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.

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

Proof, you say? Ok, I'll humor you.

Your argument is based on the flawed reasoning that the cables are somehow bound by the physical restrictions of every other cable in the galaxy.

The cables are part of the Scythe. Necron Scythes are made of living metal. Therefore, the cables are made of living metal.

The cables are made of living metal. Living metal is a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair." Therefore, the cables are made of a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair."

It is entirely reasonable that cables made from a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair" can stretch around a ball joint.

Please stop with your silly line of reasoning.

The rules don't say "Assuming everything is made of magic, if it looks like it can turn then it can."
So your magic metal cables are an irrelevant argument. Thanks though.

rigeld2 wrote:

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

Proof, you say? Ok, I'll humor you.

Your argument is based on the flawed reasoning that the cables are somehow bound by the physical restrictions of every other cable in the galaxy.

The cables are part of the Scythe. Necron Scythes are made of living metal. Therefore, the cables are made of living metal.

The cables are made of living metal. Living metal is a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair." Therefore, the cables are made of a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair."

It is entirely reasonable that cables made from a "semi-sentient alloy capable of incredible feats of resilience and self-repair" can stretch around a ball joint.

Please stop with your silly line of reasoning.

The rules don't say "Assuming everything is made of magic, if it looks like it can turn then it can."
So your magic metal cables are an irrelevant argument. Thanks though.

I am going to step in here and say that this has turned into an argument of fluff and if it is to continue that way we cant dismiss fluff simply because we dont like it.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I am going to step in here and say that this has turned into an argument of fluff and if it is to continue that way we cant dismiss fluff simply because we dont like it.

I'm not arguing fluff - I'm looking at the model, as the rule says.

Look at the model. Ball joint case closed. Are the cables retractable or reachable or not. Does it matter the model has a ball joint a ball joint can pivot, that's the entire point of it.

Looking at the model it is easy to say that the death ray would shift downwards when shooting at a ground based target anyway, this allowing it to get past the tesla weapons on the undercarriage. It may have a wider firing ark than most of us belive.

A) It doesn't look like a ball joint to me - maybe it's more obvious when assembling the model.
B) Even tipping down, can it depress far enough before the back of the gun contacts the hull?
C) Ignoring either of those, the cables that go into the hull would stop it. Even ignoring the stretch ability the gun isn't going to rotate past where those cables enter the hull.

That fine. Im not saying that it has a 360' firing ark. I am saying that its not going to be strictly hull mounted.

 jy2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

The difference is that Astral Aim doesn't say that it can shoot "anywhere". It says that it can shoot at "any enemy unit" within range. There is a difference between the 2.

But in any case, Astral Aim, as with the Impaler Cannon and SMS missiles, does not explicitly tell you that you can allocate wounds to them even though you cannot see the target. What you are doing is inferring that you can allocate wounds to them despite the fact that you don't actually have LOS to the target. Here we are making the logical assumption that "don't need LOS to the target" = "can allocate wounds to the target".

Things that state they can ignore LOS to "shoot" a target have a good argument to allocate wounds to said target. "Shooting" is steps 1-5 on pg 12. Note that included #5 Allocate wounds. So if something can shoot "regardless of LOS or not" then it can #5 Allocate Wounds (regardless of LOS or not).


Death Ray has no exception at all for LOS, and even though you can draw the line through units out of LOS, you cannot allocate wounds to them, much the same as you cannot allocate wounds to Blasts out of LOS.

I don't disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I entirely agree with you. However, you are still making a logical assumption here because the BRB never explicitly tells you that you can allocate wounds to something that you don't have LOS to (p. 16 - as a matter of fact, p. 16 tells you that you cannot allocate Wounds to a model if you cannot see it). Here, we are equivocating not needing LOS to a target to being able to allocate wounds to it. It isn't purely RAW. It is a logical assumption we are inferring from the context of RAW. And that is exactly what I am doing with the death ray as well - making the same logical assumptions with regards to allocating wounds with it as I did with the Impaler Cannon, SMS and Astral Aim as well.

No, your not making a logical assumption. Impaler Cannon, SMS, Astral state that they can shoot a target and not have LOS to it. That statement is the only thing that allows them to allocate wounds to the target. The Death Ray does not have any statement about being able to shoot a target out of LOS. The fact that it can draw its line to targets out of LOS is no different than blasts hitting out of LOS. They will not wound that unit unless there is LOS to that unit.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
That fine. Im not saying that it has a 360' firing ark. I am saying that its not going to be strictly hull mounted.

I am sympathetic to this, but again we are ignoring the rules if we say it has some undefined LoS arc. The book gives us an exhaustible list of mounting types. It's not a turret sponson or pintle mount. What does this leave us with? Hull mounted which is allowed a 45 degree firing ac. If we were ever top play I would let you make a case and we could house rule it, but RAW it has a 45 for our purposes here.

For those arguing the mounting is otherwise, when you mount it do you glue it in place as per the instruction? This ball and socket everyone keeps referring, does the kit actually have a ball and socket like a defilers legs or are you making an unfounded judgement call based on your opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

The difference is that Astral Aim doesn't say that it can shoot "anywhere". It says that it can shoot at "any enemy unit" within range. There is a difference between the 2.

But in any case, Astral Aim, as with the Impaler Cannon and SMS missiles, does not explicitly tell you that you can allocate wounds to them even though you cannot see the target. What you are doing is inferring that you can allocate wounds to them despite the fact that you don't actually have LOS to the target. Here we are making the logical assumption that "don't need LOS to the target" = "can allocate wounds to the target".

Things that state they can ignore LOS to "shoot" a target have a good argument to allocate wounds to said target. "Shooting" is steps 1-5 on pg 12. Note that included #5 Allocate wounds. So if something can shoot "regardless of LOS or not" then it can #5 Allocate Wounds (regardless of LOS or not).


Death Ray has no exception at all for LOS, and even though you can draw the line through units out of LOS, you cannot allocate wounds to them, much the same as you cannot allocate wounds to Blasts out of LOS.

I don't disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I entirely agree with you. However, you are still making a logical assumption here because the BRB never explicitly tells you that you can allocate wounds to something that you don't have LOS to (p. 16 - as a matter of fact, p. 16 tells you that you cannot allocate Wounds to a model if you cannot see it). Here, we are equivocating not needing LOS to a target to being able to allocate wounds to it. It isn't purely RAW. It is a logical assumption we are inferring from the context of RAW. And that is exactly what I am doing with the death ray as well - making the same logical assumptions with regards to allocating wounds with it as I did with the Impaler Cannon, SMS and Astral Aim as well.

No, your not making a logical assumption. Impaler Cannon, SMS, Astral state that they can shoot a target and not have LOS to it. That statement is the only thing that allows them to allocate wounds to the target. The Death Ray does not have any statement about being able to shoot a target out of LOS. The fact that it can draw its line to targets out of LOS is no different than blasts hitting out of LOS. They will not wound that unit unless there is LOS to that unit.

Again QFT^

Fragile wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Here's a point to consider, why then did the same author of codex Necrons (Mat Ward) decide to specify in his preceding codex (Grey Knights) that a Purgation squad may shoot anywhere in range and then also make note that it not require LoS after said point if when when according to you, he need only stop at anywhere in range? Seems to me that the codex he wrote AFTER codex GK would also make this crucial note if he had intended it to be that way. So you see you have massive precedent to ignore if you want to play it the way you are suggesting.

The difference is that Astral Aim doesn't say that it can shoot "anywhere". It says that it can shoot at "any enemy unit" within range. There is a difference between the 2.

But in any case, Astral Aim, as with the Impaler Cannon and SMS missiles, does not explicitly tell you that you can allocate wounds to them even though you cannot see the target. What you are doing is inferring that you can allocate wounds to them despite the fact that you don't actually have LOS to the target. Here we are making the logical assumption that "don't need LOS to the target" = "can allocate wounds to the target".

Things that state they can ignore LOS to "shoot" a target have a good argument to allocate wounds to said target. "Shooting" is steps 1-5 on pg 12. Note that included #5 Allocate wounds. So if something can shoot "regardless of LOS or not" then it can #5 Allocate Wounds (regardless of LOS or not).


Death Ray has no exception at all for LOS, and even though you can draw the line through units out of LOS, you cannot allocate wounds to them, much the same as you cannot allocate wounds to Blasts out of LOS.

I don't disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I entirely agree with you. However, you are still making a logical assumption here because the BRB never explicitly tells you that you can allocate wounds to something that you don't have LOS to (p. 16 - as a matter of fact, p. 16 tells you that you cannot allocate Wounds to a model if you cannot see it). Here, we are equivocating not needing LOS to a target to being able to allocate wounds to it. It isn't purely RAW. It is a logical assumption we are inferring from the context of RAW. And that is exactly what I am doing with the death ray as well - making the same logical assumptions with regards to allocating wounds with it as I did with the Impaler Cannon, SMS and Astral Aim as well.

No, your not making a logical assumption. Impaler Cannon, SMS, Astral state that they can shoot a target and not have LOS to it. That statement is the only thing that allows them to allocate wounds to the target. The Death Ray does not have any statement about being able to shoot a target out of LOS. The fact that it can draw its line to targets out of LOS is no different than blasts hitting out of LOS. They will not wound that unit unless there is LOS to that unit.

This. As was pointed out previously, but JY2 ignored, the exception that the death ray has has NOTHING to do with LOS. Nothing. It allows you to, unlike every other gun, target a point on the table rather than targetting a unit. You cannot LEAP and decide that allowss you to break any other rule you fancy

Hull mount, 45 degree LOS, start the line where you like but any model out of LOS cannot be wounded. Total and utter RAW

rigeld2 wrote:A) It doesn't look like a ball joint to me - maybe it's more obvious when assembling the model.
B) Even tipping down, can it depress far enough before the back of the gun contacts the hull?
C) Ignoring either of those, the cables that go into the hull would stop it. Even ignoring the stretch ability the gun isn't going to rotate past where those cables enter the hull.

a) It's clearly a ball joint. Even in the pics posted in pgae 5 of this thread show this; however if you look at the model firsthand there is absolutely no doubt that although it is affixed to the hull, it is absolutely modelled as a ball joint.
b) I'd say so, yes. It only needs to tilt about 10-degrees in order for the prongs on the top of the Death Ray's barrel to clear the Tesla Destructors.
c) While the cables will not allow it to rotate 360-degrees in any one direction, they do have enough length to allow for rotation of 180-degrees in any one direction: 180 left or 180 right, together effectively giving the Death Ray a 360-degree firing arc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This. As was pointed out previously, but JY2 ignored, the exception that the death ray has has NOTHING to do with LOS. Nothing. It allows you to, unlike every other gun, target a point on the table rather than targetting a unit. You cannot LEAP and decide that allowss you to break any other rule you fancy

Hull mount, 45 degree LOS, start the line where you like but any model out of LOS cannot be wounded. Total and utter RAW

No, it's not.

I would really appreciate it if you would please cite the page number in the Necron codex where the Death Ray is referred to as "hull-mounted".

Since we both know that you can't, I will again cite pg. 71 of the BRB: "... 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..."

Now, given that the Death Ray is clearly designed with a ball joint, and the cables have enough length to allow for 180-degree rotation in each direction, I would argue that the Death Ray is not hull-mounted by design, but rather by production only.

Additionally, the rules for the Death Ray state that you nominate a point anywhere within range, with no qualifiers of LOS or firing arc. Combined with the previous points, these all point to the conclusion that the Death Ray is not meant to be considered as a hull-mounted weapon.

I really think you should just go ahead and add the Death Ray to your list, Nos, right there along with:
Imotekh's nightfighting in reserve
Imotekh's lightning strikes re-rolling with a Chronometron
Deathmarks re-marking units with Grand Illusion
Deathmarks giving Hunters From Hyperspace to attached characters
MSS activating Force Weapons

Hey nosferatu1001, I've noticed that you've stopped responding to my points. Mind not trying to ignore me when I make a point you can't handle?

He hasn't, you have been ignoring the points he already has made.

Lets see here now...

People are claiming that the Death Ray can't be hull mounted just because it doesn't say that it is in the text. And they also claim it to be able to ignore LOS because the text says that you shall choose a spot anywhere.

First of all, if something would tell you that you could immediately choose a target within 12", does that text also mean that you could ignore LOS? Probably not. Other examples where LOS is ignored clearly states the BRB rule override. Then are all hull mounted weapons in the game clearly stated as that in the weapon text?

Assumptions is not enough to claim rule interpretations that will trumph the BRB. This must be clearly pointed out.

I must also say that it wouldn't surprise me if GW faqs this in favour of the necrons, since they several times before has ignored their own way of explaining rules and interpreting them. Lets just hope that they will faq it and do it clearly.

 Red Corsair wrote:
He hasn't, you have been ignoring the points he already has made.

Please show me where he measured the length of the cables to show that they can't turn? Remember the default assumption in the rules is that if it looks like it can move it can, so the burden of proof is on the side claiming it can't turn.

The point about it being able to tilt down and pass under the tesla destructors has also been ignored by people claiming those would block it turning.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
He hasn't, you have been ignoring the points he already has made.

Please show me where he measured the length of the cables to show that they can't turn?

Just for my own edification. . .this is a somewhat eloquent "pics or it didn't happen" right?

 kirsanth wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
He hasn't, you have been ignoring the points he already has made.

Please show me where he measured the length of the cables to show that they can't turn?

Just for my own edification. . .this is a somewhat eloquent "pics or it didn't happen" right?

No, I'm asking for the length of the cables to be measured as I don't have the model to measure on myself. Once the cable length is known we can then figure out just how far the gun can turn assuming no stretch in the cables.

I'd ask for the same level of proof if somebody claimed a bolter could destroy a modern tank.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
He hasn't, you have been ignoring the points he already has made.

Please show me where he measured the length of the cables to show that they can't turn?

It is plainly obvious from the pictures that the cables will limit the turning radius of Death Ray. Exactly how much the Death Ray could turn is bit hard to say from the pictures, looks like somewhere around 60 to 120 degrees total traversal.
Get approximate measurements from the pictures and draw a diagram yourself if you don't believe me.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Remember the default assumption in the rules is that if it looks like it can move it can, so the burden of proof is on the side claiming it can't turn.

Problem is that it doesn't look like it could move too much without hitting obstacles. Like its own cables.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
The point about it being able to tilt down and pass under the tesla destructors has also been ignored by people claiming those would block it turning.

Take a look at the joint that connects Death Ray to the hull of the Doom Scythe. From the pictures it is immediately clear that the Death Ray cannot actually tilt down much, there is only few millimeters of clearance between hull and the rear end of the weapon. This might be enough to clear the top of Death Ray from destructor barrels, or it might not. In any case, it is not enough to clear cables of destructors.

tl;dr version: If Death Ray can tilt down enough to clear Tesla Destructor barrels, it has lateral traverse of approximately 60 to 120 degrees total. Maximum elevation is less than 45 degrees total, so use 45 degrees.

Fake-edit: Reason why the cables of the Death Ray limit how much it can turn is because rear end of the will hit the cable and will snag it. From the pictures, you can see that cable doesn't have nearly enough "slack" to allow full 180 degree rotation required for 360 degree traverse.

It is plainly obvious from the pictures that the cables will limit the turning radius of Death Ray. Exactly how much the Death Ray could turn is bit hard to say from the pictures, looks like somewhere around 60 to 120 degrees total traversal.
Get approximate measurements from the pictures and draw a diagram yourself if you don't believe me.

I could, except the rules place the burden of proof on the people that claim they can't turn. So far we've seen a bunch of, 'it's obvious from the pictures' nonsense. I want some actual proof from the side that's making the extraordinary claim.

Problem is that it doesn't look like it could move too much without hitting obstacles. Like its own cables.

How restricted is it exactly?

Take a look at the joint that connects Death Ray to the hull of the Doom Scythe. From the pictures it is immediately clear that the Death Ray cannot actually tilt down much, there is only few millimeters of clearance between hull and the rear end of the weapon. This might be enough to clear the top of Death Ray from destructor barrels, or it might not. In any case, it is not enough to clear cables of destructors.

tl;dr version: If Death Ray can tilt down enough to clear Tesla Destructor barrels, it has lateral traverse of approximately 60 to 120 degrees total. Maximum elevation is less than 45 degrees total, so use 45 degrees.

Again, you're making claims about what it can and can't do without actually proving them. So us that the death ray can't tilt low enough to clear the destructors. If drawing a diagram based off of a picture is so easy it should be a snap for you to do it.

Azazel - from looking at the model up close you cannot drop enough to clear the teslas before the rear hits the top.

Again: the only thing the "anywhere within 12"" exempts you from is the requirement to TARGET A UNIT. Try repeating this. Target. A. Unit. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a leap of grand canyon proportions there, and entirely unsupported by logic or rules.

Page 71 only considers ASSEMBLY. As you noted BY DESIGN it cannot turn. It hits the hull, and the cables go tight well before it can get 180 degrees.

GW choosing to change the rules is not my issue, and your continued reference to them is childish. Until you can point to a rule that says it is turret mounted, it IS hull mounted and you lack any rules showing LOS exemption anyhere in the death ray rules, just a targetting exemption.

Canadian - points were responded to, you just missed them. Quite frankly your demands that I answer you only serve to reduce the chance I will. You are not the entire thread, and your points are either answered or irrelevant.

So, please someoen show rules exempting the deathray from LOS allocation requirements, and not simply the targetting requirement exemption it does have.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Azazel - from looking at the model up close you cannot drop enough to clear the teslas before the rear hits the top.

Again: the only thing the "anywhere within 12"" exempts you from is the requirement to TARGET A UNIT. Try repeating this. Target. A. Unit. Nothing more, nothing less. You are making a leap of grand canyon proportions there, and entirely unsupported by logic or rules.

Page 71 only considers ASSEMBLY. As you noted BY DESIGN it cannot turn. It hits the hull, and the cables go tight well before it can get 180 degrees.

GW choosing to change the rules is not my issue, and your continued reference to them is childish. Until you can point to a rule that says it is turret mounted, it IS hull mounted and you lack any rules showing LOS exemption anyhere in the death ray rules, just a targetting exemption.

Canadian - points were responded to, you just missed them. Quite frankly your demands that I answer you only serve to reduce the chance I will. You are not the entire thread, and your points are either answered or irrelevant.

So, please someoen show rules exempting the deathray from LOS allocation requirements, and not simply the targetting requirement exemption it does have.

You've not answered me at all, I asked specific questions of you that you've not responded to.

Thus I'm going to assume that you've conceded the argument due to having no evidence for your claims.

That is ridiculous. you have placed demands on him in a rude way and I don't blame him for not answering your childish questions. He concedes nothing, measure it yourself.

Getting a bit snippy in here. Let's tone it down folks, or I may have to act.

'It looks like it can't turn' or 'It looks like it will hit the tesla destructors' is meaningless. Show some proof because the rules say we're supposed to assume that anything that looks like a turret can rotate. Thus the burden of proof is on you to show that the cables will stop it from turning and that it can't turn past the other weapons.

 azazel the cat wrote:
a) It's clearly a ball joint. Even in the pics posted in pgae 5 of this thread show this; however if you look at the model firsthand there is absolutely no doubt that although it is affixed to the hull, it is absolutely modelled as a ball joint.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/475679.page#4776590
Perhaps it's the fact that one side is painted silver and the other black that's throwing me off, but a ball joint has to have a ball on one side and a cup on the other... And there's no cup there. Just two flat pieces.

b) I'd say so, yes. It only needs to tilt about 10-degrees in order for the prongs on the top of the Death Ray's barrel to clear the Tesla Destructors.

I'd say more than 10 degrees, but maybe.

c) While the cables will not allow it to rotate 360-degrees in any one direction, they do have enough length to allow for rotation of 180-degrees in any one direction: 180 left or 180 right, together effectively giving the Death Ray a 360-degree firing arc.

Not a chance. A 180 degree turn in either direction would impact the cables where they mount to the hull. I'm not talking about stretching, I'm talking about the gun getting the cable wrapped around it whenever it tried to "run over" the cable mounting point.

The balljoint:

You can see the death ray is much lower than the destructors. They in no way impede its rotation.

The joint is definatly there. Its cleverly hidden but if you've put it together its apparant. We also have to think that we are no longer limited to a 2D range of motion with this vehicle. If it was, in fact, unable to turn the ray, it could turn itself sideways and the up and down motion of the ray would become side to side. As a flyer it is able to complete manuvers that tanks and other land based weapons cannot. A simple sideways strafing run would cause the same effect as it being turret mounted if it really is an issue.

Now I don't know how much this will help, but I had been planning on getting a Necron Doom Scythe for a while now, so I simply expedited my purchase in regards to this question.

After seeing how many rude exchanges were put forth regarding the cabling, I took the time to do a little bit of measurement with string. It's all rough stuff, because I'm not particularly adept at any sort of engineering and won't claim to be, but the maximum distance I could get the string to stretch in a rotation was a little past the front center. All told, probably a 100-110 degree traverse when you put together movement in both directions.

As for depressing downwards, the model's assembly makes it mostly moot. The pictures posted here don't indicate very well, but the death ray can't depress very far at all before it's rear section impacts the bottom of the Necron craft. Again, a very rough estimation, but you'd be lucky to get 15-20 degrees of downward tilt before you'd run up against the bottom of the flyer. I shrug as to whether this would unarguably clear the destructors, but I'd err on the side of saying they can.

Don't know how much this helps, but hope it helps resolve things a bit. Personally, in assembling the model, I feel it is intended as a Turret Mount with a very limited traverse (see above). The assembly instructions don't give any real way for the piece in question to move 'on the model'. Other free rotation turret weapons always tend to have a large degree of mobility, be they the whirlwhind/razorback (full 360 spin if not glued), Leman Russ turrets (to a degree), etc. A RAI argument, I know, but just wanted to throw that out.

Thanks Irdion - that is very useful information.