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 Tesla Sphere has an obvious muzzle as well...

Again, it's not obvious. You're assuming it is. The last few pages have been people questioning if that's a muzzle or not.

 nintura wrote:
I dont understand where you're getting this comparison from.... the tesla destructor is a fixed gun yes, but it has an obvious barrel. That barrel is pointed in one direction. A sphere is a circle. imagine if you took a basketball and added thousands of barrels in every single direction on 100% of it's surface, that's a spherical weapon. In most stories, you'd actually get a nova blast, like a grenade, but instead you only get a blast in one direction albeit in any direction you want.

Again there is no rules support for this.

And the tesla sphere has an obvious barrel. This is all in the eye of the viewer.

"there is no barrel on a tesla sphere"
"right there"
"that could be anything, no rules say that is the barrel"


"there is no barrel on a tesla destructor "
"right there"
"that could be anything, no rules say that is the barrel"

Both have the same RAW support, the difference is one has a longer barrel. To you its obvious the barrel shaped object on the destructor is the barrel, To me its obvious the barrel shaped object on the sphere is the barrel.

your arguments hurt my head, they make no sense. Have fun, good luck with that. You're using the same logic as "well the rules don't say I CAN'T kill my opponent to win the game"

 nintura wrote:
Again, it's not obvious. You're assuming it is. The last few pages have been people questioning if that's a muzzle or not.

So something that looks *exactly* like the muzzle on a Tesla Carbine is not obviously the muzzle on a Tesla Sphere? So if I say the sky is green does that suddenly mean its not obviously blue?

They why are so many people asking questions about it? If it's so obvious I mean.

 nintura wrote:
your arguments hurt my head, they make no sense. Have fun, good luck with that. You're using the same logic as "well the rules don't say I CAN'T kill my opponent to win the game"

No dude, my point is simple enough, YOU are tweaking the rules.

1. A tesla sphere has something that looks like a barrel. You can measure along this to get a 45 fire arc that is 100% playable but people don't like.
2. You can say that it doesn't have a barrel, which makes the weapon unplayable without resorting to house rules. At this point you could just skip a step and house rule the fire arc!

A)You are trying to say that it's RAW to say the sphere has no barrel.
B)You are arguing that drawing LoS to something that is not a barrel is RAW

I'm pointing out why these are absurd.

A)It has something that looks like a barrel. The argument that "we arent told its a barrel" can be applied to other weapons, which is apparently ridiculous for a night scythe but not a Vault ?
It's absurd if i say a night scythe doesn't have a barrel, you say it has an obvious barrel.
If we reverse positions for the Vault it suddenly isn't a valid argument for me? you say the vault doesn't have a barrel, i say it has an obvious barrel.

B) If it doesn't have a barrel you can't draw Line of sight to it.
You argued that you can just change it to 'weapon'. I pointed out that you can't because that completely changes the rules for other things, like night scythes.

I'm trying to show the error in your argument by using it against you.

"The tesseract vault has a 45 fire arc, along the barrel of the weapon"
"the weapon has no barrel"
"right there"
"we're not told that's the barrel"
"....okay.... so you can't draw line of sight from it"
"sure you can, just draw from the gun itself" ----------------- Fire arc goes from 45 to 270.

"The Night scythe has a 45 fire arc, along the barrel of the weapon"
"the weapon has no barrel"
"right there"
"we're not told that's the barrel"
"....okay.... so you can't draw line of sight from it"
"sure you can, just draw from the gun itself" ------------------- Fire arc goes from 45 to 360

Why is it a perfectly Valid argument from you , but not from me?

Ok this is ridiculous. An enormous argument about tesla spheres firing arc does not belong in tactics. Here is a link to a YMDC thread discussing the issue. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/810/689817.page#8845788 Take your discussion there so we can discuss tactics, the real purpose for this thread.

 nintura wrote:
your arguments hurt my head, they make no sense. Have fun, good luck with that. You're using the same logic as "well the rules don't say I CAN'T kill my opponent to win the game"

Thats the point. It's YOUR argument, I'm applying it to something else and it makes no sense, when you use it it makes sense?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:
They why are so many people asking questions about it? If it's so obvious I mean.

Because people try to change what they don't like. See harvest spiders, tau coordinated fire etc.

Change what they don't like.... like GW? They seem to agree with these people.

GW has shown no indication of agreeing with them. It says sponson mounted, which means what you can point the barrel at. People are making leaps to assume it somehow gives it a fire arc other that "what you can point it at"

As for changing what they dont like, people wanted to add more spiders to a harvest despite it saying "1 model"
There have been arguments that 1 = 3.

Tau co-ordinated firepower said they are counted as one unit firing, and people were arguing that buffs to the unit, didnt apply to the combined unit.

People always prefer to claim RAW over RAI when something they don't like comes up.

to be fair, people are askign 1-3 spyders because 1 model seemed like a typo. None of the formations are like that, you always get to take units, that was a first for necron players.

 nintura wrote:
to be fair, people are askign 1-3 spyders because 1 model seemed like a typo. None of the formations are like that, you always get to take units, that was a first for necron players.

Right but a typo is RAI, people weren't arguing that it was intended to be a unit. which would be a valid argument.

People vehemently avoid admitting they are using RAI and were instead arguing that it was 100% rules as written that 1 canoptek spyder was the same as 3 canoptek spyders.

People are very quick to disagree with something they don't like, and people never like to claim RAI as RAI can always boil down to an opinion, they claim RAW and make it fit.

What does the actual codex say? 1 Canoptek Spyder? Or 1 Canoptek Spyder model? Because I think it's the first, I'd have to check my codex when I get home.

 nintura wrote:
What does the actual codex say? 1 Canoptek Spyder? Or 1 Canoptek Spyder model? Because I think it's the first, I'd have to check my codex when I get home.

It says 1 canoptek spyder.
Not 1 unit, 1 spyder.

A unit of 3 spyders is not 1 spyder, but please lets not open this again especially since it's been FAQd

You can try to argue technicalities on the spyder for pages, (it has happened before) , but youd still be trying to argue that 1 spyder is the same as 1 unit of 3 spyders.

Right I agree with that, and that it's settled is fine. But I see where they are coming from. Other parts of the codex say 1 X model. But seeing something like this was a first, and so it's peoples rights to second guess it. Personally, I dont think it still feels right. 1 spyder isn't going to last long, but at least they let it stay the entire turn instead of immediately losing the bonus

Yeah, its possible to see where they are coming from, especially devils advocate, but the issue is that people like that were claiming that it was 100% RAW and the other side was 100% wrong.

You're always going to have extremes on all sides of an argument. To think it's only one way is just fallible. Just look at US politics...

Absolutely, I was just mentioning that it's why people tend to argue things that otherwise appear pretty cut and dry, because they dont like them.

people just tend toward extremes.

I am curious - does anyone think that the tesla sphere is not intended to be able to rotate, ie that the tesla sphere is fixed in place both RAW and RAI?

Nah, it's a damn ball reminiscent of a monoliths corner weapons. I don't exactly agree with 270 arc (similair to the monolith not having 270)

But looking at the model if i had never built or seen the sprue, i'd assume they rotated.

col_impact wrote:
I am curious - does anyone think that the tesla sphere is not intended to be able to rotate, ie that the tesla sphere is fixed in place both RAW and RAI?

Yes, I don't think its intended to rotate. If they had wanted it to, the model would have been designed to have rotating weapons (like with the monolith)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Tactically, there hasn't been a real use, since it's a huge chunk of points that's sitting in reserve and probably won't even see CC until Turn 3. Getting downfield in a Hammer n Anvil deployment was also a reason to do it, but Deep Strke still DD that.

A few things have changed though. These aren't great, but at least they're playable, so it's nice to have them as an option.
1 - Death From The Skies gives the bonus to reserves for Air Superiority. So having a flyer to prevent your opponent from getting that might become a factor n list building. If not, then having the Praetorians come in more reliably from reserves removes some of the risk involved with when they're coming in.
2 - As above, they can spread out instead of being clumped up, and no fear of Scatter. What makes this good is we can now put a barrier between something you want to protect, like your OL and whatever is going after them. The shooting will hopefully put some hurt down, and make life difficult to get around both the Flyer base and the Praetorians.
3 - While #2 isn't anything new, we might do it because we can embark the unit that they were trying to protect if it doesn't look good. Should your opponent manage to kill the flyer while that unit is still inside, they're safe because they'll just arrive from Ongoing Reserve, away from any threats. Yes, it's very situational, and won't always work. The tactic is there and it's up to the player to,use it.
4 - The Nightscythe benefits from the JB formation. (Although I too am still wondering why this was ever in question.) With all of the above points, we can now consider a Judicator Battalion a good option for a CAD. Being able to switch the Praetorians for an Obsec unit and get them where they need to be could come in handy.

col_impact wrote:
I am curious - does anyone think that the tesla sphere is not intended to be able to rotate, ie that the tesla sphere is fixed in place both RAW and RAI?

Physically intended to be able to rotate? No.

"Theater of the mind" able to rotate? In a sense but I've always thought of the sphere part to stay still while the barrel and track "blink" side to side or the barrel to slide up and down on the track. But I haven't seen anything for the blinking part.

RAW? no-ish

RAI? With gw calling it sponson mounted, they could have said hull-mounted but didn't, and on the other hand they could have just simply said its arc in degrees. I like to think that they could have ment same as the monolith's flux arcs.

Oberron wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am curious - does anyone think that the tesla sphere is not intended to be able to rotate, ie that the tesla sphere is fixed in place both RAW and RAI?

Physically intended to be able to rotate? No.

"Theater of the mind" able to rotate? In a sense but I've always thought of the sphere part to stay still while the barrel and track "blink" side to side or the barrel to slide up and down on the track. But I haven't seen anything for the blinking part.

RAW? no-ish

RAI? With gw calling it sponson mounted, they could have said hull-mounted but didn't, and on the other hand they could have just simply said its arc in degrees. I like to think that they could have ment same as the monolith's flux arcs.

I pretty much second this word for word

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am curious - does anyone think that the tesla sphere is not intended to be able to rotate, ie that the tesla sphere is fixed in place both RAW and RAI?

Yes, I don't think its intended to rotate. If they had wanted it to, the model would have been designed to have rotating weapons (like with the monolith)

It's visually designed like an eyeball in an eye socket. That would actually be something challenging to mechanically design without it being something that would break pretty easily or slip around too much. Not to mention the big cost savings of simply providing a visual design.

 Akar wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Tactically, there hasn't been a real use, since it's a huge chunk of points that's sitting in reserve and probably won't even see CC until Turn 3. Getting downfield in a Hammer n Anvil deployment was also a reason to do it, but Deep Strke still DD that.

While that's true, getting turn 2 charges on foot isn't even close to guaranteed anyway, and this way you're at least likely to use your gun on T2, which is not that bad if you're using the Rod.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am curious - does anyone think that the tesla sphere is not intended to be able to rotate, ie that the tesla sphere is fixed in place both RAW and RAI?

Yes, I don't think its intended to rotate. If they had wanted it to, the model would have been designed to have rotating weapons (like with the monolith)

It's visually designed like an eyeball in an eye socket. That would actually be something challenging to mechanically design without it being something that would break pretty easily or slip around too much. Not to mention the big cost savings of simply providing a visual design.

The Monolith turret works exactly the same way (ball in socket) and they did it 10 years ago. If they wanted it to be moveable they could have done it but they chose not to.

 CrownAxe wrote:
If they wanted it to be moveable they could have done it but they chose not to.

Why would a sphere need to rotate ?

The monolith's Gauss turrets have obvious barrels that need to be pointed at something to shoot it.

Tesla Spheres do not require a barrel to function

 adamsouza wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If they wanted it to be moveable they could have done it but they chose not to.

Why would a sphere need to rotate ?

Because that is what the rules require in order to draw LoS for vehicles

It name doesn't have any effect on how the rules work. If it wasn't called a Tesla Sphere would you still insist on it not following normal vehicle LoS ruiles?