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.

 Grimgold wrote:
So got a great deal on a Obelisk, and realized I've never seen one played, I couldn't even find a bat rep with one. On paper it seems decent, suitable for a softer list than my usual cult and harvest setup. It's able to put out an average of 15 to 20 S7 AP - hits a round (could be a lot more if your dice are hot), with a small chance of dropping nearby flyers, skimmers, and the like. Seems tailor made to deal with SM transport spam, and it's the only non-forge world option we have for dealing with flyers.

My question is, has anyone actually used it in a game, if so how was it?

You need to push it up mid field in order to get the best use of the independent targeting weapons. That also creates a bubble of dangerous terrain for all kinds of flyers right in the middle of the board... there-by limiting their effectiveness.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
You haven't proved that the gun barrel rotates with the sphere

The thread is still waiting for you to actually point to the part of the Obelisk that is the Tesla Sphere.

I am pointing to the spheres.

What are you pointing to?

I would point to the gun barrel on the railing which what you use to determine LoS as per the rulebook

Vehicles Weapons & Line of Sight
"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"

You keep claiming that the sphere rotates, but you have yet to prove that the barrel (the part that actually draws LoS) can rotate. After all why is the gun mounting not like a globe?

Spoiler:

See how the sphere rotates, but the railing (which is where the barrel is attached) stays in a fixed position. You can't move the railing so you don't get 360 LoS

The gun in question is called a sphere and not a rail. So once again I am pointing to a sphere and you are in the awkward position of pointing to something that is not a sphere. It sucks to be you in this argument.

The sphere rotates into position. And the Obelisk can easily bring 3 Tesla Spheres to bear onto any single target.

Them's the rules.

And you have yet to quote a rule taking away the permission I have redundantly claimed.

My assessment of the Tesla Sphere still has a sphere, it just isn't used to determine LoS

Can you prove why Tesla Sphere has to use the sphere to determine LoS despite it not being the gun's barrel?

Per the rules I have redundantly and freely quoted, the Tesla Sphere rotates around its mountings despite its fixed assembly.

So, per the rules, I can imagine the "barrel" of the sphere gun rotated according to any which position the mounting of the sphere would allow.

Them's the rules, bud.

At this point I have 100% rules on my side and you have no rules on your side. You should take this matter to YMDC as you are spamming this thread at this point.

The mounting is like a globe so rotating does nothing because the railing with the gun's barrel stays fixed despite you rotating the sphere. So even with your quoted rules it doesn't give you 360 LoS, you only get 45 arc

Them's the rules, bud

 CrownAxe wrote:

The mounting is like a globe so rotating does nothing because the railing with the gun's barrel stays fixed despite you rotating the sphere. So even with your quoted rules it doesn't give you 360 LoS, you only get 45 arc

Them's the rules, bud

Nope. Per the rules I am free to move the gun and point it at a target based on the new position. The gun is the sphere. Or have you failed to catch onto the fact that the gun in this case is a sphere?



That is literally the rules I posted. So unless you have trouble with 6th grade English comprehension there is absolutely nothing more to discuss here.

Try again? I suggest you start posting rules to support your argument.

So why does the rule you keep quoting not let every gun on every vehicle have 360 LoS?

 CrownAxe wrote:
So why does the rule you keep quoting not let every gun on every vehicle have 360 LoS?

I am quoting rules and I am quoting rules that allow guns to behave as they are modeled. If they are modeled as spheres that are free to rotate in their encasings then so be it. Those spheres would not be allowed to rotate a full 360 degrees based on their modeling and I am not sure why you are trying to straw man me into saying that I have at any point suggested that the spheres get a full 360 LoS. They only get the rotation and LoS based on their modeling. THAT'S THE RULES!!!

Them's the rules.

If you have problems with the rules I am quoting then feel free to show them.

As it is, my argument has 100% rules support and your argument has 0% rules support.

col_impact wrote:
If they are modeled as spheres that are free to rotate in their encasings then so be it.

Why is this true? This is just an assumption.

Also 40k is a permissive rule set. It's your job to show rules that say you can, not my job to show rules that say you can;t.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If they are modeled as spheres that are free to rotate in their encasings then so be it.

Why is this true? This is just an assumption

Nope. No assumption. It's the rules! And I have full permission in a permissive rule set!

Yes you have proved you can imagine the gun gets to move in its mounting


You haven't proved how being a sphere is proof that is free to rotate in its encasing a full 360

 CrownAxe wrote:
Yes you have proved you can imagine the gun gets to move in its mounting


You haven't proved how being a sphere is proof that is free to rotate in its encasing a full 360

I don't need a full 360 rotation and never have I expected such.

As you note I only get the rotation that can be imagined of spheres encased in the corners of an Obelisk and free to rotate in their encasings.

While not exactly a full 360 rotation, this is more rotation than enough to have 3 Tesla Spheres bear on a single target.

Thank you. It looks like we are done with this discussion. Your concession is accepted.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Yes you have proved you can imagine the gun gets to move in its mounting


You haven't proved how being a sphere is proof that is free to rotate in its encasing a full 360

I don't need a full 360 rotation and never have I expected such.

As you note I only get the rotation that can be imagined of spheres encased in the corners of an Obelisk and free to rotate in their encasings.

While not exactly a full 360 rotation, this is more rotation than enough to have 3 Tesla Spheres bear on a single target.

Thank you. It looks like we are done with this discussion. Your concession is accepted.

But the teslta spheres are like globes so them rotating doesn't give you more LoS

And if its not 360 degrees of rotation, how do you know how many you do get? Why isn't it like only 5 degrees?

 CrownAxe wrote:

But the teslta spheres are like globes so them rotating doesn't give you more LoS

And if its not 360 degrees of rotation, how do you know how many you do get? Why isn't it like only 5 degrees?

On the contrary, the rules allow the gun itself to rotate which does allow the giving of more LoS. And it allows the giving of degrees of rotation based on the modeling. The modeling isn't a full 360 degrees, but it's a conical 270 degrees at the least, which is more than enough to allow 3 Tesla Spheres to shoot at a single target.



Or do you not care about rules?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

But the teslta spheres are like globes so them rotating doesn't give you more LoS

On the contrary, the rules allow the gun itself to rotate which does allow the giving of more LoS.

Spoiler:

Vehicles Weapons & Line of Sight
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.
If the target unit is in cover from only some of the vehicle’s weapons, then work out the
target’s cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing
unit. Note that, even when firing Barrage weapons, the target unit must be in the
weapon’s arc of sight.
On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the
target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume
that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases
when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45 º , even if the barrel on the
model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons
can swivel horizontally up to 45 º .

Or do you not care about rules?

So how much does it get to rotate then?

 CrownAxe wrote:

So how much does it get to rotate then?

Point to the Tesla Spheres and the modeling and tell me. That's the rules and you have to obey them.

At the very least it's a conical 270 degrees.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

So how much does it get to rotate then?

Point to the Tesla Spheres and the modeling and tell me. That's the rules and you have to obey them.

At the very least it's a conical 270 degrees.

The modeling is that they don't move at all because it physically can't move so it rotates 0 degrees.

Can you show me a rule that tells you how much it gets to move when you use your imagination?

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

So how much does it get to rotate then?

Point to the Tesla Spheres and the modeling and tell me. That's the rules and you have to obey them.

At the very least it's a conical 270 degrees.

The modeling is that they don't move at all because it physically can't move so it rotates 0 degrees.

Can you show me a rule that tells you how much it gets to move when you use your imagination?

I keep posting rules and the rules give explicit permission for the Tesla Spheres to move freely based on their mounting.



It should be noted that you have posted no rules to support your position.

My position has 100% rules support.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

So how much does it get to rotate then?

Point to the Tesla Spheres and the modeling and tell me. That's the rules and you have to obey them.

At the very least it's a conical 270 degrees.

The modeling is that they don't move at all because it physically can't move so it rotates 0 degrees.

Can you show me a rule that tells you how much it gets to move when you use your imagination?

I keep posting rules

Spoiler:

Vehicles Weapons & Line of Sight
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.
If the target unit is in cover from only some of the vehicle’s weapons, then work out the
target’s cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing
unit. Note that, even when firing Barrage weapons, the target unit must be in the
weapon’s arc of sight.
On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the
target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume
that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases
when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45 º , even if the barrel on the
model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons
can swivel horizontally up to 45 º .

It should be noted that you have posted no rules to support your position.

My position has 100% rules support.

But Tesla Guns don't have a mounting to swivel or rotate on (as per the globe example i've given you). You are only given permission to to rotate or swivel on their mounting

 CrownAxe wrote:


But Tesla Guns don't have a mounting to swivel or rotate on (as per the globe example i've given you). You are only given permission to to rotate or swivel on their mounting

I can easily point to their mounting on the Obelisk model. The mounting is the enclosure of the Tesla Sphere.

Do you have a definition of 'mounting' in the BRB that prevents this?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:


But Tesla Guns don't have a mounting to swivel or rotate on (as per the globe example i've given you). You are only given permission to to rotate or swivel on their mounting

I can easily point to their mounting on the Obelisk model.

Do you have a definition of 'mounting' in the BRB that prevents this?

Do you so you can prove that what you a easily point at is the mounting?

Wait, adding a D/Lord to the deathmarks gives him the rule to come in on the same turn as the deathmarks without rolling? I didn't realise their rule conferred to him?

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:


But Tesla Guns don't have a mounting to swivel or rotate on (as per the globe example i've given you). You are only given permission to to rotate or swivel on their mounting

I can easily point to their mounting on the Obelisk model.

Do you have a definition of 'mounting' in the BRB that prevents this?

Do you so you can prove that what you a easily point at is the mounting?

The mounting is what surrounds the Tesla Sphere.

I am pointing to spheres on the Obelisk when I point to Tesla Spheres.

What are you pointing to?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:


But Tesla Guns don't have a mounting to swivel or rotate on (as per the globe example i've given you). You are only given permission to to rotate or swivel on their mounting

I can easily point to their mounting on the Obelisk model.

Do you have a definition of 'mounting' in the BRB that prevents this?

Do you so you can prove that what you a easily point at is the mounting?

The mounting is what surrounds the Tesla Sphere.

I am pointing to spheres on the Obelisk when I point to Tesla Spheres.

What are you pointing to?

The railing the barrel of the gun is on is the mounting. The sphere is just make it look cool

 CrownAxe wrote:

The railing the barrel of the gun is on is the mounting. The sphere is just make it look cool

That is a unique perspective that you have that is no where supported by any rule or any common-sensical perspective.

I will continue to look at the spheres as representing the Tesla Spheres.

Can you prove otherwise?

I didn't think so.

Yup, sphere here is Sphere.

Razorbacks fire auto-cannons and not auto-turrets.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

The railing the barrel of the gun is on is the mounting. The sphere is just make it look cool

That is a unique perspective that you have that is no where supported by any rule.

I will continue to look at the spheres as representing the Tesla Spheres.

Can you prove otherwise?

I didn't think so.

Yup, sphere here is Sphere.

Why is my perspective on how the gun is modeled wrong? It too has its sphere giving it the name Tesla Sphere

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

The railing the barrel of the gun is on is the mounting. The sphere is just make it look cool

That is a unique perspective that you have that is no where supported by any rule.

I will continue to look at the spheres as representing the Tesla Spheres.

Can you prove otherwise?

I didn't think so.

Yup, sphere here is Sphere.

Why is my perspective on how the gun is modeled wrong? It too has its sphere giving it the name Tesla Sphere

My perspective, which is the one supported by the codex, is that the weapon is a Tesla Sphere.

If the sphere is the name of the gun then it is mounted on something that is not a sphere - it is mounted on the sphere enclosure.

Your underlying problem is that you cannot defeat my position.

My strength is that I have all the rules on my side.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

The railing the barrel of the gun is on is the mounting. The sphere is just make it look cool

That is a unique perspective that you have that is no where supported by any rule.

I will continue to look at the spheres as representing the Tesla Spheres.

Can you prove otherwise?

I didn't think so.

Yup, sphere here is Sphere.

Why is my perspective on how the gun is modeled wrong? It too has its sphere giving it the name Tesla Sphere

My perspective, which is the one supported by the codex, is that the weapon is a Tesla Sphere.

If the sphere is the name of the gun then it is mounted on something that is not a sphere - it is mounted on the sphere enclosure.

Weapon names don't have an actual impact on the rules though. Just like how a Heavy Flamer is not a Heavy Weapon despite its name.

My perspective on how the Tesla Sphere is modeled is just as valid as your perspective on how the Tesla Sphere is modeled

 CrownAxe wrote:

Weapon names don't have an actual impact on the rules though. Just like how a Heavy Flamer is not a Heavy Weapon despite its name.

My perspective on how the Tesla Sphere is modeled is just as valid as your perspective on how the Tesla Sphere is modeled

I am still pointing to a sphere and a mounting and lots of rules that allow me to use the Obelisk in the exact way I describe.

You have yet to show rules restricting the permissions that I have claimed.

Until you do so, I can claim those permissions.

My argument that claims more permissions by the rules therefore trumps your argument that claims less permissions by the rules if everything is equal.



Still waiting for you to start actually quoting rules. Or to actually have an argument of merit worth consideration.

You do realize that my argument is to disprove your argument's validity right? That doesn't actually require me to quote rules, just show that your argument has holes in it. Which I have done since you have yet to quote a rule that proves that the sphere part of the model is the gun itself

My work here is done. Nice try bud but those are the rules.

 CrownAxe wrote:
You do realize that my argument is to disprove your argument's validity right? That doesn't actually require me to quote rules, just show that your argument has holes in it. Which I have done since you have yet to quote a rule that proves that the sphere part of the model is the gun itself

My work here is done. Nice try bud but those are the rules.

I will take this as a concession on your part. You are wisely noting that you have no rules support and should duck out of any further debate.

Crownaxe, you must have infinite patience, [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS].

Some clarity and consistency on the weapon arc rules would be awesome, but... GeeDubs, because... GeeDubs.

I don't expect much from a rules team whose FAQ response to 'Can you upgrade a Captain in a Battle Company to a Chapter Master' is: 'Yes but that wasn't what we intended...'

I mean, great, we have an FAQ, but some of it is so mindmeltingly stupid, you have to wonder what sort of monkeys are bashing away at typewriters at GeeDubs HQ

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
You do realize that my argument is to disprove your argument's validity right? That doesn't actually require me to quote rules, just show that your argument has holes in it. Which I have done since you have yet to quote a rule that proves that the sphere part of the model is the gun itself

My work here is done. Nice try bud but those are the rules.

I will take this as a concession on your part. You are wisely noting that you have no rules support and should duck out of any further debate.

Neither of you have rules support. There are no rules precedent for Spheres or Sphere-mounted weapons. There is also no clear way to measure from the weapon itself - it has a part that clearly looks like a barrel but that isnt 100% indicative.

Col_, I would tend to agree with your viewpoint, as I think that was the intention and actually makes it relatively useful, but you need to act like a person when you post. You aren't the end all be all rules cleric. You were pretty ruttin wrong when it came to the Harvest Spyder ruling, so do realize that your opinions are just opinions until validated clearly, which they more than likely will be in the Necron FAQ. Which should be no more than a couple months out, so everyone just hold your horses.