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.

And the written rules deal with improperly assembled models where you have accidentally limited your own traverse.

Part the second: Because Page 8 is assuming you are drawing LOS through other members of your own unit, not through yourself.

And Vehicle LOS is a more specific rule anyways as page 8 is basic rules so talking about infantry units. Squadrons rules specifically allow you to fire through other models in the squadron Like page 8.

Kommissar Kel,
If Page 8 allows a model to shoot through other models, but not itself, what occurs in situations where the model can not draw line of sight because it is blocking it's own sight?
For example, a hand is raised in a gesture on the model and that gesture brings the arm between the models eyes and the target, close enough to the eyes to completely block the target.

I keep bringing it up because I held to the belief that it was irrelevant which ideal you followed, if you allowed full documented rotation or if you kept to just the model as constructed, because Line of Sight would be blocked. Even an imagined barrel still requires line of sight to be drawn from the weapon mounting forward, so if anything blocks that line of sight then prevent the shot. However the fact every one play with this particular 'house rule,' or else only models with eyes can ever draw line of sight, has me a little concerned. I am finding it a little bothersome for there to be an unwritten exception to True Line of Sight granting one type of model more power then another.

So I am trying to find something written to support that stance.

We have always ignored the Eyeless model issue because it is a fairly stupid issue. Similarly a "see no evil" model would likely just have that issue ignored.

As far as allowing the guns to fire through the Vehicle, that opens up some ridiculous options, like a Landraider Heavy bolter firing directly backwards. It also would invalidate those pretty pictures, The Sponsons for everything other than the Leman russ and some FW Superheavies(that have less than a 90* arc btw) look like they could rotate 360* if they didn't have to worry about that hull getting in the way

Guess I am trying to combine Rules as Written and the 'House Rule' in a way that doesn't exclude models arbitrarily, a pointless endeavor seeing we wouldn't need the House rule in the first place if it just worked.

It's fairly simple with the kit properly assembled how much can the doom scythe's weapon pivot?
Does the codex list it as a "turret"? If no then...

I believe the answer is not at all. Just like a land speeders assault cannons cannot pivot. (you could make it but that would be modelling for advantage.)

So if it can't pivot it can hit anything in a 90 degree arc centered on the barrel. (45 degree's to the right, and 45 degree's to the left)

We can ignore the vertical as it's a flyer and they can dive/climb. So in theory it could either be flying level or diving down on something right in front of it.

Wagguy80 wrote:

So if it can't pivot it can hit anything in a 90 degree arc centered on the barrel. (45 degree's to the right, and 45 degree's to the left)

We can ignore the vertical as it's a flyer and they can dive/climb. So in theory it could either be flying level or diving down on something right in front of it.

I'm sorry but what?
It's 45° ,so 22.5 each way for the first part
and for the second is that HYWPI? Because that's clearly not RAW

Wagguy80 wrote:
It's fairly simple with the kit properly assembled how much can the doom scythe's weapon pivot?
Does the codex list it as a "turret"? If no then...

I believe the answer is not at all. Just like a land speeders assault cannons cannot pivot. (you could make it but that would be modelling for advantage.)

Ignoring for a moment the 45* arc rules you got wrong.

No codex Lists weapons are "Turret" or is the Predator AC hull mounted? How about the Leman Russ main guns?


The Land Speeder assault Cannon cannot freely rotate because the mounting cannot, and does not look like it could do so; and that is what the rules care about.

The Doom Scythes mounting is a ball joint, it cannot move because real life physics get in the way of the model, but it certainly looks like it could move. Then other parts of the model get in the way of its conceptual movement giving it a roughly 45* arc that it looks like it could traverse.

Sorry hull mount rules system crosswire there. You are correct.

That actually is RAW. Example if I glue the assault cannon onto the land raider, and it shoots at something elevated that if not glued in place it could otherwise point at I can still shoot.

Just because a flyer is placed on the flight stand at a certain angle does not mean it couldn't otherwise angle differently.

IE if I model my Dakkajet climbing nose up. Does that mean I can't shoot at anything? No.
It's a flyer it's angle is not fixed, so elevation doesn't matter.

Another if you move the flyer and it stops on the edge of a hill angling it up. Can it suddenly not shoot at anything on the ground since it can't point it's gun at them? No.

The angle of the model is fixed, you are not allowed to alter your model in game(excepting movable weapons, but that is because we are told to do exactly that).

And Vertical rules are explicit in only 45* total up/down, does not matter if your gun can physically traverse more or less than that, so a razorback only has a 22.5* down angle and a 22.5* up angle even though the model can traverse 90 degrees straight up(and yes I am aware how stupid that is).

Wagguy80 wrote:
That actually is RAW.

We absolutely do not "ignore the vertical". You should read the BRB a little closer.

p72 wrote:In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45°, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that!

Please actually cite rules to support your statement that you "ignore the vertical".

Riddle me something.

If I fly over someone with my Heldrake and decide, "I wanna burninate that bugger" and place my template behind my model (Following the torrent rules of keeping the wide portion of my template further than the slender portion) would you allow it?

GoliothOnline wrote:
Riddle me something.

If I fly over someone with my Heldrake and decide, "I wanna burninate that bugger" and place my template behind my model (Following the torrent rules of keeping the wide portion of my template further than the slender portion) would you allow it?

Since the Heldrake has an FAQ to allow that, sure.

The Doom Scythe doesn't, and until it does it must follow the actual rules.

I was under the impression Kel wouldnt allow that... Will need confirmation from him.

GoliothOnline wrote:
I was under the impression Kel wouldnt allow that... Will need confirmation from him.

Poor comparison on your end though - the Heldrake has explicit rules. The Doom Scythe does not.

GoliothOnline wrote:
I was under the impression Kel wouldnt allow that... Will need confirmation from him.

I would allow that for the exact same reason that Rigeld stated. Because that gun is allowed to do exactly that.

The doom scythe Measures Distance from the gun and follows the Vehicles shooting LOS rules.

I saw in a previous thread that stated something similar that the Heldrake urked you for this exact reason.

@rigeld2 ^ this is why I asked.

GoliothOnline wrote:
I saw in a previous thread that stated something similar that the Heldrake urked you for this exact reason.

@rigeld2 ^ this is why I asked.

Yes, the heldrake FAQ ruling is stupid and shouldn't exist at all. It changes and blatantly ignores rules just to make sure that Heldrake does as Heldrake wants.
That doesn't change the ruling, it just means that KKel and I both think it's dumb.

It isn't the Helldrake that erks me, it is the use of the Diagrams at the cost of discounting the written rules on page 72 that erks me.

The answer I responded to in that thread was that the Heldrake had a 360 because of it being turret mounted, which is not true, it has a 360 because of the FAQs guidelines on how to treat its weapons; Turrets do not always have a 360 Arc of fire(as has been proven many times).

See I think that the Death Ray as expressed in the codex is supposed to allocate wounds along the line it draws. Pretty sure that's RAI - and what I don't understand is the humbug nature that taints reactions to the Doom Scythe and Heldrake. I like them, and JOTWW and Obliterators and all the different, cool, fluffy, UNIQUE weaponry of the 40k universe.

But I guess that's just me. Sad face.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It isn't the Helldrake that erks me, it is the use of the Diagrams at the cost of discounting the written rules on page 72 that erks me.

The answer I responded to in that thread was that the Heldrake had a 360 because of it being turret mounted, which is not true, it has a 360 because of the FAQs guidelines on how to treat its weapons; Turrets do not always have a 360 Arc of fire(as has been proven many times).

Ic now. Thanks for clarifying that

Not a problem.

rigeld2 wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
I saw in a previous thread that stated something similar that the Heldrake urked you for this exact reason.

@rigeld2 ^ this is why I asked.

Yes, the heldrake FAQ ruling is stupid and shouldn't exist at all. It changes and blatantly ignores rules just to make sure that Heldrake does as Heldrake wants.
That doesn't change the ruling, it just means that KKel and I both think it's dumb.

I posted in another thread: if you split a squad onto 3 different (even 4) ruin levels, it doesn't seem as powerful

I saw that too BlackTalos, My friend tried this once, but Soul Blaze ended up killing some of the fire warriors :( lol

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
I saw in a previous thread that stated something similar that the Heldrake urked you for this exact reason.

@rigeld2 ^ this is why I asked.

Yes, the heldrake FAQ ruling is stupid and shouldn't exist at all. It changes and blatantly ignores rules just to make sure that Heldrake does as Heldrake wants.
That doesn't change the ruling, it just means that KKel and I both think it's dumb.

I posted in another thread: if you split a squad onto 3 different (even 4) ruin levels, it doesn't seem as powerful

It doesn't bother me overall as far as power goes - I run Nidzilla so it does one wound to my MCs if I fail FNP.
That doesn't change the fact that it's really bad rules writing.

GoliothOnline wrote:I saw that too BlackTalos, My friend tried this once, but Soul Blaze ended up killing some of the fire warriors :( lol

My opponent didn't mention Soulblaze or it just cancelled first turn... don't remember it happening anyhow =O

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
I saw in a previous thread that stated something similar that the Heldrake urked you for this exact reason.

@rigeld2 ^ this is why I asked.

Yes, the heldrake FAQ ruling is stupid and shouldn't exist at all. It changes and blatantly ignores rules just to make sure that Heldrake does as Heldrake wants.
That doesn't change the ruling, it just means that KKel and I both think it's dumb.

I posted in another thread: if you split a squad onto 3 different (even 4) ruin levels, it doesn't seem as powerful

It doesn't bother me overall as far as power goes - I run Nidzilla so it does one wound to my MCs if I fail FNP.
That doesn't change the fact that it's really bad rules writing.

Very True