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.

I bought a contemptor dreadnought to make myself a purifier dread (a dreadnought with a flamer on one hand and a twin linked flamer on the other made to do cc as opposed to the standard GK ranged dread) to hang out on my stormraven.

I chose the contemptor because I find the way it looks to be more in line with a close combat dread, and I don't think anyone would think it was an unreasonable counts-as, even in tourneys. Atleast I'm gonna make that assumption.

The problem I have, which I didn't think about until I had assembled it, is that vehicles, walkers included measure the weapon "down the barrel" of the gun.
I made on of my flamer arms point directly at the ground. This would, by proper rules, allow me to burn about 1 inch infront of me.

Do you believe I would be allowed to flame straight forward in a tourney setting, or is it usually strict enough that I've just handicapped my dreadnought through assembly?

Picture below of the not-quite-done model

I don't think any reasonable individual would prevent you from firing, however it would be important to bring up in pre game discussion so both parties agree on its actual location.

It's all fine to dynamically pose monstrous creatures but we're seeing more and more of that when it come to walkers and other vehicles and it's definitely worth discussing.

Personally I would let you fire that particular weapon in any reasonable arc, both as an opponent, and as a TO (which I often am).

Technically, yes, you would be stuck it as it is pointing.

Most players would allow you to assume the arm can move as it is clearly designed to do, though.

Technically, yes, you would be stuck it as it is pointing.

Not true at all. The rules (page 72, second paragraph under "vehicle weapons & line of sight") explicitly state that you assume the gun is free to pivot on its mounting even if you've glued it in a fixed position. Since the Contemptor's weapon mount can easily pivot upwards to face a target straight ahead you can legally take that shot.

 Peregrine wrote:

Technically, yes, you would be stuck it as it is pointing.

Not true at all. The rules (page 72, second paragraph under "vehicle weapons & line of sight") explicitly state that you assume the gun is free to pivot on its mounting even if you've glued it in a fixed position. Since the Contemptor's weapon mount can easily pivot upwards to face a target straight ahead you can legally take that shot.

The punctuation and start of a new sentence makes it a little unclear if the 45 degree rule is a continuation of the statement that it can swivel, or if it's a rule to cover angles where you wouldn't otherwise be able to swivel.

 Peregrine wrote:
[Not true at all. The rules (page 72, second paragraph under "vehicle weapons & line of sight") explicitly state that you assume the gun is free to pivot on its mounting even if you've glued it in a fixed position

This is over-ridden in the case of Walkers by the Walkers' specific shooting rules, which confine all walker weapons to a 45 degree horizontal and vertical arc.

That 45 degree arc for walkers is one of the worst rules written into the book.

It is fine for some walkers, such as the ones that have hull mounted weapons. sentinels, dredds, killa kans, etc.

But doesn't take into account any of the walkers that have weapons mounted on arms or sponsons or even heads. Such as Dreadnaughts and Soulgrinders.

It's one of those rules that truly doesn't make any sense whatsoever in game when playing either a dreadnaught or soulgrinder.

The vertical doesn't make much sense for any walker( or aircraft for that matter) since all it has to do is tilt up or down.

Just talk to your opponent/ tourney organizer beforehand and make sure that they would allow you field it in that way. If they don't then avoid the player/tourney.

There is another option for you, if folks didn't want to cut you some slack. You could model with magnets and move it when you needed to.

The rules for walker and firing in 5th edition were ideal and made sense for a model that moved as infantry. 180 degree arc of fire in the front horizontal and vertical axes. As it still took into account the facing of the vehicle.

 Idolator wrote:
The rules for walker and firing in 5th edition were ideal and made sense for a model that moved as infantry. 180 degree arc of fire in the front horizontal and vertical axes. As it still took into account the facing of the vehicle.

Uh... walkers in 5th also only had a 45 degree arc for their weapons. No idea where you got 180 from.

More of a modeling solution than a rules one:

I'd buy a couple of magnets, pull the arm off and reattach using magnets.

If you get sufficiently large ones then the arm won't move unless you physically rotate it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
The rules for walker and firing in 5th edition were ideal and made sense for a model that moved as infantry. 180 degree arc of fire in the front horizontal and vertical axes. As it still took into account the facing of the vehicle.

Uh... walkers in 5th also only had a 45 degree arc for their weapons. No idea where you got 180 from.

was it 4th??? I didn't make that up. I clearly remember the picture. I can't check as I no longer have the 4th ed rule book. I found the 5th, we just ignored it then too.

The rest stands though.

4th edition they had 180 degrees

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
[Not true at all. The rules (page 72, second paragraph under "vehicle weapons & line of sight") explicitly state that you assume the gun is free to pivot on its mounting even if you've glued it in a fixed position

This is over-ridden in the case of Walkers by the Walkers' specific shooting rules, which confine all walker weapons to a 45 degree horizontal and vertical arc.

It doesn't overrule it at all. It says that they can pivot up to 45*. It doesn't say that it overrules a rule or model design granting the ability to pivot more than 45* (for example, a walker with a turret-mounted gun), it just establishes a minimum/standard pivot of 45* if you can't figure it out any other way (for example, a walker with a fixed-mount gun).

 Peregrine wrote:
It doesn't say that it overrules a rule or model design granting the ability to pivot more than 45*

Actually, by not including any qualifier, that's exactly what it says, just not in so many words.

It doesn't say that the 45 degrees is in addition to the normal movement of the model, or that it's for if you can't determine an arc any other way... It says to assume that the walker's weapons have a 45 degree arc.

So we assume that the walker's weapons have a 45 degree arc.

That's why it's one of the worst rules written into the book! And why I continue to ignore it.

The 180 degree rule makes so much more sense for a vehicle that moves like a man/monster and has a sectional body that can pivot on the legs plus arms that can swing out.

Heck, the soul grinder model has actual arms and a head! All of which would have free movement.

The RaW does limit the firing arc to 45 degrees, just like a hull mounted gun. That's 22.5 deviation from center line, not 45 degrees each way. So that cool daemon engine with the lithe form and muscular arms.......moves them like c3po.

It's dumb.

 Idolator wrote:
That's why it's one of the worst rules written into the book! And why I continue to ignore it...It's dumb.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

RAW is just that, choose to ignore it if your group is cool with that then that is fine, but if you play tournaments that is not going t fly.

 insaniak wrote:
So we assume that the walker's weapons have a 45 degree arc.

They do. And if the walker's guns are turret-mounted they also have a 50* arc, a 60* arc, etc. Just ask yourself this: is it a true statement that a gun that is capable of pivoting 90* is also capable of pivoting up to 45*? Of course it is.

If it was meant to be a restriction it would be stated as "a walker's weapons may pivot up to 45* but no more", instead of just offering a minimum arc for things like a marine dreadnought model that is armed with guns that can't pivot horizontally at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
That's why it's one of the worst rules written into the book! And why I continue to ignore it...It's dumb.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

RAW is just that, choose to ignore it if your group is cool with that then that is fine, but if you play tournaments that is not going t fly.

It's not dumb because the 30 ton robot doesn't work like the ones in the real world do. It's dumb because for some unknown reason a gun sponson on a walker that has a minimum of a 90 degree vertical arc and a weapon mounted on a fully articulated armarture (pintle mount) with a huge arc of fire aren't considered as such as they are when they are on other vehicles. It doesn't fit within the established rules of the game itself.

I have agreed with you that it is indeed the rules as written. I think that the rule is absurd, not your interpretaion of it, because it is spot on.

That's why I model mine to move. It's really easy on dreads. A little harder with sentinels (the don't have arms but the cockpit can pivot up and down and doesn't effect facing). I don't have a soul grinder but seems almost impossible without extensive modifications.

 Idolator wrote:

It's not dumb because the 30 ton robot doesn't work like the ones in the real world do. It's dumb because for some unknown reason a gun sponson on a walker that has a minimum of a 90 degree vertical arc and a weapon mounted on a fully articulated armarture (pintle mount) with a huge arc of fire aren't considered as such as they are when they are on other vehicles. It doesn't fit within the established rules of the game itself.

I have agreed with you that it is indeed the rules as written. I think that the rule is absurd, not your interpretaion of it, because it is spot on.

That's why I model mine to move. It's really easy on dreads. A little harder with sentinels (the don't have arms but the cockpit can pivot up and down and doesn't effect facing). I don't have a soul grinder but seems almost impossible without extensive modifications.

So you have seen a 30 ton robot in the real world...

That "Unknown reason" is what we call the rules. The same rules that are an abstract system. The same rules that simulate a battle 38,000 years from now.

The same line of thinking as yours means that vehicle sponsons that can not shoot because one sponson can not draw Line of Sight to the same target the other guns on the same vehicle are targeting is also "Absurd"

But it is not Absurd, as that is the way the rules are written, and the 40K rules have nothing to do with modern day "real world" logic.

P.S. even if you model the arms to move, it does not change the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

It's not dumb because the 30 ton robot doesn't work like the ones in the real world do. It's dumb because for some unknown reason a gun sponson on a walker that has a minimum of a 90 degree vertical arc and a weapon mounted on a fully articulated armarture (pintle mount) with a huge arc of fire aren't considered as such as they are when they are on other vehicles. It doesn't fit within the established rules of the game itself.

I have agreed with you that it is indeed the rules as written. I think that the rule is absurd, not your interpretaion of it, because it is spot on.

That's why I model mine to move. It's really easy on dreads. A little harder with sentinels (the don't have arms but the cockpit can pivot up and down and doesn't effect facing). I don't have a soul grinder but seems almost impossible without extensive modifications.

So you have seen a 30 ton robot in the real world...

He's actually stating that this is NOT his reasoning.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

It's not dumb because the 30 ton robot doesn't work like the ones in the real world do. It's dumb because for some unknown reason a gun sponson on a walker that has a minimum of a 90 degree vertical arc and a weapon mounted on a fully articulated armarture (pintle mount) with a huge arc of fire aren't considered as such as they are when they are on other vehicles. It doesn't fit within the established rules of the game itself.

I have agreed with you that it is indeed the rules as written. I think that the rule is absurd, not your interpretaion of it, because it is spot on.

That's why I model mine to move. It's really easy on dreads. A little harder with sentinels (the don't have arms but the cockpit can pivot up and down and doesn't effect facing). I don't have a soul grinder but seems almost impossible without extensive modifications.

So you have seen a 30 ton robot in the real world...

That "Unknown reason" is what we call the rules. The same rules that are an abstract system. The same rules that simulate a battle 38,000 years from now.

The same line of thinking as yours means that vehicle sponsons that can not shoot because one sponson can not draw Line of Sight to the same target the other guns on the same vehicle are targeting is also "Absurd"

But it is not Absurd, as that is the way the rules are written, and the 40K rules have nothing to do with modern day "real world" logic.

P.S. even if you model the arms to move, it does not change the rules.

Come on dude, why the lack of civility? Of course I haven't seen a 30 ton robot in the real world, they don't exist (although a dreadnaught and sentinel aren't robots, just man operated machinery and I have seen plenty of those) The fact that they don't exist in the real world precludes using them as a comparison. Which was the point that I was making.

Some sponsons that are unable to draw a line of sight to a coresponding target as other weapons CAN shoot, on some vehicle models. The restriction is explained (it has to follow the established rules for shooting) and the exceptions are explained (a computer program in the vehicle allows for an automated shot and is noted as an exception to established rules).

The rules don't specify how the sponsons/ arms have to be placed on the model. The also don't state that they are considered to be pointing straight forward parralel to the ground. The dreagnaught models themselves will allow you to rotate the arms/sponsons without any modification to the model itself (especialy those black reach models).

Seriously, what are you trying to corrcect me on here? I agreed with you....you're right. It's what the rules say. Are you trying to tell me that my feelings are wrong?

 Purifier wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
. Are you trying to tell me that my feelings are wrong?

I like it. It made me laugh.

I was wrong. Apparently there is a 30 ton robot somewhere. I found an article about a 30 ton robotic bridge crane. It was from 1998 so I assume that they have built it by now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
[Not true at all. The rules (page 72, second paragraph under "vehicle weapons & line of sight") explicitly state that you assume the gun is free to pivot on its mounting even if you've glued it in a fixed position

This is over-ridden in the case of Walkers by the Walkers' specific shooting rules, which confine all walker weapons to a 45 degree horizontal and vertical arc.

It doesn't overrule it at all. It says that they can pivot up to 45*. It doesn't say that it overrules a rule or model design granting the ability to pivot more than 45* (for example, a walker with a turret-mounted gun), it just establishes a minimum/standard pivot of 45* if you can't figure it out any other way (for example, a walker with a fixed-mount gun).

I never thought of it that way. The 45* rule as the maximum only if it is stationary or cannot physicaly move beyond that angle. If it is possible to move beyond that (or should be able to if the model was able to move as intended),then you would use the true direction. It makes perfect sense. As long as the model hasn't been modified to move in a way that it wan't intended of course (a front, hull mounted las-cannon that curves around the side to shoot behind the tank)

 Peregrine wrote:
They do. And if the walker's guns are turret-mounted they also have a 50* arc, a 60* arc, etc.

Except that they don't, since the walker rules specify 45 degrees.

Yes, something that can pivot 90 degrees also has a 45 degree arc... but if a rule specifies a 45 degree arc, the moment you go past that, you have broken that rule.

Where two rules give different outcomes, you have to go with the option that breaks neither of them.

If it was meant to be a restriction it would be stated as "a walker's weapons may pivot up to 45* but no more", instead of just offering a minimum arc for things like a marine dreadnought model that is armed with guns that can't pivot horizontally at all.

Or to turn that around, if it wasn't meant to be a restriction, it would be stated as 'a walker's weapons may pivot up to 45 degrees, or as per the model, whichever is greater...'

It's a restriction as written.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So we assume that the walker's weapons have a 45 degree arc.

They do. And if the walker's guns are turret-mounted they also have a 50* arc, a 60* arc, etc. Just ask yourself this: is it a true statement that a gun that is capable of pivoting 90* is also capable of pivoting up to 45*? Of course it is.

If it was meant to be a restriction it would be stated as "a walker's weapons may pivot up to 45* but no more", instead of just offering a minimum arc for things like a marine dreadnought model that is armed with guns that can't pivot horizontally at all.

Page 10, first sentence under "Movement Distance"
"Models may move up to 6" in the Movement Phase."
"Up to" means the number is the maximum.