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.

When all is said and done I think that 20 degrees of verticle movement is sufficent for the gun to dip below the destructers and 110 degrees of rotation from the cables sounds like a good firing ark. The biggest issue with saying "Its Hull Mounted" is that it dosent. It dosent actually say how its mounted. Its assembly makes it appear turret mounted, its fittings make it look hull mounted, and its firing style makes it appear pintle-mounted sideways. I think the 110 range of motion is a good set to work with.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
'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.

You know, since you're among the ones who wants to break BRB rules which are not stated in the actual text of the weapon, it is you my friend who is responsible for proof.

Now that I have the model completely assembled, those measurements match up nicely with the front arc of the Doom Scythe. I figure if you play the 'wounding arc' of the Doom Scythe within that front arc until we have an official FAQ you shouldn't have too many RAW problems.

Edit:

No sniping at each other! Everyone is responsible for proof if you'd like to substantiate an argument, and simply pointing fingers going 'you can't prove it's NOT this way' is in no way going to resolve anything. We're supposed to act somewhat like adults, even if it is the internet

 Stoff3 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
'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.

You know, since you're among the ones who wants to break BRB rules which are not stated in the actual text of the weapon, it is you my friend who is responsible for proof.

Actually there is no rules to break as we have not been told how the ray is mounted. It is left to up player interpretation which is why we are argueing this and why it wasnt resolved 6 pages ago.

Irdion wrote:
Now that I have the model completely assembled, those measurements match up nicely with the front arc of the Doom Scythe. I figure if you play the 'wounding arc' of the Doom Scythe within that front arc until we have an official FAQ you shouldn't have too many RAW problems.

Edit:

No sniping at each other! Everyone is responsible for proof if you'd like to substantiate an argument, and simply pointing fingers going 'you can't prove it's NOT this way' is in no way going to resolve anything. We're supposed to act somewhat like adults, even if it is the internet

Well, it is truly annoying when people want to add cheese that they perhaps are not allowed to. I mean, as you said it is much better to play stuff as they are permitted in the text instead of interpreting rules by assumptions until a FAQ is out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

 Stoff3 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
'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.

You know, since you're among the ones who wants to break BRB rules which are not stated in the actual text of the weapon, it is you my friend who is responsible for proof.

Actually there is no rules to break as we have not been told how the ray is mounted. It is left to up player interpretation which is why we are argueing this and why it wasnt resolved 6 pages ago.

Since there are no proof in the actual text perhaps it is better to wait for a faq and use the weapon as it is on the model? You said it yourself, you haven't been told how the death ray is mounted and the only thing you could rely on at this moment is the model itself. If you do that, you do not risk to do thing you are not allowed to do.

As I said before, it wouldn't surprise me if GW would rule it to be able to fire anywhere withing 360 degrees, because they are ruling most thing in favor of necrons atm. But until they do, do not play stuff according to assumptions, play them with what you really know is certain.

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

Look at that red circle that Canadian drew around the ball joint. Now you should be able to see that Death Ray has 4 flanges in it, with the topmost flange almost fully inside the red circle. Now, the picture has been taken from straight front and you can see that top of the red circle (which is also top of the top flange) is approximately on same level as the center of the Tesla destructor.

So if you'd turn that Death Ray sideways, that top flange would hit Tesla Destructor. This should be obvious to anyone, I really don't understand why you cannot see it.

 Stoff3 wrote:
Since there are no proof in the actual text perhaps it is better to wait for a faq and use the weapon as it is on the model? You said it yourself, you haven't been told how the death ray is mounted and the only thing you could rely on at this moment is the model itself. If you do that, you do not risk to do thing you are not allowed to do.

As I said before, it wouldn't surprise me if GW would rule it to be able to fire anywhere withing 360 degrees, because they are ruling most thing in favor of necrons atm. But until they do, do not play stuff according to assumptions, play them with what you really know is certain.

If I were to follow your reasoning then I would say that RAW the death ray dosent exist because its not mounted therefore it cant fire and is useless anyway. If you really think thats RAI then perhaps GW is even worse than we give them credit for. In the absense of RAW on the mounting of this weapon I examine the weapon and decide from what I examine what the weapon is capable of. The fact that we cannot agree does not mean one of us is wrong, in fact we are both right b/c GW left the interpretation of the weapon mount entirely up to us.

@Luide, dont attack the player, attack the argument. We have already been warned a number of times on this thread to not make things personal. Keep it civil and we can continue to dicuss this. Keep attacking people and this thread will be locked.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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.

Translation: I could, but that would prove I was wrong, so I won't do it. This way I can deny all evidence given to me.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
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.

You're the one making extraordinary claim that Death Ray can turn 360 degrees without any rules support.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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?

I already gave you approximate answer of 90+-30 degrees from pictures.
Irdion measured it, saying it is 105 +- 5 degrees. Irdions is assessment is obviously far more accurate than mine, but my point was that it surely cannot be 360 degree traverse and even cursory look showed me that it cannot have 180 degree traverse, because cables had less "flex" than the distance from the "ball joint" to the rear end of Death Ray. So I did quick diagram on a post-it note to get approximate values.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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. .

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.

You should learn to read better. I underlined what I actually wrote so it is clear: Judging from the pictures I'm not sure can the Death Ray clear the barrels of Tesla Destructors or not. This is why I assumed that it could clear them. Cables of the Destructors don't matter because they're farther out than the "flex" of the cables of Death Ray allows them to turn.

@ Luide

Seriously the Death Ray is lower than the destructors. It is very obvious.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
@ Luide

Seriously the Death Ray is lower than the destructors. It is very obvious.

It very obviously is NOT.
I can say with absolute certainty now that you do NOT own the model, and possibly seem to have problems viewing images.
If you claim it's lower, post a picture and prove it.
You won't be able to.

Maybe this will help straighten things out. The firing point of te ray is below the destructors. That being said, the braces on the firing ray are not. The braces are what is going to get in the way, not the destructor itself. And all of this is moot because it can shift downwards 15-20' which will give it enough leeway to make it around the destructors. where the cables would go from there is a different story.

General thread warning: check.
Individual warnings: check.
Continuing off-topic personal bickering: check.

Thread terminated.