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.

Im with the 180 deg camp. The redeemer and godhand has 180 arc, which i take is reason enough for the lrc to have the same arc.

The leman russ sponsons though have a different sponson design. They look more like the hurricane bolters on stormravens. They have a box like case which prevents you from practically swiveling the guns all the way around. With those units weve played them as not 180degrees.

I agree if You play against someone who makes a bigdeal out of this, just let him win and dont play him again.

To be honest I have never had to fire backward with my huricane bolters, there is no point.

Everything in back of my LRC is dead and everything in front is about to be as well.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
To be honest I have never had to fire backward with my huricane bolters, there is no point.

Everything in back of my LRC is dead and everything in front is about to be as well.

Yup, this +1

The first time i shot backwards with hurricane bolters it was my opponet who reminded i can shoot backwards against his lone firewarrior

The shields prevent 180 degrees.
The only way to get 180 degrees is to leave off the shields.
The only reason to leave off the shields is to allow 180 degree arcs(it looks better with the shields).
Therefore leaving off the shields is purely modelling for advantage.

And the pretty pictures are not the rules the rules say very clearly that the guns have a firing arc that they can traverse, of what it looks like they can traverse in the case of glued in position guns.

The hurricane bolters have a 90 degree arc; there can be no debate.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The shields prevent 180 degrees.
The only way to get 180 degrees is to leave off the shields.
The only reason to leave off the shields is to allow 180 degree arcs(it looks better with the shields).
Therefore leaving off the shields is purely modelling for advantage.

And the pretty pictures are not the rules the rules say very clearly that the guns have a firing arc that they can traverse, of what it looks like they can traverse in the case of glued in position guns.

The hurricane bolters have a 90 degree arc; there can be no debate.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is pure 100% unadulterated opinion, and should be noted as such.

I would also like to iterate that I have two crusaders, one with the old white metal upgrade kit and one with the plastic kit, both of which are able to rotate the full 180 and both have the shield in place.

looking at the thread I'd say I have a fluke, however it is worth pointing out a couple of things:

1) there is nowhere in the rules the specifically talks about sponsons independently from the normal rules referring to LOS and or firing arcs.

2) as there is no given precedent set, the logical conclusion is to follow existing examples based on what they are capable of and the designs that they have

3) (and this is now treading into opinion) given that different tanks have different sponsons that have different arcs of fire, it would be safe to assume that what is true for one variant of a chasis is true for them all

as an example, every sponson on a predator has the same arc of fire, every sponson on a Leman Russ has the same arc of fire.

why then would 2/3 Land raiders have one arc and 1/3 have a different arc even though it is the SAME mounting?

would it not be more logical that each sponson type has a set arc and that this arc is true regardless of weapon mounting?

Yes, but the is the internet. Good luck making anyone believe you

Edit: read my below post. I've humbly changed my mind.

first of all id like to state that my model is 100% correct assembled and has not any malfunctioning parts!! also nothing is glued averything is interchangable..

still the side sponsors can only rotate 75 degrees and not 180..

i am usually playing them like they are 180degrees but that player that noted it prolly had right! cause i couldnt tell were exactly to count the distance of the weapon to the target!!

he was also using a battlewagon with 2 boys with big shootas at each side firing at 180 arc..witch i believe is wrong since they are firing from the side windows..

Elric Would you mind getting a picture of your "properly built" Land raider? I have mine in front of me and there's no way for the sponsons on either variant to more than 90° (pointing ahead of the vehicle to the side they're on)

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
Elric Would you mind getting a picture of your "properly built" Land raider? I have mine in front of me and there's no way for the sponsons on either variant to more than 90° (pointing ahead of the vehicle to the side they're on)

Now you seem to miss the point of what Elric is saying, he's saying the total arc traversed by the sponson is 180 degrees.

To the OP are you talking about the total arc or just how far you can traverse between parallel and perpendicular to the hull?

Edit: read my below post. I've humbly changed my mind.

in "Arc of sight 1" figoure is actually more than 180degrees...

anyways i belive it to be the right thing even thought they cant turn backwards on the model

Alright, I've learned a valuable lesson: check the model before "remembering" how something is.

I haven't used my LRC in a while, and spouted off opinions without doing the appropriate research.
Properly assembled, the hurricane bolters on a LRC can clearly draw LoS according to "Arc of Sight 2" on BRB72. A LRC has no weapons (except maybe a HK) that can target an enemy in its own Rear arc.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Alright, I've learned a valuable lesson: check the model before "remembering" how something is.

I haven't used my LRC in a while, and spouted off opinions without doing the appropriate research.
Properly assembled, the hurricane bolters on a LRC can clearly draw LoS according to "Arc of Sight 2" on BRB72. A LRC has no weapons (except maybe a HK) that can target an enemy in its own Rear arc.

also the multimelta and storm bolter can target on its rear (360 degrees arc)

The actual range of motion on a model has never mattered. Pg 72 tells us if we can't physically point the gun at the enemy we should assume the weapon can swivel on its mount. The only limit placed on this is for hull mounted weapons. The Hurricane bolter is not hull mounted, so it can rotate 360 degree regardless of how it was assembled (this includes assembled correctly btw) and The sponsons on a land raider are open in the back, so the only thing to block line of sight from the barrel of a hurricane bolter is the hull of the land raider itself. This will result in a slightly better then 180 degree firing arc. If the sponsons were not open in the back (like imperial guard sponsons, or storm raven hurricane bolters) then the firing arc would be reduced.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The actual range of motion on a model has never mattered. Pg 72 tells us if we can't physically point the gun at the enemy we should assume the weapon can swivel on its mount. The only limit placed on this is for hull mounted weapons. The Hurricane bolter is not hull mounted, so it can rotate 360 degree regardless of how it was assembled (this includes assembled correctly btw) and The sponsons on a land raider are open in the back, so the only thing to block line of sight from the barrel of a hurricane bolter is the hull of the land raider itself. This will result in a slightly better then 180 degree firing arc. If the sponsons were not open in the back (like imperial guard sponsons, or storm raven hurricane bolters) then the firing arc would be reduced.

Firstly hull mounted weapons have a firing arc and the range of motion on a model matters. The rules tell they can swivel on their mounts, if the mount doesn't allow you to fire in a given direction then you cannot fire in that direction.

2nd the sponson cannot make a 360 degree arc because the weapon mount doesn't allow it. The stormraven for example hasn't a 360 degree arc on it's turret and you cannot get more than about 100 degrees out of a leman russ sponson, that's just how it plays.

Page 72 of the BRB wrote:On some models, it will actually, be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on the mountings.

Can we point a hurricane bolter at a model placed behind it? No

Why not? Because of the way the model is assembled.*

What do we do? Assume the hurricane bolter can rotate on its mountings.

Does any part of the hull of the land raider, or the mounting block line of sight if the barrel of the gun could rotate to face the target? No.

Can the Land Raider draw line of sight to the target placed behind the hurricane bolter? Yes.


*Its very important to understand that a limitation on range of motion that does not reflect the weapons potential firing arc can be created during proper assembly.

There is a bit assumption that the model is supposed to have more range of motion and that the assembly is improper.

Free to rotate on the mountings =/= auto 180 arc.

The big IF here is if the barrel could rotate, if different parts of the gun must be inside the space occupied by the rest of the mounting then it really cannot rotate. Such assumptions as that are far beyond the scope of free rotation. I'm looking a my raider and it's impossible to get a 180 degree arc and have the guns level throughout due to the barrel striking the angled braces on the sponson and mine moves perfectly freely. If you stick in a bulkier gun such as a hurricane bolter I cannot see any way that it would be able to turn due the the actual model's design and not the vagaries of assembly.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
There is a bit assumption that the model is supposed to have more range of motion and that the assembly is improper.

Thats fine for RAI, but RAW you can make no assumption. They did not specify the assembly was incorrect. Further more, that would also mean if I glue the weapon in place then it gets a better arc.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Free to rotate on the mountings =/= auto 180 arc.

no, it means a 360 arc limited only by portions of the model that would block line of sight. Parts of the model that would not rotate with the weapon will still block line of sight. Thats why a land raider sponson will get about 190 arc and a storm raven sponson gets much less even though they are both sponson mounted hurricane bolters.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

The big IF here is if the barrel could rotate, if different parts of the gun must be inside the space occupied by the rest of the mounting then it really cannot rotate. Such assumptions as that are far beyond the scope of free rotation. I'm looking a my raider and it's impossible to get a 180 degree arc and have the guns level throughout due to the barrel striking the angled braces on the sponson and mine moves perfectly freely. If you stick in a bulkier gun such as a hurricane bolter I cannot see any way that it would be able to turn due the the actual model's design and not the vagaries of assembly.

Its also impossible to rotate up or down, but we know all weapons can do that.

Actually the rules state you can assume a greater freedom of motion IF the model is incorectly assembled, such as being glued in place

If the DESIGN of the model is such that it [b]inherently[b] limits motion, you do not get to assume greater.

The assumption on extended motion is purely when the assembly has caused issues. For example a DeathRay cannot have 360 degree, despite being a turret mount, because of two design issues - the underslung guns getting in the way of any freely allowed rotation, and the cables connecting the gun to the hull preventing rotation.

I have to agree with Nos on this. The rules read to me as it is only for issues of assembly and gluing, not issues of design.

Otherwise a stormraven could shout in 360 too. BTW my Landraider can rotate up and down, however the rules give a general allowance guns to traverse up and down so if you glue it you still get to do it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually the rules state you can assume a greater freedom of motion IF the model is incorectly assembled, such as being glued in place

If the DESIGN of the model is such that it [b]inherently[b] limits motion, you do not get to assume greater.

The assumption on extended motion is purely when the assembly has caused issues. For example a DeathRay cannot have 360 degree, despite being a turret mount, because of two design issues - the underslung guns getting in the way of any freely allowed rotation, and the cables connecting the gun to the hull preventing rotation.

It actually does not say that. Unless you are refering to the bit about "...the way the model is assembled, or the gun is glued in place..." but there is no requirement the model be assembled incorrectly,just that the assembly prevents the model from point at the target. I'm not familiar with he Deathray, do you have a book and page number I can reference that documents the deathray's firing arc?

We are both making assumptions, mine is based on the strictest interpritation of RAW. Yours is based on a reasonable interpretation of the same RAW. I've demonstrated how my assumption is reflected by the BRB in the examples provided, the "no you're wrong" counter argument is not good enough. You need to explain how my reasoning is clearly flawed. Find an example where what I have claimed cannot be true and there is a documented example.

You can look at the deathray, it's fairly clear. Similarly the Heavy bolter/Assault cannon turret on a LR doesn't get to shoot behind it.

You still haven't answered the question of if you cannot move the moved freely on it's mountings beyond a certain point, messed up assembly not withstanding, why you give the 180 degree arc to a LR but not a Leman russ. In both cases the mountings impose a maximum arc.

FIring arcs in general are not documented, only examples of such are.

"Due to the way the model is assembled" means you only consider deviations from design in assembly, NOT the design itself. You are not given allowance to ignore the DESIGN of the model, so if the DESIGN of the model only allows an arc of X, then no matter how you assemble it you only get to have an arc of X.

You are, strictly, wrong, as you are ignoring what the statement is actually say.

Let's be fair Nos, it may not be ignoring as that requires intent. It could be simply misunderstanding. There is a world of a difference between the two.

If someone is saying you can't shoot the full 180 degrees because the way your model is assembled or if you glued your sponsons on you're better off letting them 'win' and not waste 2-3 hours of your life playing against someone like that.

Exactly!
Ever since the hellturkey cheese got their 360 bale flamer I treat my sponsons as 180.

Just cos the Heldrake has a 360 view doesn't mean it's a) unbeatable or b) that you're not being unsportsmanlike by walking away from the table or throwing a game because of something that isn't actually going to have a major impact on most of your games.

For the people claiming partial firing arcs, how to you play bike mounted bolters... they can only fire directly ahead? What about vertical firing arcs?

Bikes are not vehicles, so the discussions in this thread don't apply to them.