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.

Firing arc has been a bit contentious on this model and I've got one in my list for a forthcoming tournament so I asked for pre gaming policy in advance and he sent me this:

http://www.40kgt.co.uk/EventInfo/40KGT_FAQ_Clarifications_v1.3.pdf

So looking at the Doom Scythe firing arc as described in here, it seems as though I can use it like a Heldrake!?!? Place the starting point anywhere within 12" of the base in a 360 arc. Is that how this reads to others?

Brilliant.

No, you cannot use it exactly as Helldrake. Death Ray still only has 45 degree Line of Sight.

It just means that neither the starting point or the end of the line needs to be in Line of Sight of the Death Ray.

That's not an official FAQ.

No. It's not an official FAQ. It's the tournament's FAQ as used by this tournament, and as far as I understand the ETC. Here's the specific bit:

"The Doom Scythe's Death Ray may still place its initial point and draw its line anywhere within 360
degrees of its weapon, but may only cause hits and allocate wounds to models within its line of sight."

Line of sight is different to firing arc. Obviously if you want the tesla destructor to shoot at all then the line from the death ray has to pass across models in a unit that is within the TD's firing arc.

There is also a line in these FAQs that says that it cannot hit models in close combat.

It's actually a fairly sensible clarification, although obviously not official. As Luide said, you place the line wherever you want, but can only allocate wounds within the limited LoS drawn from the gun itself.

Line of Sight and firing arc are different.

Kholzerino wrote:
http://www.40kgt.co.uk/EventInfo/40KGT_FAQ_Clarifications_v1.3.pdf

Well, that was quite interesting (even if some of the answers were a bit squiffy IMHO), thanks for the link.

The weapon would still draw LoS through a firing arc if it has one.

Unofficial Rules so the best would be emailing Author and check what his RAI is.

I think it's pretty clear.

Place the line anywhere, only hit models within LOS. Makes sense to me. Still has a semi-large blind spot and can't hit stuff beside/behind it the way Necron players want it to work.

Kholzerino wrote:
Line of Sight and firing arc are different.

For vehicles they are effectively the same. LoS is drawn down the gun barrel rather than from its 'eyes'.

But surely if they are saying that the point can be placed anywhere within a 360degree arc, they are saying that is the weapon's firing arc, but the ray can't hit stuff behind walls/other models/ line of sight blocking terrain etc.?

Otherwise what is the point of placing the point anywhere within 360?

But you can't allocate wounds anywhere within 360 as there's no permission to do so, rather than just within the LoS of the gun. As I read the rule for the death ray, all it it does is give you permission to draw a line on the ground as opposed to having to target a unit. That's all it let's you do differently, everything else is as for the normal shooting rules.

Luide wrote:
No, you cannot use it exactly as Helldrake. Death Ray still only has 45 degree Line of Sight.

It just means that neither the starting point or the end of the line needs to be in Line of Sight of the Death Ray.

While I agree with the 45* only I would like to once again point out that it is only 45* because that is what the gun looks like it could traverse, not because it is hull mounted or anything.

The gun is on a Ball joint that has a square peg to facilitate attaching it to the model; it is mounted on a "free turning" mount, it then has other parts of the model that restricts its actual firing arc(again down to about a 45*); this is another case of following the written rules on vehicle weapons Arc of fire

Yes. It seems to me that the intention with the model is for the death ray to be able to move freely and shoot 360. Like a turret mounted weapon. But I know that people have endlessly discussed this and it needs a FAQ to fire as GW intended. Be interesting to know what the TO would say at a GW event about it? How has the death ray been ruled in those circumstances?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And with the ball joint, even if the other guns etc are in the way of its panning action, surely it can tilt down more than 22.5 degrees?

Turret mounted weapons do not default to 360; they default to the written rules(0* arc sighted down the barrel turning the turret; or if the turret cannot turn you go with what it looks like it could turn to).


And for the up/down thing; it seems like you do not default to the point the gun up and down, but you go with the lateral traverse rules which is 45* total from its neutral position(in the case of the doom scythe that is almost straight down to almost straight ahead).

Kommissar Kel,
It is a little annoying they have rules explaining different mounting types and then have you throw them out the window for a 'True Line Of Sight' resolution anyway.

They don't have separate rules for different mounting types, aside from a gun that could in no way move.

They have different illustrations, which is why I refer to them as simply "Pretty Pictures"

The rules are for all mounting types using TLOS, or in the specific case of what we veterans know of as "Hull Mounted" a specific firing Arc

A good deal of people use those pictures as 'Rules as Illustrated,' and give that just as much weight as Rules as Written.

And a good deal of people are wrong.

Those illustrations show the Arc of fire for those specific mountings as examples.

The turret on the Storm raven cannot physically rotate 360* and there are 2 separate illustrations for sponson mountings.

Kommissar Kal,
A lot of people believe they exist to show us the default rotational arc, needed to calculate if the Line of Sight requirements are met in situations which trigger the 'not physically possible to point the barrel at the target' exception. This makes the illustrations just as important as any Written Rule as we will need to refer to them in situations that trigger the Line of Sight exception. Just like Written Rules in Game Workshop's hands, the illustrations also happens to raise a few unanswered questions, but that is just business as usual at this stage.

The real debate is over what triggers this exception, with me more on the strict interpretation of 'assembled incorrectly' side.

Then why don't the written rules tell us these are the 'default' arcs like they do for hull-mounted weapons? Because they're not. The illustrations show us the arcs of the specific unit illustrated. Nothing indicates that its illustrating a 'default' arc for all vehicles.

Ghaz,
Then we encounter a problem as we end up having a rule granting us permission to do something and no instructions on how to go about doing so. These pictures seem to be related to a line in the book informing us that we must be able to envision the weapons rotating freely on their mountings. Without these pictures we are left to our own devices to decide what the mount rotation should be. There are already threads dedicated to how much rotation unusual mountings would have, mountings which do not fall under the pictures displayed, so it isn't hard to envision a booming number of them if we simply discard the picture on the grounds it isn't 'default' enough.

These pictures do have a purpose and, yes, I would like to see diagrams for every vehicle in order to address those unusual mountings which do not fall under the before mentioned pictures.

We are not "left to our own devices". We look at the model and it has the arc that the model actually has. If the turret on the physical model can only turn 270 degrees, then that is the arc per the rules.

If the model has been constructed incorrectly, in a way that would reduce the turning arc of the mounting more then intended, what then?
Reverse the same question too, what if it was construed in a way to allow a greater turning arc then intended?

JinxDragon wrote:
If the model has been constructed incorrectly, in a way that would reduce the turning arc of the mounting more then intended, what then?
Reverse the same question too, what if it was construed in a way to allow a greater turning arc then intended?

We follow the written rules and fire in an arc that the model "Looks like" it can turn

For the reverse, you fire in that arc, and have modeled for advantage

It would seem really odd to me this thing about the Doom Scythe though.

The weapon is described in detail in so far as:

It scorches a line of flame along the battlefield.

The rules for the weapon then describe how to draw the line. They say to allocate wounds to the number of models hit by the line.

The idea that you can do all that, but then not legally allocate these hits or wounds to those models, or to ones between those models and the gun just seems stupid.

I can get that the gun couldn't hit models behind a wall or whatever, but any of these other suggestions just seem to be trying to over rule the (I accept possibly poorly written) rules for the gun in the codex.

A lot of humbuggery IMHO.

Which brings us back to the problem, maybe this time I can better explain why it is a problem:
This sentence exists in order to grant permission to 'assume' the barrel can point to the target, in order to address cases where the mountings have been constructed in such a way that prevents them from turning correctly. One of the way's it could be incorrectly constructed, and prevent otherwise free movement, is if another part of the model is constructed in such a way it interferes with this rotation. Given that this is clearly a case of 'incorrect construction' limiting the rotation of the barrel, and those pictures are one of the few things we have to tell us what the writers intended the arcs to be, I find it very difficult not to allow an opponent in those situations to evoke this rule to get the full intended arc.

After all, if we can simply deny this sentence based on the fact the 'model was constructed incorrectly, leading to the reduced arc' then why have a sentence informing us what to do if the model is constructed to prevent free rotation in the first place?

Follow up question:
Some of my flyers have a habit of having to draw line of sight through themselves, on what page can I find the restriction that prevents them from doing so?

I wouldn't say that the other guns and other bits that prevent full rotation(in concept) as the model being "Incorrectly Constructed"; that is exactly how the model is designed(and in line with the artwork).

For the Follow-up: Page 72 of the BRB. "...Trace line of sight from each weapons' mounting, along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by by terrain or models."

Note how it is just "models" and not "Other Models"? The vehicle itself is a model that can, may, and often does get in the way of its own weapons' LOS.

Kel,
Which is why I am limiting my scope to some questions concerning the formatting of this particular sentence and situations where the construction of the model is different to the normal design. It is possible for this type of construction to reduce the ability for the barrel to rotate the full arc, likely because it hits against the mis-placed piece. Given that we have a sentence that tells us how to deal with any inability to move the model, I find it hard not to apply them to these cases. More so as it is a two part sentence, and the other side of the OR talks about the other main leading causes of being unable to rotate.

Sorry to derail a little,
How page 72 this work with Page 8, Own Unit?

The sentence giving us permission to draw Line of Sight form another location is very open ended, with the trigger being 'the way the model was assembled,' and I want to strengthen some backup counter arguments.