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.

Like other big models the imperial knight has a ball, pin, cup thing going on for its hips which many people leave unglued to transporting easier. Am I right in saying it can't turn on this hip joint in game to define its shooting arc or front armour? The upper body and legs must face the same way throughout the game.

Just checking

Thanks

Taffy17 wrote:
Like other big models the imperial knight has a ball, pin, cup thing going on for its hips which many people leave unglued to transporting easier. Am I right in saying it can't turn on this hip joint in game to define its shooting arc or front armour? The upper body and legs must face the same way throughout the game.

Just checking

Thanks

That's correct.

Walkers are assumed to be rotating for shooting anyway, so firing arc is out. The only reason to change the orientation should be something in the way of the huge base vs armour facings. As long as you don't try to mess with your model outside the moving phase, you should be fine.

 Stephanius wrote:
Walkers are assumed to be rotating for shooting anyway, so firing arc is out. The only reason to change the orientation should be something in the way of the huge base vs armour facings. As long as you don't try to mess with your model outside the moving phase, you should be fine.

It says in the rule book a walkers weapons they have a 45 degree pivot from where the weapon's mounted. It doesn't mention an ability for the model to rotate

As above.
The ability to fire outside of its arc is only for Overwatch.

 Stephanius wrote:
Walkers are assumed to be rotating for shooting anyway, so firing arc is out. The only reason to change the orientation should be something in the way of the huge base vs armour facings. As long as you don't try to mess with your model outside the moving phase, you should be fine.

Old 6th Edition Rules.

7th edition has completely changed that, as both above me also pointed out. Front 45 degree Arc only.

Thank you!

So vehicle weapons are no longer able to pivot at the mount?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So vehicle weapons are no longer able to pivot at the mount?

This is specific to Walkers.
In this case, no.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So vehicle weapons are no longer able to pivot at the mount?

SJ

For other vehicles, yes.

Walkers have specified fire arcs, regardless of how the weapon is mounted.

It can be argued that Walker weapons are vehicle weapons first, and therefore flow vehicle rules for pivots. The 45-degree arc can then be applied to fix weapons, as normal. That being the case, the Walker "front arc" rule is telling us that Walkers can only target units in their front arc, allowing for the pivot of non-fixed weapons. On an Imperial Knight, you could therefore target a model on the far left with a Paladin's Battle Cannon as long as that model is within the front arc of the Knight and the pivot of the Battle Cannon (which can be pivoted more than 45-degrees if modeled correctly, i.e., per the modeling instructions).

This does, however, not allow for the waist to pivot, as there are no rules for pivoting at the waist.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It can be argued that Walker weapons are vehicle weapons first, and therefore flow vehicle rules for pivots.

No, it can't, because the walker rules are very specific about how their fire arcs work.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It can be argued that Walker weapons are vehicle weapons first, and therefore flow vehicle rules for pivots.

No, it can't, because the walker rules are very specific about how their fire arcs work.

Quotes? Citations? Please show how clear it is. If it is 100% clear that Walker weapons only have a 45-degree firing arc, the there is a dead space in front of every Imperial Knight between base contact and the bottom of the Stubber's firing arc, based on height of the model.

In addition, please explain how a strict 45-degree arc effects a non-torrent template fired from a Titan-size model (I.e., Acheron).

SJ

Shooting with Walkers wrote:When firing a Walker’s weapons assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
If it is 100% clear that Walker weapons only have a 45-degree firing arc, the there is a dead space in front of every Imperial Knight between base contact and the bottom of the Stubber's firing arc, based on height of the model.

That woudl depend on how you have the weapons positioned.

In addition, please explain how a strict 45-degree arc effects a non-torrent template fired from a Titan-size model (I.e., Acheron).

In what way?

 grendel083 wrote:

Shooting with Walkers wrote:When firing a Walker’s weapons assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°.

That does not address pivoting, it simply states that a weapon has a 45-degree deflection off axis, which is true for all fix mounted weapons on vehicles.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
If it is 100% clear that Walker weapons only have a 45-degree firing arc, the there is a dead space in front of every Imperial Knight between base contact and the bottom of the Stubber's firing arc, based on height of the model.

That woudl depend on how you have the weapons positioned.

How so? Please explain.

 insaniak wrote:

In addition, please explain how a strict 45-degree arc effects a non-torrent template fired from a Titan-size model (I.e., Acheron).

In what way?

Exactly. In what way? In what way does a fixed 45-degree arc effect a non-torrent template fired from a Knight-size Walker such as an Acheron?

SJ

In previous editions (prior to 6th), walkers had a defined arc to their front. In 6th/7th edition, we are told instead to assume that the weapon can swivel through 45 degrees.

So the 'blind spot' to the front of a Knight is going to vary depending on which direction you model with weapons pointing.

Note that under the current RAW, most space marine dreadnoughts wind up being able to shoot at sweet bugger-all with the weapon slung under their powerfist.


It's yet another poorly thought out rule in a poorly thought out edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Exactly. In what way? In what way does a fixed 45-degree arc effect a non-torrent template fired from a Knight-size Walker such as an Acheron?

It gives the weapon a fixed arc in which it can be fired. I'm not really sure what answer you're expecting here.

The point I'm attempting to make (and failing, apparently), is that dynamic rules exist to account for weapon positioning within the game ... unless you take too strick of a stance, in which case several weapons are useless due to static positioning. Given that we are advised from the beginning that the rules work, and we are to follow basic rules first, more advanced rules second, and than in a conflict the more specific rule trumps the less specific rule, by following the Walker "all weapons are treated as fixed" interpretation that ignored the more specific "weapons that look dynamic are treated as dynamic" vehicle rules will allow for situations like Dreadnought arm weapons only being able to fire straight down due to a cinematic pose.

TLR - if the vehicle's weapon looks like it can pivot and Walkers are vehicles, then the Walker's weapon that look like they pivot can if fact "pivot".

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
TLR - if the vehicle's weapon looks like it can pivot and Walkers are vehicles, then the Walker's weapon that look like they pivot can if fact "pivot".

Sure. Through 45 degrees.


The fact that the rules are supposed to work is not in itself proof that they do. The shooting rules for walkers are just one of a number of rules in 7th edition that don't function in any sort of adequate manner without some amoung of alteration.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Given that we are advised from the beginning that the rules work, and we are to follow basic rules first, more advanced rules second, and than in a conflict the more specific rule trumps the less specific rule, by following the Walker "all weapons are treated as fixed" interpretation that ignored the more specific "weapons that look dynamic are treated as dynamic" vehicle rules will allow for situations like Dreadnought arm weapons only being able to fire straight down due to a cinematic pose.

The general vehicle rules are not more advanced than the Walker rules, other way round.
A Dreadnought is a vehicle. More accurately a vehicle (Walker). Walker rules are more advanced than Vehicle.

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Given that we are advised from the beginning that the rules work, and we are to follow basic rules first, more advanced rules second, and than in a conflict the more specific rule trumps the less specific rule, by following the Walker "all weapons are treated as fixed" interpretation that ignored the more specific "weapons that look dynamic are treated as dynamic" vehicle rules will allow for situations like Dreadnought arm weapons only being able to fire straight down due to a cinematic pose.

The general vehicle rules are not more advanced than the Walker rules, other way round.
A Dreadnought is a vehicle. More accurately a vehicle (Walker). Walker rules are more advanced than Vehicle.

Actually i might have to agree with Jeffersonian here, from this:
"Range is measured from the weapon itself and line of sight is measured from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles."

Same paragraph of the Walker rules. So Walkers use the same LoS rules as vehicles:
"When firing a vehicle’s weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight from each weapons’ mounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models."

Your quoted rule: "When firing a Walker’s weapons assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°." Which i was going by too, does not contradict any of the above. All it does is allow Fixed weapons, like the Dreadnought Storm bolter, to "swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°" or its main Lascanon to "swivel horizontally (...) up to 45°".

TL : DR - It never restricts the "point them at the target" Rule from happening.

You still do not have 6th Ed permission to 360° No-Scope though....

If that were the case then the Walker shooting rules do absolutely nothing, fixed weapons are already covered by the basic vehicle rules.

If the rules of a sub category aren't more advanced than their parent rules, then there's no point having them.

Also "point them at the target" and "can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°" directly conflict. Otherwise you could just point any hull mounted weapon at a target, ignoring its arc limitation.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Your quoted rule: "When firing a Walker’s weapons assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°." Which i was going by too, does not contradict any of the above. All it does is allow Fixed weapons, like the Dreadnought Storm bolter, to "swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°" or its main Lascanon to "swivel horizontally (...) up to 45°"..

Except it doesn't say that we should only assume the 45 degree arc for fixed weapons.

So we have to follow both rules. One says that you point the weapon at the target, the other says that we assume the weapon has a 45 degree arc. In order to break no rule, we can point the weapon at the target, but only within that 45 degree arc.

 grendel083 wrote:
If that were the case then the Walker shooting rules do absolutely nothing, fixed weapons are already covered by the basic vehicle rules.

If the rules of a sub category aren't more advanced than their parent rules, then there's no point having them.

I think that Walkers have a repeat / reminder of Vehicle shooting Rules because everything in the paragraphs above (Including within "Shooting with Walkers") refer to "just like infantry".

Therefore in order to shoot as intended, and not as infantry, they repeat known vehicle rules.

 grendel083 wrote:
Also "point them at the target" and "can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°" directly conflict. Otherwise you could just point any hull mounted weapon at a target, ignoring its arc limitation.

 insaniak wrote:
Except it doesn't say that we should only assume the 45 degree arc for fixed weapons.

So we have to follow both rules. One says that you point the weapon at the target, the other says that we assume the weapon has a 45 degree arc. In order to break no rule, we can point the weapon at the target, but only within that 45 degree arc.

I think i understand the conflict in that, the rules for vehicles state "On some models,(...)" for the 45° angle when Walkers don't (so it is a rule applying for ALL weapons of ALL walkers).

However "assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°" can also be a specification for the weapons that don't move at all (in any of the 2 directions - so a Dreadnought Weapon that can swivel up and down freely only gets "swivel horizontally up to 45°")

Also you could note that "assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°" refers to the weapons "mounted" on its hull (Eldar canons; Venerable Storm bolters under its casket; embedded Killa-kan shooter; etc) When things like the dreadnought arm or Imperial Knights have a free-moving weapon that is not "mounted".

Ie same as for Vehicles: Vehicles weapons =/= hull-mounted weapons

 BlackTalos wrote:
However "assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°" can also be a specification for the weapons that don't move at all (in any of the 2 directions - so a Dreadnought Weapon that can swivel up and down freely only gets "swivel horizontally up to 45°")

Except, again, it doesn't just refer to weapons that don't physically move. It quite specifically applies to all walker weapons.

When things like the dreadnought arm or Imperial Knights have a free-moving weapon that is not "mounted".

Is it floating in mid-air?

If it's attached to the walker, it's mounted on the walker.

'Mounted' does not mean 'immobile'.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Your quoted rule: "When firing a Walker’s weapons assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°." Which i was going by too, does not contradict any of the above. All it does is allow Fixed weapons, like the Dreadnought Storm bolter, to "swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°" or its main Lascanon to "swivel horizontally (...) up to 45°"..

Except it doesn't say that we should only assume the 45 degree arc for fixed weapons.

So we have to follow both rules. One says that you point the weapon at the target, the other says that we assume the weapon has a 45 degree arc. In order to break no rule, we can point the weapon at the target, but only within that 45 degree arc.

When firing a Walker’s weapons assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel horizontally and vertically up to 45°

If the weapon mounted is swiveled 45° and then the hips of the dreadnought are swiveled 20° (in order to better point the weapon at the target better) then no rules are broken right?

wtnind wrote:
If the weapon mounted is swiveled 45° and then the hips of the dreadnought are swiveled 20° (in order to better point the weapon at the target better) then no rules are broken right?

What rule are you using to swivel the hips?

 grendel083 wrote:

wtnind wrote:
If the weapon mounted is swiveled 45° and then the hips of the dreadnought are swiveled 20° (in order to better point the weapon at the target better) then no rules are broken right?

What rule are you using to swivel the hips?

"When firing a vehicle’s weapons, point them at the target"

Weapon is rotated 22.5 degrees, weapon is not yet pointed at target
Rotate hips 20 degrees, weapon is now pointed at target.

Point the weapon at the target, not pivot the model so the weapons point at the target.

 Ghaz wrote:
Point the weapon at the target, not pivot the model so the weapons point at the target.

If the base doesn't move its not a pivot