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.

Pintle and Turret doesn't automatically give 360*, if the hull is in the way then this limits firing arc

And what part of the Hull is exactly getting in the way of the Death Ray. Just curious to what you're actually seeing...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pintle and Turret doesn't automatically give 360*, if the hull is in the way then this limits firing arc

And what part of the Hull is exactly getting in the way of the Death Ray. Just curious to what you're actually seeing...

Not just hull, anything that stops it rotating. I used Hull as a general term as its the most common thing to get in the way.
In this case the two large cannons on either side, and the cables attached to the DeathRay.

What are you judging the chemical composition of the cables to be and what are basing this off of?

If you can prove that they're highly elastic, or have some rule that shows they don't prevent rotation then please supply it.
Until then I'd stick to the rules.

Do weapons normally specify they have to be in los to use, because under the entry for the deathray:

To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range

I find it curious that it specifies range, but not los. Also the use of the word "anywhere" is very curious.

is your assumption that they cannot stretch at all any more valid then the assumption that they do? There is no proof either direction but the assumption that they do not limits what the weapon's rules state. As the rules state anywhere it clearly indicates that they had other thoughts on the mounting.

Gravmyr wrote:
is your assumption that they cannot stretch at all any more valid then the assumption that they do? There is no proof either direction but the assumption that they do not limits what the weapon's rules state. As the rules state anywhere it clearly indicates that they had other thoughts on the mounting.

I'm assuming absolutly nothing.
You know the old saying about assumption.
We could assume that the part of a StormRavens hull that blocks the turret is suppose to fold in and allow the turret to rotate.
We could assume that a dreadnought could flip it's arms and shoot backwards.
Assumption should have absolutly no place in these games. Unless there's a rule that says those cables do not restrict fire arc, then they do.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Do weapons normally specify they have to be in los to use, because under the entry for the deathray:

To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range

I find it curious that it specifies range, but not los. Also the use of the word "anywhere" is very curious.

This is what I was going off when I first played, I thought it meant place the first point anywhere within 12 inches, regardless of where the gun's pointing, then 3d6" to wherever, I thought the gun had full movement, hence you could fire at a weird diagonal even when moving in a straight line.

There are a number of assumptions you are making. The fact that anywhere means nothing. That it is modeled without obvious moving parts means that it doesn't have any. That the tesla are fixed in place and cannot move to allow movement of the Death Ray. That they weren't talking about just such a situation as this when they put it in the rules about assembly not changing the weapons position. You are making a number of assumptions. Show me a single rule that says the way a model is modeled changes how the weapon mounting type works.

I see a rule telling you what the mounting types are but nothing about how the way they model it changes how those mounts work. I then see a rule about how moving the gun may be impossible and to assume you could move it per the mounting type.

There's a difference between how a model is designed and how a model is modeled. You're making the assumption that they're equivalent when they are absolutely not.

Gravmyr wrote:
There are a number of assumptions you are making. The fact that anywhere means nothing. That it is modeled without obvious moving parts means that it doesn't have any. That the tesla are fixed in place and cannot move to allow movement of the Death Ray. That they weren't talking about just such a situation as this when they put it in the rules about assembly not changing the weapons position. You are making a number of assumptions. Show me a single rule that says the way a model is modeled changes how the weapon mounting type works.

I see a rule telling you what the mounting types are but nothing about how the way they model it changes how those mounts work. I then see a rule about how moving the gun may be impossible and to assume you could move it per the mounting type.

So you are quite literally making things up, and then claiming they have rule support?
This isn't even inserting fluff into a rule, there is no background support or rules support.

There's simply no way you can justify "the guns should move out of the way, and the cables are elastic". There's no way to prove this, or even suggest it with background. You can't just make stuff up and say its rules.

I'm going by the model, and the mounting as the rules specify. I'm not going to pretend those cables should be elastic and tangle free.
If there's no rule telling you how something should move, then it doesn't.
Please show some rules supporting your "elastic cable" theory. If not, then for your poor opponents sake, stick to actual rules.

Show me a single rule that says the way a model is modeled changes how the weapon mounting type works.

I'll give you two:
"Line of Sight" p8
"Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight" p72
If the hull is in the way, you can't trace line of sight through it can you?

Neither of those rules can be applied when they designed the weapon to not be able to be turned. You have to go by what the rules for the mounting type is, a stick on a ball mount = pintle mount. You can point to pg 72 all you want and say it says something about changing how weapon mounts work but please quote a line for me. The weapon is modeled as pintle mounted. They cast it in such a way you cannot move the gun therefor we have to use the rule about it being assembled in a way so it cannot move. Please show a single rule that tells you to make assumptions to the limits of such movement. The line tells you to assume they can swivel or rotate freely, if you assume that it would hit something / be blocked by something then you are not assuming it can swivel or rotate freely are you?

So a StormRaven turret can fully rotate 360* then? Despite the hull being in the way?

If the mounting won't rotate, then you assume it does. That doesn't mean you can then ignore every other obstruction. Unless you can show a rule that says otherwise?

This is the same logic as trying to assault out of an "Assault" vehicle that has arrived from reserve.
"But they can assault after disembarking!"
The assault vehicle does say that, but other rules restrict the assault, namely the Reserve rules.

"But it says assume it can freely rotate!"
That doesn't help if other parts of the vehicle would still prevent it from rotating.

Not just the storm raven - predator sponsons, the land raider turret and sponsons, etc...

Gravmyr, the design of the model shows the guns getting in the way of the pintle mount. There is no rule saying that the guns would move, so they don't.

No it is assumptions about things, including mounting type of both weapons, due to poor thinking on GW's part that causes the issue. I look at the tesla and I see guns that can move, why else would they have ball joints on the side. If they can move then the small amount of contact that is made, they dont block LoS at all, could be changed. We make assumptions about models all the time because we have to, how far do the joints on the legs on walkers bend? Unless it's made to actually move like some pintle mounts there is no guaranteed way to judge just what a model can do or can't do. Do you limit attacks on walkers to the back if it looks like something might block it's ability to spin around? I have shown this to every opponent that has had an issue and not one disagreed with my argument. Not a great yard stick but in the end everything about this game is about agreements between players.

I'm still waiting for a rule quote about anything limiting distance of a spin if it's connected. It might be stupid but you are the one saying you need permission to do anything like disregard parts. The rules as written and backed up by the weapons own rules tell us it can target anywhere in range. How can it even target anywhere within the roll if it can't move freely without obstructions?

Looking at the other models what I see is the actual hull blocking them not part of a weapon system that you have to make assumptions about. Can you tell me that you know the intent of the writer and that the Tesla cannot move out of the way and that they didn't want the Death Ray to target anywhere as the rule states? Either way I have presented my arguments. Take them or leave them.

You're also claiming to know the intent of the designer by suggesting they can move out of the way.
I can see the joint on the tesla, there's no way that can move far enough for the Death Ray to freely rotate.
And the rules allow for the weapon to turn to face the target, there is no rule allowing other things to move out of the way first.
Unless you can supply one?
I'm not saying you need a rule to disregard parts, I'm saying you have a rule to move the gun, but no rule to move other parts. If you know of such a rule, please quote it.

Grav - then post a rule that says you can ignore the design of the model, not jsut the construction

As designed it has NO ABILITY to move - as the "Cables" are fixed parts.

When you can find permission to ignore the design of the model, and NOT just the assembly, you can have greater fire arc. Until then, youre stuck at 45 degrees

And again, all you are told to look at to determine a weapon's arc of fire is it's mounting. There is absolutly nothing else in the rule about comparing what might be in the way if it were assembled so that is could move is there? The only rule I can find is to look at the mount and go from there. Pintle mounts have 360 swivel. Done. Where in that rule does it mention examining the model to determine if it could move where you want it beyond looking at the mount?

The rules where it shows a predators arc isnt 360. It cannot shoot through its own hull, as it cannot move that far.

You have seen that part of the rule book?

You are also told to pretend it can move to where you want to point it - buit arent allowed to pretend it is allowed to move through parts of the model.

Or do you have a rules quote to show you are allowed to do so? Page and graph will suffice.

A Predator sponson could easily rotate 360* if the hull didn't get in the way.
By your reasoning, if I glued it in place I could then use the quote to "move freely" and give it a 360* arc, despite the fact that the rest of the model would prevent rotating normally.

To get a little more on topic: If the movement of the death ray is 45 degrees vertically and horizontally, that actually gives an INCREDIBLY limited range of fire. The wording of "anywhere within the weapon's range" would seem to supercede that, in my opinion, since the 45 degree vertical is very, very limiting.

Scarey Nerd wrote:
To get a little more on topic: If the movement of the death ray is 45 degrees vertically and horizontally, that actually gives an INCREDIBLY limited range of fire. The wording of "anywhere within the weapon's range" would seem to supercede that, in my opinion, since the 45 degree vertical is very, very limiting.

Most fliers have the exact same "incredibly limited" arc.
The problem is the Death Ray rules don't say you can ignore LOS/Fire Arc, so you can't allocate wounds if you go outside this arc.

Scarey Nerd wrote:
To get a little more on topic: If the movement of the death ray is 45 degrees vertically and horizontally, that actually gives an INCREDIBLY limited range of fire. The wording of "anywhere within the weapon's range" would seem to supercede that, in my opinion, since the 45 degree vertical is very, very limiting.

Does it state you can allocate wounds outside of LOS? Page and graph

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Scarey Nerd wrote:
To get a little more on topic: If the movement of the death ray is 45 degrees vertically and horizontally, that actually gives an INCREDIBLY limited range of fire. The wording of "anywhere within the weapon's range" would seem to supercede that, in my opinion, since the 45 degree vertical is very, very limiting.

Does it state you can allocate wounds outside of LOS? Page and graph

Hang on, surely the LOS only applies if you were targeting the unit? The rulebook says "If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends." At no point does the Death Ray target the unit, the line just passes over them. (Page 16)

Then you have no permission to allocate wounds at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then you have no permission to allocate wounds at all.

Hang on, what? So by your reasoning, the gun does nothing because no unit is targeted?

What is the sponson-mounted weapon's arc of fire = depends on what the mounting structure allows. What is a pintle-mounted weapon's arc of fire? That's right 360 per pg 72. Is there anything in the section about what to do if it is assembled or glued in a way that prohibits movement that tells you to do anything but go off of the mounting type? There is an illustration of what pintle-mounted arc of fire is and it tells me it's 360. You want to remove your weapons from the sponsons and put them on pintle mounts that is up to you and your opponent. I am going of what page 72 tells me what my arc of fire is. Unless you can find something that tells me to assume that it was free to rotate but is limited if something in the way then I have to go by the actual rules on the page and not assumptions that you should do so. I have pointed out exactly what the rules have said from the sections you continue to point to but the only thing that can be said is that in this game of little men that are frozen in place is that only some of them are required to follow real life rules for movement....... Again do you limit the movement of walkers if they have wires or other parts on the body that would limit turning and therefor limt it's arcs of fire? Virtually every walker can't even come close to the 45 degrees with weapons yet I doubt you do.

Gravmyr wrote:
What is the sponson-mounted weapon's arc of fire = depends on what the mounting structure allows.

Correct.

What is a pintle-mounted weapon's arc of fire? That's right 360 per pg 72.

Actually the answer is the same as above. As with all mountings. The example on p72 happens to be of one with 360* arc.
A Predator mounting is capable of rotating 360*, the gun and hull prevents this though. A Leman Russ also has Sponsons. Again the physical limitations define the arc.

Turrets are also listed on p72 as 360*.
So what is the arc of LandRaider turret? 360*?
A StormRaven Turret? 360?
All the turrets on a Baneblade? All 360*?

And it's still just your assumption that it's Pintle mounted. Is it listed as such?

What other type of mounting would it be then? It's a weapon mounted on a stick that swivels which is the very definition of pintle-mounted.

With the Scythe you are not talking about the mounting structure. You are talking about other parts blocking movement. Still don't see backup for it limiting firing arc just LoS.

Your list of weapons is very intriguing. Why would you bring up mounts on weapons that wouldn't have LoS anyway? Does it matter if you can move it there if you can't draw LoS? With the scythe you are in fact not limiting LoS with the Tesla as the Death Ray would be angled down due to not targeting anything in the air. In the case of tanks do you give them 22.5 degree down angle to hit anything shorter than the height of the gun or do you give them only flat plane and up? There a number of tanks that become much less useful if that is how you are playing it. If the hull or other weapons don't block this for tanks why do you say it should for the Death Ray? How about firing with Dreadnaughts, looking at them few of their weapons can meet the 45 degree horizontal arc without encountering the body with the front or rear of the arm.

45* is the minimum horizontal arc. If a weapon cannon move at all it has a 45* arc. Hence the term Hull Mounted. It's attached to the Hull, not on a mount.
All weapons have 45* vertical arc no matter what the mounting.

Gravmyr wrote:
Still don't see backup for it limiting firing arc just LoS.

Are you suggesting Line of Sight and Fire Arcs are different when it comes to vehicles?

With the Scythe you are not talking about the mounting structure. You are talking about other parts blocking movement.

The Turret on a LandRaider, it's rotation isn't blocked by the mounting structure either.
The mounting structure isn't what is blocking the StormRaven turret.
Just as the mounting structure isn't what blocks the Death Ray. See how they're similar?

Now turrets on p72 are shown as having 360* arc, are you saying a LandRaider turret has 360*?