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.

They made ball-in-socket work with the Monolith and that model is much older. If it was meant to be ball-in-socket then they could have modeled it as such. Instead it only tracks up and down.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great! So we have you admitting the sphere is not the mounting. Agreed?

No the sphere moves like a track ball (if that description helps you understand how I am seeing it).

Sure. The sphere moves all it wants.

Nothing is mounted to the sphere, however.

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

Zimko wrote:
They made ball-in-socket work with the Monolith and that model is much older. If it was meant to be ball-in-socket then they could have modeled it as such. Instead it only tracks up and down.

It looks like a ball in socket. Point me in the rules to where it has to be modeled as a ball in socket and not just look like a ball in socket.

col_impact wrote:

Zimko wrote:
They made ball-in-socket work with the Monolith and that model is much older. If it was meant to be ball-in-socket then they could have modeled it as such. Instead it only tracks up and down.

It looks like a ball in socket. Point me in the rules to where it has to be modeled as a ball in socket and not just look like a ball in socket.

It was quoted here before. If the weapon can move then you use the barrel for line of sight. If it doesn't move in a horizontal or vertical direction then you assume 45 degree fire arc. The Obelisk's weapons do not move horizontally no matter how you model it.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Zimko wrote:
They made ball-in-socket work with the Monolith and that model is much older. If it was meant to be ball-in-socket then they could have modeled it as such. Instead it only tracks up and down.

It looks like a ball in socket. Point me in the rules to where it has to be modeled as a ball in socket and not just look like a ball in socket.

It was quoted here before. If the weapon can move then you use the barrel for line of sight. If it doesn't move in a horizontal or vertical direction then you assume 45 degree fire arc. The Obelisk's weapons do not move horizontally no matter how you model it.

Feel free to find and re-quote.

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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

The very first post of this thread.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.

It's still exposed and thus is a factual part of the model. The inside of the tesla sphere is conclave and thus is not modeled as a sphere

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.

It's still exposed and thus is a factual part of the model. The inside of the tesla sphere is conclave and thus is not modeled as a sphere

You got rules for that statement? I see a sphere that the rules is calling a sphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:

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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

The very first post of this thread.

Explain how that rule backs what you are saying. The gun is a tesla sphere and it assumed that it can freely rotate on its mountings. In fact the only definitive rules thing we have is that the gun itself is called a "tesla sphere" so point to the thing on the model that is the "tesla sphere" and then assume it freely rotates.

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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Can you swivel the barrel horizontally on the model?
No
So it tells us to assume it can swivel on it's mounting.

What is the barrel mounted on?
A single track that goes vertically.

Great so we have vertical Line of Sight covered. How about horizontally?

The track doesn't appear to move horizontally... so no matter what it's called, the physical weapon can't pivot horizontally no matter how you model it. Therefore you use 45 degree firing arc from the barrel.

Zimko wrote:

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 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Can you swivel the barrel horizontally on the model?
No
So it tells us to assume it can swivel on it's mounting.

What is the barrel mounted on?
A single track that goes vertically.

Great so we have vertical Line of Sight covered. How about horizontally?

The track doesn't appear to move horizontally... so no matter what it's called, the physical weapon can't pivot horizontally no matter how you model it. Therefore you use 45 degree firing arc from the barrel.

The gun itself is called a Tesla Sphere. Point to the thing that is the Tesla Sphere. I am pointing to the thing that looks like a sphere. I freely rotate that in its mounting.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.

It's still exposed and thus is a factual part of the model. The inside of the tesla sphere is conclave and thus is not modeled as a sphere

You got rules for that statement? I see a sphere that the rules is calling a sphere.

It is physically not a sphere. It model is literally not a sphere. You are objectively wrong it claiming you see a sphere

I know you are rules lawyer trying to get every advantage possbile for your necron army but seriously this is ridiculous.

The thing that has a dome shape (like sphere) with a single vertical track and a barreled weapon on it.

Zimko wrote:
The thing that has a dome shape (like sphere) with a single vertical track and a barreled weapon on it.

I freely rotate the sphere per the rules. The gun is the "tesla sphere"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Are you seriously expecting a miniature to be anatomically correct internally? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous here. It looks like a sphere.

You do realize the Obelisk also makes the Tesseract Vault which opens up so that you can see the internal side of the vehicle.

Guess what? The tesseract vault also has 4 telsa spheres.

I own these models. Its a hidden angle. It's modeled to look like a sphere.

It's still exposed and thus is a factual part of the model. The inside of the tesla sphere is conclave and thus is not modeled as a sphere

You got rules for that statement? I see a sphere that the rules is calling a sphere.

It is physically not a sphere. It model is literally not a sphere. You are objectively wrong it claiming you see a sphere

I know you are rules lawyer trying to get every advantage possbile for your necron army but seriously this is ridiculous.

Its very clear on that model what thing looks like a sphere. Do you see something else that looks like a sphere?

col_impact wrote:

Zimko wrote:
The thing that has a dome shape (like sphere) with a single vertical track and a barreled weapon on it.

I freely rotate the sphere per the rules.

Can you glue the model together in such a way where the barrel is mounted on a different part of that sphere? The vertical track is stuck in place.

Zimko wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Zimko wrote:
The thing that has a dome shape (like sphere) with a single vertical track and a barreled weapon on it.

I freely rotate the sphere per the rules.

Can you glue the model together in such a way where the barrel is mounted on a different part of that sphere? The vertical track is stuck in place.

The gun is the tesla sphere. Per the rules I freely rotate that.

This is going nowhere.

If in doubt, discuss it with your opponent.