this is it is attached to the underside of the flyer with an orb and the only other things runnning to it from the ship are what look to be hoses or cables both of which are flexible.

By that argument, Dreadnoughts, Defilers, and many others could turn around to fire behind them, even when immobilized, because their upper bodies and/ or arms look "turret mounted".

No, walkers have their own specific rules for how they fire, which are different from that of a turret just as it is different from that of normal infantry.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I would think that GW would have said in the rulebook if it's a turret mount though. I mean, most every weapon in other codices say if they are turret/pintle/hull. I don't know why it didn't just say in our book but considering every other weapon we have on our vehicles is hull mounted I don't see why this would be any different.

Not really. A lot of the "turrets" - the stormraven, razorbacks, predators and the whirlwind just to name a few - never mentions explicity in the rules that they are turrets.

Brian2000 wrote:
You have to look closely when you believe a Codex rule gives permission to override a BRB rule. The BRB has restrictions to be able to fire a weapon and two of these are a weapon must fire in its arc and must have LOS. Does the Death Ray give specific permission to override both these rules? I believe it does not. The Death Ray rule states you nominate a point anywhere on the battlefield. Does this give specific permission to override a weapon's arc restriction? Or LOS? No, as it would have to specifically state so. Indirect fire specifically addresses giving permission to override LOS as well as GK Astral Aim. I'm sure there are other specific permissions that override LOS, but the Death Ray doesn't state so. "Anywhere" may appear as a permission that overrides both these BRB rules, but it doesn't as it doesn't state the Death Ray "ignores this weapon's arc" and "ignores LOS". Therefore, "anywhere" means "anywhere within the weapon's arc and LOS"

I'm sorry. I don't believe I see the "within the weapon's arc and LOS" after "anywhere" in the weapons description.

And yes, "anywhere" does conflict with "only within the weapon's arc and LOS", but the argument here isn't whether it can or cannot fire only within its arc. The argument here is the allocation of wounds to units hit outside of its arc.


-----------------------------------------------------


This may be a discussion about RAW here, but sometimes in an actual game, going by pure RAW just doesn't work. Sometimes you have to make some assumptions. For example, you are assuming that hive guards, SMS and astral aim by purgation squads can actually allocate wounds to the models they shoot.

Likewise, you are assuming that the Out of Sight rule on p.16 also applies to vehicles and not just units with "Wounds".

If you want to call that "house-ruling", then fine. So be it. Sometimes I play the RAI if the RAW is questionable or open to intepretation.

Otherwise, my death ray can fire at your unit outside of its LOS and although it may not be able to allocate wounds to the unit, it can kill it if that unit is a vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Does it look like it can turn? Yes.

Pg 72... 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........

Is there something in the way ? Yes... then....

.......In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings.......

Free to swivel in a ball mounting is free to swivel 360*

No, it doesn't look like it can turn 360 degrees.
A) the TL Teslas are in the way.
B) those power cables you keep ignoring

Also, the design of the model is what makes it not a turret. Not the way it's assembled.

A. Mounting it on a ball rather than a fixed point shows intent for it to turn, regardless of whether the Teslas are in the way.
B. No power cable would stop something from turning. Those would simply wrap around the pivot. Cables are flexible. Even hydraulic cables on modern heavy machinery is flexible enough to 180*, so those cables are irrelevant.

The design may be bad, but lets face, GW is designing a TOY, not a working spaceship.

Or are you going to argue that the hull mount on a Leman Russ has a 360 degree pivot also?

Irrelevant strawman. But, if you want to post a picture and start a new thread, I will happily post a comment in there for you.