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.

Can my Heldrake fire its flamer in a 360, 180 or 90 degree arc?

I figure 180 deg (or generally in front of the flyer) is prolly right/fairest but MC's can shoot 360 and its kinda based on a MC with its creature head/dragon neck. Ive been playing 180 deg but this is bound to come up sooner or later when a game hinges on it- and i can even see an argument for 45 degs either way (or a 90deg arc). I have a loose memory of something saying- look at the angle implied by the model but hat just raises more questions

Cheers in advance guys.

Its 22.5 either way, 45 total as it is hull mounted.

Essentially yes. I searched forever for one of the million posts about this but as early as it is here, and as little coffee as I have had, it is a grim endevor. Hull mounted, 45 total.

Ithani wrote:
Can my Heldrake fire its flamer in a 360, 180 or 90 degree arc?

I figure 180 deg (or generally in front of the flyer) is prolly right/fairest but MC's can shoot 360 and its kinda based on a MC with its creature head/dragon neck. Ive been playing 180 deg but this is bound to come up sooner or later when a game hinges on it- and i can even see an argument for 45 degs either way (or a 90deg arc). I have a loose memory of something saying- look at the angle implied by the model but hat just raises more questions

Cheers in advance guys.

How far can the gun pivot?
How far does it look like the gun can pivot?

Hull mounted 45 Degree Arc

45 degree arc from the gun. The the entire model can pivot 90 degrees as well.

So you have a pretty wide margin for error when it comes to plcing the model and template for meximum effect.

Note, you can't pivot the model after it's moved. Once moved, it has a 45 degree line of site, as measured from and along the weapon.

Remember that wounds can not be assigned to models outside of that LoS, so while it's a fantastic flamer, try not to perform gymnastics with the template

Keep in mind that the flamer template is also Torrent, which means you can put it 12" out from the front, and then you can place the template however you like, as long as the short end is closer to the model than the large end.

And remember that if you place the template over models that are not in that 45 degree arc, they cannot have wounds allocated to them RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:
And remember that if you place the template over models that are not in that 45 degree arc, they cannot have wounds allocated to them RAW.

But a blast that scatters can assign wounds to models that are not in LoS, am I right?

lockdar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And remember that if you place the template over models that are not in that 45 degree arc, they cannot have wounds allocated to them RAW.

But a blast that scatters can assign wounds to models that are not in LoS, am I right?

RAW no.
Blasts can only have wounds allocated to models that are in LoS.

RAI I believe the intent is to wound models out of LoS.

Nope, there is still only an allowance to hit and to-wound, but not to allocate any wounds. They wrote a rule that has no practical use...

rigeld2 wrote:
And remember that if you place the template over models that are not in that 45 degree arc, they cannot have wounds allocated to them RAW.

Wish people would stop saying this its not RAW in any way at all. Its as bad as when people were trying to have wounds from challenges flow over and clearly isn't how it works.

Didnt they cover the LOS blast thing in a FAQ?. Also the gun in the dragons mouth is fixed, however the neck is on a ball joint that you then glued into place. So the actual arcs are much larger.

captain-crud wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And remember that if you place the template over models that are not in that 45 degree arc, they cannot have wounds allocated to them RAW.

Wish people would stop saying this its not RAW in any way at all. Its as bad as when people were trying to have wounds from challenges flow over and clearly isn't how it works.

Page 16, out of sight. Youre wrong on this, Rigeld is right

Thats a big negative. pg 16 refers to weapons that roll to hit normally. (ie, without the blast special rule.)
pg. 33 (starts with the middle collumn) says "note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range and LOS. This represents.... blah, blah, blah. In these cases HITS ARE WORKED OUT AS NORMAL and can hit or wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat)

saying that "hits are worked out as normal" implies all the steps that a hit would cause. Rolling to hit, wound, wound allocation, and so on.

and if thats not good enough for everyone, then page 7 it states that pages 10-31 are "basic" rules that apply to every model in the game. and advanced rules always over ride basic ones.

just as an example... ill just randomly pick something.. shooting!!

Basic rule: you cant allocate wounds to a model out of LOS.
Advanced rule: blast weapons that scatter out of LOS are resolved normally. Advanced wins.

i hope i cleared something up... that bothered me till i looked it up. haha.

rbacus wrote:
Thats a big negative. pg 16 refers to weapons that roll to hit normally. (ie, without the blast special rule.)
pg. 33 (starts with the middle collumn) says "note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range and LOS. This represents.... blah, blah, blah. In these cases HITS ARE WORKED OUT AS NORMAL and can hit or wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat)

saying that "hits are worked out as normal" implies all the steps that a hit would cause. Rolling to hit, wound, wound allocation, and so on.

That is exactly, 100% correct.
Hits are worked out as normal. The wound pool is populated.
If the unit is entirely out of sight, you empty the wound pool as per page 16 as normal.

rigeld2 they covered this at games day also are more then clear about it in other area's but what you are missing is page 16 is basic rules anything after page 31 over rides basic rules. If page 16 always counted then you couldn't hurt models throwing grenades in bunkers or flamers into bunkers or barrage weapons so on. Once again if your having trouble seeing basic vs advanced please read page 7.

Not sure why this one is causing so much problems same thing as challengees people were trying to carry over wounds using aurgments from basic rules.

The Blast rule that says models outside of LOS can be hit and wounded would only cover how many hits you cause and that they do allow you to score more wounds. If this was not stated then, you wouldn't even get to roll to wound against models you couldn't see, effectively defeating the amount of damage Blast weapons can do. (Supported by the FAQ). So you use this to generate your 'Wound Pool' like Rigeld said. This is where the override to the basic rule ends. Nothing in the Blast rule addresses any exceptions to wound allocation/casualty removal. If you need an example look at barrage weapons, they address LOS and Wound allocation specifically.

Since we don't have any exceptions specifically addressing wound allocation/ casualty removal, the basic rule applies, and casualties are removed by taking the closest model in LOS, and so on. It's possible to generate more wounds from a blast than there are eligible casualty models. So a blast can generate say 5 wounds, but if there are only 2 guys in LOS of the firer, then only those 2 guys are eligible to be removed. It doesn't get you more kills like people want, it just increases the odds of those models that are eligible, will actually die. Yes, the Blast rule says models out of LOS can be wounded, but this does not permit them to have wounds allocated to them. (Like Barrage does!)

-----
Back to the Heldrake and the OP. You can actually place the Template outside of the fixed arc, so long as the target model is inside the weapons LOS. Then you will adjust the template to hit as many models in the target unit as possible, keeping the larger end of the template further away than the shorter end (which is the Target model), and keeping it off of friendly models. This meets all the restrictions/allowances of LOS, Template Weapons, and Torrent. Once this is done, you will then generate your wound pool as normal. Once you get to Wound Allocation, then you will check to see which models are actually in the firing models LOS (which also has a weapon LOS restriction of 45 deg), and those are the ones eligible to receive the wounds.

Not really seeing the fuss as a situation where you would use a the fire from the Heldrake to only have fewer models in it's LOS than out of is rare.

I wont get into the blast argument, but i do think an argument can be made that the dragons neck is more a turret mount than a hull mount.

What argument is that, can't think of one at all.

If you cannot freely roatate it, and it does not specify what type of mount it is, it is assumed to be hull mounted. Technically, its not supposed to be anything, and thus infunctional as you have no permission to determine a firing ark for it. I would like to think I'm being nice by allowing it to fire at all.

Kevlar wrote:
I wont get into the blast argument, but i do think an argument can be made that the dragons neck is more a turret mount than a hull mount.

However the neck is not a weapon. Nor a mount.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
If you cannot freely roatate it, and it does not specify what type of mount it is, it is assumed to be hull mounted. Technically, its not supposed to be anything, and thus infunctional as you have no permission to determine a firing ark for it. I would like to think I'm being nice by allowing it to fire at all.

How nice of you

captain-crud wrote:
rigeld2 they covered this at games day also are more then clear about it in other area's but what you are missing is page 16 is basic rules anything after page 31 over rides basic rules. If page 16 always counted then you couldn't hurt models throwing grenades in bunkers or flamers into bunkers or barrage weapons so on. Once again if your having trouble seeing basic vs advanced please read page 7.

Not sure why this one is causing so much problems same thing as challengees people were trying to carry over wounds using aurgments from basic rules.

Cite the rule allowing you to wound models out of sight.
Page 31 allows you to wound units - that's populating the wound pool. Nothing discusses allocation, and page 16 says to empty the wound pool.

Ithani wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
If you cannot freely roatate it, and it does not specify what type of mount it is, it is assumed to be hull mounted. Technically, its not supposed to be anything, and thus infunctional as you have no permission to determine a firing ark for it. I would like to think I'm being nice by allowing it to fire at all.

How nice of you

I thought so . But seriously, I would never say that a piece of wargear or equipment was useless, GW isint that bad. I am 99% sure that it is hull mounted. Liek I said, if you cant rotate it after construction and the mounting rule dosent specify then it is fair to say it is hull mounted.

Saying that hits are worked out as normal is saying that all actions that would be caused by a normal hit are worked out. To include: rolling to hit, rolling to wound, allocating said wound, taking a saving throw, and eventually removing a model. It does not have to explicitly say each step out longhand.

The only thing barrage says about wound allocation has to do with the direction of fire. It doesnt really have to do with this discussion...

However, I would agree with everyone that it is hull mounted, thus a 45 degree arc. And I would also assume that you could not intentionally lay any part of the template outside of that.

rbacus wrote:
Saying that hits are worked out as normal is saying that all actions that would be caused by a normal hit are worked out. To include: rolling to hit, rolling to wound, allocating said wound, taking a saving throw, and eventually removing a model. It does not have to explicitly say each step out longhand.

Exactly correct.
What happens normally when the target unit is out of line of sight?

rbacus wrote:
Saying that hits are worked out as normal is saying that all actions that would be caused by a normal hit are worked out. To include: rolling to hit, rolling to wound, allocating said wound, taking a saving throw, and eventually removing a model. It does not have to explicitly say each step out longhand.

How do you remove casualties with blast weapons? Do you assign the unsaved wounds to the models hit by the blast or do you assign them starting with the closest model following the normal rules for wounds? If you follow the normal wound allocation and remove models closest to the attacker first, then the restriction that states that only models in LOS can be taken must also apply. You can't pick n choose which parts of a rule to use unless it explicitly states otherwise. Something that Blast/Template weapons don't address. You're adding in the bit about wound allocation to models outside of LOS. What if you have a mixed unit of normal fire and blast/template fire, like a tac squad with a Missile that fired Frag? What if the defending player chooses to remove the casualties from the blast first, and takes the ones in LOS, so that the normal fires still can't take the models out of LOS? The attacking player doesn't get the option to say 'Take the Blast or Non-Blast casualties first'. There is no rule allowing that.

rbacus wrote:

The only thing barrage says about wound allocation has to do with the direction of fire. It doesnt really have to do with this discussion...

It has everything to do with this discussion. It explicitly states that it gets around the normal wound allocation by removing models closest to the center of the Blast instead of the firing model. Which you need to see, or are choosing to ignore the fact that this, or something like it, doesn't exist anywhere in the Blast or Template weapon rules. Even with Barrage weapons, if you hit a unit that has a solid wall running through the middle of it, and the Blast hits 2 models that the center of the template doesn't have LOS to, it still counts those models as being hit, and allows the additional chance to roll, but when it comes to wound allocation those models would never get a wound cause they are out of LOS from the center of the template.

Following your rule, If a Flamer shoots at a unit behind a wall and can only see 1 model from that unit, you'd still get to place the Template to hit additional models (per the Template rules), and that every model hit can be a casualty. If a normal rapid fire weapon would only kill the 1 visible model. You're outright contradicting yourself when the final wound allocation for both is exactly the same. The only thing that's different is HOW hits are generated. 5 Rapid firing guys are still gonna get 10 chances to kill 1 guy. A Template/Blast that hits 5 guys is still only getting 5 chances to kill the one guy it can see. The outcome is the same, just the method is different.

Hey look GW made another flier like the DS and its whacky ray. I would say this is treated the EXACT same way as the Death ray which we did to death in another thread.

Hull Mounted 45

Needs LoS to allocate wounds, as per pg16

Oh god, death ray isn't hull mounted however the tesla weapons are.

Also what defines a mount? my dragon's neck pivots, as it has a ball socket MOUNT on the model...