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.

So, reading up on GW's own description of the new Harlequin Star/Voidweaver kit, I came on this description of the Voidweaver:

The Voidweaver is a mobile gun platform armed with 2 shuriken cannons, one is under-slung beneath the front of the vehicle and the second is rear-facing and mounted on the platform on the top of the Voidweaver. You also have a choice of either a pintle-mounted haywire cannon or a prismatic cannon

Since the vehicle itself is pretty much identical to the Dark Eldar Venom, and the Voidweaver haywire/prismatic cannon is positioned exactly where the Venoms splinter cannon is, shouldn't the splinter cannon be considered pintle-mounted too?

Harlequins' voidreaver rule explicitely says pintle-mounted, so it is pintle-mounted.
If the DE Venom rule does not[/b] say so, it is not pintle-mounted.

Just being similar is just a curiosity, without game effects.

What difference does it make if you consider it pintle-mounted or not?

A pintlemounted gun has a 360 degree arc of fire.

GeneralCael wrote:
A pintlemounted gun has a 360 degree arc of fire.

Where is this mentioned in the rulebook?

It is at best implied under Vehicle Weapons and Line of Sight.

GeneralCael wrote:
A pintlemounted gun has a 360 degree arc of fire.

No, it doesn't.

A pintle mounted weapon, like every other vehicle weapon aside from Hull mounts and walker weapons, has an arc of fire equal to whatever the mounting is actually capable of turning through.

There is no rule that grants an automatic 360 degrees to all pintle mounts.

 Happyjew wrote:
It is at best implied under Vehicle Weapons and Line of Sight.

I tend to consider the gunner a part of the gun when determining how far a weapon can rotate. Otherwise you'd end up with a situation where you would have the Starweaver gunner standing with his feet planted firmly on the cockpit canopy, obscuring the pilot's vision (with one pilot!)

The venom gunner does not have a 360 fire arc, the gunner itself cannot actually move to turn the gun in the rear fire arc. I would say at best it has a 180 degree fire arc, but reasonably its only 90 degrees to the front.

Also given the voidweaver has a 3rd gun which is mounted close to the "pintle" mount on also a pintle mount, and you are told RAW it only fires in the rear arc...

blaktoof wrote:
The venom gunner does not have a 360 fire arc, the gunner itself cannot actually move to turn the gun in the rear fire arc. I would say at best it has a 180 degree fire arc, but reasonably its only 90 degrees to the front.

Also given the voidweaver has a 3rd gun which is mounted close to the "pintle" mount on also a pintle mount, and you are told RAW it only fires in the rear arc...

The gunner is irrelevant. The gun mount is the RaW of it.

Fragile wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The venom gunner does not have a 360 fire arc, the gunner itself cannot actually move to turn the gun in the rear fire arc. I would say at best it has a 180 degree fire arc, but reasonably its only 90 degrees to the front.

Also given the voidweaver has a 3rd gun which is mounted close to the "pintle" mount on also a pintle mount, and you are told RAW it only fires in the rear arc...

The gunner is irrelevant. The gun mount is the RaW of it.

Where do the rules say that the gunner is 'irrelevant' when determining the firing arc?

When is the gunner part of the gun

Fragile wrote:
When is the gunner part of the gun

If the model includes a guy holding the gun, why would be not be considered a part of the gun?

 insaniak wrote:

If the model includes a guy holding the gun, why would be not be considered a part of the gun?

Because, if he was part of the gun, wouldn't he be holding himself?

 vipoid wrote:
Because, if he was part of the gun, wouldn't he be holding himself?

Is a sponson holding itself?

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
When is the gunner part of the gun

If the model includes a guy holding the gun, why would be not be considered a part of the gun?

Because there is no rules support for it?

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
When is the gunner part of the gun

If the model includes a guy holding the gun, why would be not be considered a part of the gun?

Because there is no rules support for it?

Where is the rules support that a gun on a properly assembled model should be able to rotate further than it is physically able to do so because you disregard the gunner?

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Because there is no rules support for it?

Where do the rules define which parts of the vehicle count as a part of the gun assembly?


Keep in mind that vehicle crew are not separate models. They're not infantry guys that just happen to be glued to the vehicle... they're (in game terms) nothing more than components of the vehicle. So as far as the rules are concerned, the guy modelled firing the gun should be considered as much a part of the gun as, say, the control cable running into a remote sponson.

So, in following with your logic, a pintle mounted multi-melta mounted on a landraider could only be used if you actually modeled it with someone pulling the trigger as there is no control cable running to it.

On this I disagree.

Does it make sense that a gun would have a 360* firing arc if the physical model would have to climb out onto the canopy to fire it rearward, not at all. However there is nothing in the rules that say you have to assemble a model using all of the parts in the kit, and seeing as many models come with extra/optional bits it's highly unlikely this will ever be the case.

I've modeled pintle mounted weapons with both an open hatch and someone at the gun, and with the hatch buttoned up; and neither has ever affected how the weapons function during the game.

How we play it, is that a pintle mounted weapons have a 360* firing arc as long as you can draw LOS from the weapon to the target, because this is what is in the BRB pg74(picture Arc of sight 3 / Pintle-mounted Weapon and the third paragraph the same page)

Hope this helps.

bigbaboonass wrote:
So, in following with your logic, a pintle mounted multi-melta mounted on a landraider could only be used if you actually modeled it with someone pulling the trigger as there is no control cable running to it.

On this I disagree.

Good, because that wasn't the point I was making at all.

I'm glad we agree then that pintle mounted weapons don't have to have a model holding the trigger to function, and therefore if it comes down to whether a pintle mounted weapon on a voidweaver has a 360* firing arc or not, we can model our voidweavers without a gunner and assume that there is a control cable running to the gun and negate any dispute about whether the gunner is flashing the pilot while firing rearward.

 insaniak wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Because there is no rules support for it?

Where do the rules define which parts of the vehicle count as a part of the gun assembly?


Keep in mind that vehicle crew are not separate models. They're not infantry guys that just happen to be glued to the vehicle... they're (in game terms) nothing more than components of the vehicle. So as far as the rules are concerned, the guy modelled firing the gun should be considered as much a part of the gun as, say, the control cable running into a remote sponson.

The gun is not a seprate model from the vehicle either. are you implying that weapons can not move independently from vehicles regardless of mounting?

Honestly it really doesnt matter, If the crew member is part of the gun, what difference does it make? The crew member can just stand on the windshield if he wants, as the rules do not care about this. nothing says he has to be glued down.

bigbaboonass wrote:
I'm glad we agree then that pintle mounted weapons don't have to have a model holding the trigger to function, and therefore if it comes down to whether a pintle mounted weapon on a voidweaver has a 360* firing arc or not, we can model our voidweavers without a gunner and assume that there is a control cable running to the gun and negate any dispute about whether the gunner is flashing the pilot while firing rearward.

No, you've misunderstood.

I agreed that you don't need to add parts that the vehicle doesn't come with in order for it to be functional. That's a completely different issue to ignoring parts of the model just because you want to.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
The gun is not a seprate model from the vehicle either. are you implying that weapons can not move independently from vehicles regardless of mounting?

No, of course I'm not. What I'm saying is that parts of the vehicle are parts of the vehicle.

If the crew member is part of the gun, what difference does it make?

It matters because it means that the crewmember needs to be considered when determining how far the gun can move...

 insaniak wrote:

bigbaboonass wrote:
I'm glad we agree then that pintle mounted weapons don't have to have a model holding the trigger to function, and therefore if it comes down to whether a pintle mounted weapon on a voidweaver has a 360* firing arc or not, we can model our voidweavers without a gunner and assume that there is a control cable running to the gun and negate any dispute about whether the gunner is flashing the pilot while firing rearward.

No, you've misunderstood.

I agreed that you don't need to add parts that the vehicle doesn't come with in order for it to be functional. That's a completely different issue to ignoring parts of the model just because you want to.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
The gun is not a seprate model from the vehicle either. are you implying that weapons can not move independently from vehicles regardless of mounting?

No, of course I'm not. What I'm saying is that parts of the vehicle are parts of the vehicle.

If the crew member is part of the gun, what difference does it make?

It matters because it means that the crewmember needs to be considered when determining how far the gun can move...

In this case it does not matter. As above, gunner can stand anywhere and still be attached to the gun. (If he even has to be).

 insaniak wrote:

It matters because it means that the crewmember needs to be considered when determining how far the gun can move...

Perhaps you can cite something from the rulebook for this other than just your opinion.

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

Pure RAW here proves you incorrect. In no way is a gunner considered to be a mounting.

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

It matters because it means that the crewmember needs to be considered when determining how far the gun can move...

Perhaps you can cite something from the rulebook for this other than just your opinion.

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

Pure RAW here proves you incorrect. In no way is a gunner considered to be a mounting.

+1 This!!! (Which was I referenced the BRB pg74 3rd paragraph and picture, by the way.)

Your picture is an example of a specific vehicle. Its not a rule that applies to all vehicles.

Fragile wrote:
[Pure RAW here proves you incorrect. In no way is a gunner considered to be a mounting.

Sure. He's still part of the vehicle, though. And if the gun can't turn all the way around because he's in the way, then the gun can't turn around all the way.

Your still skipping half the rule posted.

So we're having another go at the ' sponsons can shoot through the tank' argument then, are we?

The other part of that rule is referring to weapons that should rotate but have been glued in place, not telling us to ignore parts of the vehicle when determining how the guns should move.