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.

This was used the other day in a game. The boat was positioned a certain way to focus on killing a unit, but the person playing the Dark Eldar killed the unit with something else. So the person tried to shoot his Ravenger at another target saying that the guns on the model could clearly pivot that direction without modifying the model what so ever (besides the front gunner, but even if he was there, he said it would be fluffy that he could stand on the front half of the boat, but whatever), and had clear line of sight. Thoughts?
(please excuse the unpainted model as well)

RAW, yes it's completely legal, there is nothing mentioned in the rules as to position of gunners, they are simply there for aesthetic reasons. If the gun can feasibly point at it, it can shoot it.

Fluff-wise I can't see too much of a problem either, there is no reason there cannot be some kind of remote control for the gun, or as your opponent says the gunner could stand on the hull.

I can see where you are coming from but I would allow it.

Well it seems like they can shoot it but I do believe the guns on the sides are sponsons. I can't support this claim right now with anything though.

If you can point a gun at it, you can shoot it.

DE vehicles are designed with this in mind.

They are not shooting through their own los-blocking hull and can draw clear LOS with the guns.

There is no specific rule for 'Sponsons' - there are two examples of different Sponson fire arcs, but both of those only illustrate poorly designed Mon-keigh vehicles whose hulls get in the way of their guns

It's all covered by pg 72 Rulebook.

'When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at the target and then trace line if sight from each weapon's mounting and along it's barrel to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models.

The only restriction on fire arc aside from this is the 45' depression/elevation text for dealing with shots up or down.

 oraj wrote:
Well it seems like they can shoot it but I do believe the guns on the sides are sponsons. I can't support this claim right now with anything though.

Theyre a turret mount, and as per the rulebook have LOS as per the model, and if the model is glued then the LOS t would be, if you hadnt glued it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 oraj wrote:
Well it seems like they can shoot it but I do believe the guns on the sides are sponsons. I can't support this claim right now with anything though.

Theyre a turret mount, and as per the rulebook have LOS as per the model, and if the model is glued then the LOS t would be, if you hadnt glued it.

They are not turret nor Sponson mounted, they are simply weapons on the vehicle; weapons that can traverse at the illustrated angles.

Totally legal. As a DE player, I wouldn't do it in a friendly game. (But in competitive play, it's absolutely in the deck.)

You wouldn't point the weapons on your vehicle at the unit you are shooting in a friendly game?

Are you implying that there is something wrong with pointing your vehicle's weapons at it's target by saying its not appropriate for a friendly game?

That last comment has me really confused.

This is appropriate for any game, and should be done.

 Dracos wrote:
You wouldn't point the weapons on your vehicle at the unit you are shooting in a friendly game?

Are you implying that there is something wrong with pointing your vehicle's weapons at it's target by saying its not appropriate for a friendly game?

That last comment has me really confused.

This is appropriate for any game, and should be done.

Pointing one of the side Lances on a Dark Eldar Ravager across the deck of the vehicle to shoot out the other side may strike some players as a little whack. (As evidenced by the very existence of this thread.) While I agree that doing so is legal, if I found myself in the position of the opponent the OP mentions, in a friendly game I would just opt not to shoot the one side weapon, rather than risk this argument. The one additional shot isn't worth the potential hassle, in a casual game. At least not to me.