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.

rigeld2 wrote:
Find permission to trace LoS to any point on the vehicle other than the weapon.
If you can do that, you can shoot behind you.

Not trying to advocate for shooting behind the Heldrake. That is out of the model's LoS.

I'm advocating that the Heldrake may allocate wounds with its Template on models that are outside of the 45 degree firing arc of the hullmounted Bale Flamer.

Also, the rules for firing a Torrent weapon are spelled out with extreme clarity on Pg 43. The rules for selecting a valid target for a shooting attack is likewise explained on Pg 8.

 Boneblade wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Find permission to trace LoS to any point on the vehicle other than the weapon.
If you can do that, you can shoot behind you.

Not trying to advocate for shooting behind the Heldrake. That is out of the model's LoS.

I'm advocating that the Heldrake may allocate wounds with its Template on models that are outside of the 45 degree firing arc of the hullmounted Bale Flamer.

Also, the rules for firing a Torrent weapon are spelled out with extreme clarity on Pg 43. The rules for selecting a valid target for a shooting attack is likewise explained on Pg 8.

So you haven't yet? Then you'll accept that you can/must place the template in a way that will leave the weapons LoS and cause the Put of Sight rule on page 16 to be invoked, right?

And the rules for "out of sight" on page 16 are equally specific. If you have a wound pool where only models out of LOS are left, then the wound pool empties.

There is only ONE way for a vehicle to check LOS, and that is from its weapons.

If you are out of LOS of its weapons, you cannot have a wound allocated, RAW

Note: torrent onlyt specifies how you generate hits, not how you allocate wounds from the wound pool that results. There is no conflict here

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And the rules for "out of sight" on page 16 are equally specific. If you have a wound pool where only models out of LOS are left, then the wound pool empties.

There is only ONE way for a vehicle to check LOS, and that is from its weapons.

If you are out of LOS of its weapons, you cannot have a wound allocated, RAW

Note: torrent onlyt specifies how you generate hits, not how you allocate wounds from the wound pool that results. There is no conflict here

The Torrent rule specifies how you fire a weapon with the Torrent rule. This includes how to legally place it within the weapon's firing arc. So, even according to the "against" arguments in this thread, a Torrent weapon may be legally placed in all kinds of whacky ways.

You are correct that it does not specify how to allocate wounds from the resulting wound pool.

That leaves (to my mind) a question of whether or not the Vehicle has any Line of Sight other than the Firing Arc of its weapons. You say no. I say yes.


----

I'm back at the Dreadnaught.

Pg 84, left side


"When firing a Walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees)."

This sentence reads to me... nominate a target unit within LoS. Pivot to that unit. Then fire any valid weapons.

I can see how this might be interpreted to mean

Ex: "Target a unit that falls within the 45 degree arc of fire of any of the Dreadnaught's weapons. Then pivot the Dreadnaught, thus ensuring that all of its weapons are allowed to fire."

But it doesn't specify that. It just tells you to pivot to that unit, which is part of the shooting attack, which requires LoS that may be outside of the current firing arc of the Dreadnaught's weapons. This implies to me the Vehicle may determine Line of Sight in a way other than using it's weapon's firing arcs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Boneblade wrote:
In your scenario Bausk, the Dreadnaught could not pivot to face a target outside of it's weapons 45 degree arc.

*SNIP*

Well no, Page 84 under walkers specifcally allows for that exception provided they are not immobilised.

 Boneblade wrote:

Let's try it like this.

Pg 72

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at their target and then trace the line of sight from each weapon's mounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models." If they can be seen, the vehicle may fire.

If they cannot be seen, in a traditional situation, that particular weapon cannot fire.

However...

Pg 43, Torrent

"When firing a weapon with this special rule, place the template so that the narrow end is within 12" of the weapon and the wide end is no closer to the weapon than the narrow end. The weapon is then treated like any other Template weapon."

Torrent weapons have a special rule as to how they are fired and how they may be placed. This over rides the normal rules as to how they fire. The Template may then be legally placed with the narrow end inside the 45 degree arc and within 12" of the weapon, and the wide end over models that are outside the 45 degree arc.

Again, the model's LOS is not determined by the firing arc of its weapon. This is never stated in the rules. Refer to the Walkers for an example of a situation where the vehicle's LOS is greater than its weapon's arc of fire. (And a reason for which the vehicle uses LoS for other than firing a specific weapon, in direct contradiction to your statement that vehicle LOS is never used for anything else).

Pg 16, Out of Sight rules only stipulate that wounds cannot be allocated to model's that are outside of the FIRING UNITS LoS. This is the only entry in the rules prohibiting the allocation of wounds in a shooting attack (that I currently know of). The other LOS rules deal with whether or not the unit is eligible to fire the weapon at all, which is covered neatly in the Torrent rule.

Again, walkers are an exception to the rule technically, but they aren't as well. You still draw LoS from the weapon, it still has the same fire arc but you are allowed to pivot the walker so the weapon has LoS.

Nothing you have said counters the fact you cannot allocate wounds to models outside of LoS. Nor does it change the fact that a vehicles LoS is determined on a weapon to weapon basis.

You're inserting the LoS requirement on the pivot. It doesn't exist in the rules.
And as Bausk said, you still haven't cited a rule allowing a vehicle to draw LoS from anything but a weapon.

 Boneblade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And the rules for "out of sight" on page 16 are equally specific. If you have a wound pool where only models out of LOS are left, then the wound pool empties.

There is only ONE way for a vehicle to check LOS, and that is from its weapons.

If you are out of LOS of its weapons, you cannot have a wound allocated, RAW

Note: torrent onlyt specifies how you generate hits, not how you allocate wounds from the wound pool that results. There is no conflict here

The Torrent rule specifies how you fire a weapon with the Torrent rule. This includes how to legally place it within the weapon's firing arc. So, even according to the "against" arguments in this thread, a Torrent weapon may be legally placed in all kinds of whacky ways.

You are correct that it does not specify how to allocate wounds from the resulting wound pool.

That leaves (to my mind) a question of whether or not the Vehicle has any Line of Sight other than the Firing Arc of its weapons. You say no. I say yes.


----

I'm back at the Dreadnaught.

Pg 84, left side


"When firing a Walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees)."

This sentence reads to me... nominate a target unit within LoS. Pivot to that unit. Then fire any valid weapons.

I can see how this might be interpreted to mean

Ex: "Target a unit that falls within the 45 degree arc of fire of any of the Dreadnaught's weapons. Then pivot the Dreadnaught, thus ensuring that all of its weapons are allowed to fire."

But it doesn't specify that. It just tells you to pivot to that unit, which is part of the shooting attack, which requires LoS that may be outside of the current firing arc of the Dreadnaught's weapons.

Except your infering something that is not there. ITs just an exception to the rule that makes a vehicle act 'Like' an infantry model. The LoS os still based on the weapon your just allowed to pivot the walker so it is in LoS.

Boneblade - yes, it allows you to place the template out of LOS. Never disagreed with that

It does not allow you to bypass the rules on page 16. If it did, you would have posted where it SPECIFICALLY allows you to allocate *wounds* to models out of LOS. Can you do this?

Can you also find rules allowing you to draw LOS for vehicles without doing so from their weapons? You have bene asked for this a number of times, and have yet to actually do so.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're inserting the LoS requirement on the pivot. It doesn't exist in the rules.
And as Bausk said, you still haven't cited a rule allowing a vehicle to draw LoS from anything but a weapon.

It's interesting how we have come almost full circle.

Let's think about what it means to conduct a Shooting Attack with any model.

Pg 12

Nominate a Unit to Shoot, and Choose a Target.

under Choose a Target... we have

Line of Sight

"To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight (see pg 8). If no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen."

For a Walker to fire any of it's weapons, it has to first Choose a Target which falls within it's Line of Sight. This MUST happen BEFORE it makes the Pivot movement, otherwise it's not done "when firing the weapons". So either the Walker has a Line of Sight greater than the sum of its weapon's firing arcs, or it can never pivot to fire at a model which falls outside of those arcs.

^I'm not inserting a LoS requirement. LoS is a prerequisite to the Walker's ability to declare that it is firing at a unit (and subsequently pivot).


Line of Sight on Pg 8 essentially refers to guesswork WYSIWYG / from the eyes / etc. It also, magically according to all of you, does not apply to Vehicles (although it never actually says this).

Again - find rules allowing you to draw LOS on a vehicle from anything other than its weapons. If you cannot do so, you cannot continue your argument as it fails utterly

 Boneblade wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're inserting the LoS requirement on the pivot. It doesn't exist in the rules.
And as Bausk said, you still haven't cited a rule allowing a vehicle to draw LoS from anything but a weapon.

It's interesting how we have come almost full circle.

Let's think about what it means to conduct a Shooting Attack with any model.

Pg 12

Nominate a Unit to Shoot, and Choose a Target.

under Choose a Target... we have

Line of Sight

"To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight (see pg 8). If no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen."

For a Walker to fire any of it's weapons, it has to first Choose a Target which falls within it's Line of Sight. This MUST happen BEFORE it makes the Pivot movement, otherwise it's not done "when firing the weapons". So either the Walker has a Line of Sight greater than the sum of its weapon's firing arcs, or it can never pivot to fire at a model which falls outside of those arcs.

^I'm not inserting a LoS requirement. LoS is a prerequisite to the Walker's ability to declare that it is firing at a unit (and subsequently pivot).


Line of Sight on Pg 8 essentially refers to guesswork WYSIWYG / from the eyes / etc. It also, magically according to all of you, does not apply to Vehicles (although it never actually says this).

Page 84 says that the pivot comes before checking range and LoS. Since you don't check LoS until after the pivot, LoS cannot be a prerequisite as you're asserting.
Page 72 talks about Vehicles and line of sight. It only ever talks about tracing line of sight from a vehicles weapons.
Have you found permission for a vehicle to trace LoS from the hull?

 Boneblade wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're inserting the LoS requirement on the pivot. It doesn't exist in the rules.
And as Bausk said, you still haven't cited a rule allowing a vehicle to draw LoS from anything but a weapon.

It's interesting how we have come almost full circle.

Let's think about what it means to conduct a Shooting Attack with any model.

Pg 12

Nominate a Unit to Shoot, and Choose a Target.

under Choose a Target... we have

Line of Sight

"To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight (see pg 8). If no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen."

For a Walker to fire any of it's weapons, it has to first Choose a Target which falls within it's Line of Sight. This MUST happen BEFORE it makes the Pivot movement, otherwise it's not done "when firing the weapons". So either the Walker has a Line of Sight greater than the sum of its weapon's firing arcs, or it can never pivot to fire at a model which falls outside of those arcs.

^I'm not inserting a LoS requirement. LoS is a prerequisite to the Walker's ability to declare that it is firing at a unit (and subsequently pivot).


Line of Sight on Pg 8 essentially refers to guesswork WYSIWYG / from the eyes / etc. It also, magically according to all of you, does not apply to Vehicles (although it never actually says this).

And again the rules for shooting with walkers are an exception with a procedure. The target could be behind the walker and it may pivot to have its weapons be in LoS of it. Exceptions are not the rule, they are exceptions to them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again - find rules allowing you to draw LOS on a vehicle from anything other than its weapons. If you cannot do so, you cannot continue your argument as it fails utterly

Pg 8. The Vehicle is a model, not a weapon.

Pg 72, the Vehicle's Weapon drawing line of Sight, specifically states "when firing the vehicle's weapon." Weapon weapon weapon weapon.

As we've established, Torrent allows you to fire said Weapon in a special way, including with the template overlapping models which may or may not be within the weapon's normal Arc of Fire.

The ONLY other thing to check at this point is to determine whether you can allocate wounds to models which are within the MODEL'S Line of Sight. The answer, by the way, is yes. (Because it does not specify that they must be within the weapon's Line of Sight, or that the Model's (Vehicles) Line of Sight is magically restricted to its weapons firing arcs).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Boneblade - yes, it allows you to place the template out of LOS. Never disagreed with that

It does not allow you to bypass the rules on page 16. If it did, you would have posted where it SPECIFICALLY allows you to allocate *wounds* to models out of LOS. Can you do this?

Can you also find rules allowing you to draw LOS for vehicles without doing so from their weapons? You have bene asked for this a number of times, and have yet to actually do so.

It allows you to place some of it out of LoS, only a bit of the narrow end must be in LoS. Its like placing a blast template (as the torrent rules state it is) you have to place the narrow end within range and LoS. Much like fireing frag missiles from a typhoon, you can't place them out of LoS or range, but they can scatter out of these conditions.

EDIT: My bad, not like a blast template. You are right.

 Boneblade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again - find rules allowing you to draw LOS on a vehicle from anything other than its weapons. If you cannot do so, you cannot continue your argument as it fails utterly

Pg 8. The Vehicle is a model, not a weapon.

Pg 72, the Vehicle's Weapon drawing line of Sight, specifically states "when firing the vehicle's weapon." Weapon weapon weapon weapon.

As we've established, Torrent allows you to fire said Weapon in a special way, including with the template overlapping models which may or may not be within the weapon's normal Arc of Fire.

The ONLY other thing to check at this point is to determine whether you can allocate wounds to models which are within the MODEL'S Line of Sight. The answer, by the way, is yes. (Because it does not specify that they must be within the weapon's Line of Sight, or that the Model's (Vehicles) Line of Sight is magically restricted to its weapons firing arcs).

Page 72 defines a vehicles Arc of Sight as its weapons possible lines of sight.
There is no other definition on how to measure LoS to a vehicle.
By your argument, vehicles have a 360 LoS? Where are you tracing LoS to?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Boneblade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again - find rules allowing you to draw LOS on a vehicle from anything other than its weapons. If you cannot do so, you cannot continue your argument as it fails utterly

Pg 8. The Vehicle is a model, not a weapon.

Pg 72, the Vehicle's Weapon drawing line of Sight, specifically states "when firing the vehicle's weapon." Weapon weapon weapon weapon.

As we've established, Torrent allows you to fire said Weapon in a special way, including with the template overlapping models which may or may not be within the weapon's normal Arc of Fire.

The ONLY other thing to check at this point is to determine whether you can allocate wounds to models which are within the MODEL'S Line of Sight. The answer, by the way, is yes. (Because it does not specify that they must be within the weapon's Line of Sight, or that the Model's (Vehicles) Line of Sight is magically restricted to its weapons firing arcs).

Page 72 defines a vehicles Arc of Sight as its weapons possible lines of sight.
There is no other definition on how to measure LoS to a vehicle.
By your argument, vehicles have a 360 LoS? Where are you tracing LoS to?

I guess in his world they all have turrets... *shrug*

EDI: theres a point, a russ with a hull mount and a turret must obvoiously be able yo fire that hull Lascannon behind it because the turret has a 360 arc for sure. (add sarcasm)

 Bausk wrote:


I guess in his world they all have turrets... *shrug*

In my world, a Model is a Model, even if that Model happens to also be a Vehicle. There is no language stating otherwise. Under normal conditions, a Vehicle with a Hull Mounted weapon cannot fire at anything outside of its 45 degree arc. In fact, even with the Torrent rule, the narrow end of the template must remain within said 45 degree arc. However, there is nothing anywhere saying that the wide end has to be within the arc.

It becomes a problem of operations, because you are trying to act as if general Line of Sight rules do not apply to vehicles whatsoever based on the description of how to fire a vehicle's weapons. A Vehicle is not it's weapons, it is a Vehicle, which is also a Model.

 Bausk wrote:


EDI: theres a point, a russ with a hull mount and a turret must obvoiously be able yo fire that hull Lascannon behind it because the turret has a 360 arc for sure. (add sarcasm)

The Russ can declare it is firing at the unit behind it all it wants to. Because the model itself has line of sight to that unit. What you determine next is whether or not the weapon has Line of Sight to that unit (as per pg 72). Except, in the case of the Heldrake, you also consider Torrent rules when firing the weapon.

 Boneblade wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


I guess in his world they all have turrets... *shrug*

In my world, a Model is a Model, even if that Model happens to also be a Vehicle. There is no language stating otherwise. Under normal conditions, a Vehicle with a Hull Mounted weapon cannot fire at anything outside of its 45 degree arc. In fact, even with the Torrent rule, the narrow end of the template must remain within said 45 degree arc. However, there is nothing anywhere saying that the wide end has to be within the arc.

It becomes a problem of operations, because you are trying to act as if general Line of Sight rules do not apply to vehicles whatsoever based on the description of how to fire a vehicle's weapons. A Vehicle is not it's weapons, it is a Vehicle, which is also a Model.

If you read my posts I state that the narrow end must be within but the wide end does not have to be. You get those hits but excess wounds NEVER carry over that LoS line unless its done with Look out sir. A vehicle models LoS is based only on its weapons, on a weapon to weapon basis. Much like a squad, you determine what weapons can fire based on each 'model' but in this case its done with each weapon.

General LoS rules, in fact all LoS rules apply to vehicles but they apply in a specific manner. The rules for the walkers are an exception that allows them to pivot so they have LoS, its not the model or weapons LoS that allows them to pivot or choose the target but this exception to those rules.

Trying to state anything to the contrary is inaccurate to the rules.

 Boneblade wrote:

In my world, a Model is a Model, even if that Model happens to also be a Vehicle. There is no language stating otherwise. Under normal conditions, a Vehicle with a Hull Mounted weapon cannot fire at anything outside of its 45 degree arc. In fact, even with the Torrent rule, the narrow end of the template must remain within said 45 degree arc. However, there is nothing anywhere saying that the wide end has to be within the arc.

Not a single person has suggested otherwise.

It becomes a problem of operations, because you are trying to act as if general Line of Sight rules do not apply to vehicles whatsoever based on the description of how to fire a vehicle's weapons. A Vehicle is not it's weapons, it is a Vehicle, which is also a Model.

Please answer the question you've been asked multiple times: Where are the rules for measuring LoS from a vehicle?
The general LoS rules are on page 8. The Vehicle specific LoS rules are on page 72. Page 70 says that vehicles do not use the same rules as "creatures of flesh and blood" -obvious fluff for "non-vehicles". Therefore the general rules for LoS do not apply to vehicles.

 Boneblade wrote:
[

 Bausk wrote:


EDI: theres a point, a russ with a hull mount and a turret must obvoiously be able yo fire that hull Lascannon behind it because the turret has a 360 arc for sure. (add sarcasm)

The Russ can declare it is firing at the unit behind it all it wants to. Because the model itself has line of sight to that unit. What you determine next is whether or not the weapon has Line of Sight to that unit (as per pg 72). Except, in the case of the Heldrake, you also consider Torrent rules when firing the weapon.

100% Awesome. well except the fact you missed that I was being sarcastic but anyway. The walker rule is the exception as stated too many times and the torrent rule is treated like any other template weapon Narrow end nearest to the barrel and wide end further away.

Its not brain science.... or rocket surgery for that matter.

 Bausk wrote:


And again the rules for shooting with walkers are an exception with a procedure. The target could be behind the walker and it may pivot to have its weapons be in LoS of it. Exceptions are not the rule, they are exceptions to them.

A walker's ability to pivot after it declares a shooting attack is an exception.

A Walker's ability to declare it is shooting at a model within its Line of Sight is not an exception.

If the target was behind the Walker, it would have to declare a shooting attack at a model that is out of it's weapons 45 degree firing arcs.

It MUST declare this shooting attack in order to be "firing its weapons", and to declare the shooting attack in the first place, the unit has to be within Line of Sight.

The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

 Boneblade wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


And again the rules for shooting with walkers are an exception with a procedure. The target could be behind the walker and it may pivot to have its weapons be in LoS of it. Exceptions are not the rule, they are exceptions to them.

A walker's ability to pivot after it declares a shooting attack is an exception.

A Walker's ability to declare it is shooting at a model within its Line of Sight is not an exception.

If the target was behind the Walker, it would have to declare a shooting attack at a model that is out of it's weapons 45 degree firing arcs.

It MUST declare this shooting attack in order to be "firing its weapons", and to declare the shooting attack in the first place, the unit has to be within Line of Sight.

I think you mean as you declare the shooting attack - as the rule says "when" not "after".
And yes, you can declare a shooting attack against any unit you want. If they're out if LoS it's an invalid target and you don't fire. Walkers pivot as they declare so that doesn't happen.

Should I ask the question again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevlar wrote:
The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

I would never give it 360 - 120-180 maybe, but maybe not.

rigeld2 wrote:


I would never give it 360 - 120-180 maybe, but maybe not.

Well it is certainly a different mounting than a hull mounted gun on say a chimera. I wonder how hard it would be to chop the neck up and give it full articulation to see what its TLOS is.

 Boneblade wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


And again the rules for shooting with walkers are an exception with a procedure. The target could be behind the walker and it may pivot to have its weapons be in LoS of it. Exceptions are not the rule, they are exceptions to them.

A walker's ability to pivot after it declares a shooting attack is an exception.

A Walker's ability to declare it is shooting at a model within its Line of Sight is not an exception.

If the target was behind the Walker, it would have to declare a shooting attack at a model that is out of it's weapons 45 degree firing arcs.

It MUST declare this shooting attack in order to be "firing its weapons", and to declare the shooting attack in the first place, the unit has to be within Line of Sight.

Its not declaring anything, its allowed to pivot before declaring. Technically its allowed to pivot and then decide not to shoot.

Kevlar wrote:
The bale flamer has a greater than 45 degree firing arc.

"On some models it will be impossible to literally move the gun and point it toward the target because of the way the model is assembled and because the gun is glued in place. In this case players should assume the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings".

The bale flamer is mounted on an articulated snake like neck. Look at the range of motion on your average snake head. This is the range of motion and the line of sight restriction of the bale flamer. ie 360.

Head is part of its hull, reguardless of the heads theoretical range of movement. It is a hull mounted weapon, its arc is 45 degrees and that all she wrote. I could model a chaos pred with daemonic possession and mount its sponson weapons on tenticles, its arc of fire for those weapons would remain the same.

 Bausk wrote:

Head is part of its hull, reguardless of the heads theoretical range of movement. It is a hull mounted weapon, its arc is 45 degrees and that all she wrote. I could model a chaos pred with daemonic possession and mount its sponson weapons on tenticles, its arc of fire for those weapons would remain the same.

The head isn't part of the hull. The head is the weapon.

Kevlar wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Head is part of its hull, reguardless of the heads theoretical range of movement. It is a hull mounted weapon, its arc is 45 degrees and that all she wrote. I could model a chaos pred with daemonic possession and mount its sponson weapons on tenticles, its arc of fire for those weapons would remain the same.

The head isn't part of the hull. The head is the weapon.

Really? And where does it say that? The weapon is mounted, specifically, in the mouth and is changed out from the mouth. Anything after the weapon is the vehicle. By your definition I'd claim random movement and direction if I scored a weapon destroyed result because it would destroy its head lol. Also be your assessment a turret is apart of the weapon but its not. The turret on a tank isn't part of the weapon its apart of the tank, that's why you can draw LoS to it...fething warp, some people.

Okay.

Because the interpretation of the Dreadnaught pivot rule may be different than what I originally considered, lets drop it. I'm not sure whether the intention was to allow dreadnaught's to target units that are outside of its Line of Sight, or to allow it to target units inside ONE of it's weapons Line of Sight and therefor pivot to include ALL of its weapons. One scenario has the dreadnaught with a 360 line of sight, awarded by being a Model according to Pg 8. The other dictates that the Dreadnaught is a vehicle, and therefor its eyes are its weapons and their respective firing arcs.


So I present you this:


The Armless Dreadnaught Theory.

I have Timmy the Dreadnaught. In an unlucky shooting phase, Timmy loses both of his arms to Weapon's Destroyed results. Being a dreadnaught, any weapons Timmy may have had are also destroyed.

But, Timmy has 3 hullpoints! Yay! Timmy is still alive.

In the next turn, Timmy is ready for some pay back. Some of the nasty model's that helped blow off his arms are right in front of him, and Timmy wants to charge in and beat them all to a pulp. They are 3" inches away from Timmy, directly in front of him.

But wait.. Timmy can't assault them anymore, because he has no more arm-eyes!

Pg 20, left side.
"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit it cannot see."

So suddenly, a Dreadnaught that has no inherent Line of Sight (from being a model, Pg 8) is prohibited from even declaring a charge because Timmy-haters have said that his only eyes are his weapons and their firing arcs. It wouldn't even matter if Timmy was a Hellbrute, and had an angry face in the middle of his torso with its own eyes.

So.. I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem right to me. But lets clear up a few loose strings before we do anything else.

Hey! Wait! If Timmy was a normal Dreadnaught, those only have 2 Attacks on their profile. When a dreadnaught loses an arm, it would be reduced to 0 attacks! What then?

Well, technically, it might not be a very good idea for Timmy to charge anything. But that doesn't mean he can't. Zero Characteristic rules for the "Attacks" characteristic only states he cannot swing in close combat, not that he can't engage in one. Furthermore, he gets +1 attacks on the charge, anyways. (Ref. Pg 3, Zero-level Characteristics). And that's ignoring the fact Timmy, or Timmy wannabes, might have more than just 2 attacks on the profile.


Edit: Nevermind, I found the answer to this. Pg 84. Loses the bonus attacks.. Doesn't mention if this is included in the profile or can be reduced below the profile / to 0, though.
And actually.. now that I'm trying to find it.. I don't even see the part where losing a weapon reduces his attacks on the profile? Huh.

Losing an arm doesn't reduce his attacks.
And you're right, he'd be unable to charge.

Have you found the answer to the question that's been asked multiple times?

rigeld2 wrote:
Losing an arm doesn't reduce his attacks.
And you're right, he'd be unable to charge.

Have you found the answer to the question that's been asked multiple times?

You're incessant repetition of the same question without bothering to directly answer any of the suggestions I've made to try and attempt to address the question is entirely unproductive.

Timmy is a Dreadnaught, which is a Vehicle. Even without his Arms, there is no rule stipulating that Timmy should be unable to charge, UNLESS you insert a rule specifying that he has no Line of Sight other than those gained through his WEAPONS (even when you are talking about a phase & charge action unrelated to FIRING any of those weapons).

I think in that, if not so much with the Pivot question, I've managed to find an interesting situation where a Dreadnaught seems to possess Line of Sight outside of the context of its shooting weapons. And a Dreadnaught, being a Vehicle, could only gain that Line of Sight one way. By being a MODEL and therefor gaining Line of Sight through the normal, plain-as-day rules on Pg 8.

----

Let me expand that in a different way. According to your version, a Vehicle has Line of Sight only as granted through Pg 72.

Timmy would NEVER be able to charge, because he is NEVER allowed to fire his weapons in the Assault phase, and is therefor NEVER allowed to determine Line of Sight from those weapons during the Assault phase.

Pg 72
"When firing a vehicle's weapons," blah blah blah.