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.

 insaniak wrote:
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.

Can you tell me why the gunner couldn't just stand on the windshield?

For the same reason you can't mount the Land Raider sponsons on the assault ramp?

I'm confused here. If the argument is that the gunner is part of the gun because (s)he is part of the vehicle model and is attached to the gun and so (s)he restricts the gun's arc of movement, then why draw the line there? Why not say the entire vehicle is part of the gun? The exact same logic applies. It's part of the model, and is all attached to the gun. Why can't I just rotate the entire model to face the gun whatever direction I want? After all, it's all attached to the gun, so it must be part of the gun, too.

How do you draw the line between what is/is not the gun and mounting?

 insaniak wrote:

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.

How far then? 315 degree? How much does the gunner substract from the full circle?

The gunner shouldn't subtract from the circle at all. P74 says that if the way the model is assembled would prevent the weapon from pointing to the target, then you should assume that the guns are free to swivel on their mountings. If the gun were free to swivel on it's mounting, it would be able to rotate 360 degrees. A mounting is a support or installment meant to provide stability for a weapon. A mounting's entire purpose is so that the weapon doesn't need to be held, so saying that a gunner is a mounting makes no sense.

Exact quote from Voidweaver rules:

Aft weapon: Whenever a Voidweaver shoots, the the shuriken cannon mounted on its aft can shoot at a different target to the Voidweavers's other weapons. The shuriken cannon mounted on the Voidweaver's aft can only target units that are in the Voidweaver's rear armour facing.

/thread

DaPino wrote:
Exact quote from Voidweaver rules:

Aft weapon: Whenever a Voidweaver shoots, the the shuriken cannon mounted on its aft can shoot at a different target to the Voidweavers's other weapons. The shuriken cannon mounted on the Voidweaver's aft can only target units that are in the Voidweaver's rear armour facing.

/thread

You didn't really read any of the posts, did you?

GeneralCael wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Exact quote from Voidweaver rules:

Aft weapon: Whenever a Voidweaver shoots, the the shuriken cannon mounted on its aft can shoot at a different target to the Voidweavers's other weapons. The shuriken cannon mounted on the Voidweaver's aft can only target units that are in the Voidweaver's rear armour facing.

/thread

You didn't really read any of the posts, did you?

Nope, I had a quick skim and saw people arguing about 360° and 315° and 90°, so I assumed people were still going on about what the fire arc should be on the rear gun.

Now that I've read through it completely, I see it's about the other gun. In which case I say that the gun should have a 360°.
There's no RAW exception on 'Pintle mounted guns with gunners'. The only thing that is RAW is that pintle-mounted guns have a 360° fire arc.

Sometimes gameplay simplicity is more important than modelling/fluff.

DaPino wrote:
The only thing that is RAW is that pintle-mounted guns have a 360° fire arc.

That's not RAW.

As has also been discussed in this thread already.

From the vehicle Line of Sight description in the rulebook:

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.

If you assemble the Venom with the gunner attached it will be impossible to point it at the target, hence we should assume it is free to rotate. Problem solved.

Bojazz wrote:
I'm confused here. If the argument is that the gunner is part of the gun because (s)he is part of the vehicle model...

That's not the argument.

The argument is that the gunner is a part of the gun. They are also a part of the vehicle.

Two separate statements.

Bojazz wrote:
..Why not say the entire vehicle is part of the gun?

Because it's not...?

The argument is that the gunner is a part of the gun. They are also a part of the vehicle.

This is a dumb argument, it clearly isn't. If I didn't model a gunner on my tank would it rotate 360 due to the pintel weapon rule - yes

So why does this change if I chose to put a gunner model on my tank to make it look cool - it doesn't

The gun is a gun, the gunner is an optional extra that you can choose to ignore and does not affect any rules if modelled on the vehicle.

Bojazz wrote:
..Why not say the entire vehicle is part of the gun?

Because it's not...? .............................neither is the fething gunner following your own logic. Are you trolling on purpose?

It would be a bit weird if adding a gunner reduced the firing arc of the gun.

badkamer1 wrote:From the vehicle Line of Sight description in the rulebook:

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.

If you assemble the Venom with the gunner attached it will be impossible to point it at the target, hence we should assume it is free to rotate. Problem solved.

"Free to rotate" does not mean "can rotate through things that are physically stopping it from moving". Your assertion is incorrect.

Gapow wrote:The argument is that the gunner is a part of the gun.

No, it's not.

"The argument is that the gunner is a part of the gun."

@rigeld2, just want to point out I was quoting from previous person and totally agree with you on that point. - couldn't get the quotation bit to work on my phone

For what it is worth the 'pintle' mounting shown in the BRB has a 360 degree fire arc because its on a copula which has 360 degrees of rotation with the gunner inside it. It has a 360 degrees of fire arc because it has 360 degrees it can rotate.

A normal pintle mount is a fixed mount that allows a gun to elevate or traverse based on where it is positioned and does not always allow a 360 degree fire arc. For example helicopters sometimes had light machineguns fitted in a pintle mount inside the helicopter, it could aim up and down and left and right but was not a 360 degree fire arc because the gunner would shoot the pilot, passengers, the helicopter, and would be hanging outside in the air in many of the arcs of 360 degrees. These did not have a copula, just like a venom does not have a copula.

if anyone wants to say reality has no bearing on a miniatures game, while generally true, we are told to use the real firing arc the model could have if the turrets/sponsons would really move. so reality does have some bearing here.

blaktoof wrote:
For what it is worth the 'pintle' mounting shown in the BRB has a 360 degree fire arc because its on a copula which has 360 degrees of rotation with the gunner inside it. It has a 360 degrees of fire arc because it has 360 degrees it can rotate.

A normal pintle mount is a fixed mount that allows a gun to elevate or traverse based on where it is positioned and does not always allow a 360 degree fire arc. For example helicopters sometimes had light machineguns fitted in a pintle mount inside the helicopter, it could aim up and down and left and right but was not a 360 degree fire arc because the gunner would shoot the pilot, passengers, the helicopter, and would be hanging outside in the air in many of the arcs of 360 degrees. These did not have a copula, just like a venom does not have a copula.

if anyone wants to say reality has no bearing on a miniatures game, while generally true, we are told to use the real firing arc the model could have if the turrets/sponsons would really move. so reality does have some bearing here.

And yet a Humvee with a pintle mount 50 cal can shoot 360 even if I am standing behind it firing it. Real life examples dont work.

 insaniak wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
..Why not say the entire vehicle is part of the gun?

Because it's not...?

Why not? Why can the gunner be part of the gun, but not the vehicle? They're both attached, they're both part of the vehicle model. How do you draw the line on that? What lets you pick?

Gapow wrote:
This is a dumb argument, it clearly isn't. If I didn't model a gunner on my tank would it rotate 360 due to the pintel weapon rule - yes

Sure. And if you leave bits off the Leman Russ, you get an increased fire arc on the sponsons. Not sure what your point is here.

So why does this change if I chose to put a gunner model on my tank to make it look cool - it doesn't

The gunner on the Voidweaver is not an optional extra. It's a part of the kit.

The gunner on a rhino is an optional extra... but makes no difference to the fire arc of the weapon, as it rotates around him.

Are you trolling on purpose?

Accusing people of trolling because you disagree with their point of view is not conducive to productive conversation. I would recommend you avoid doing that in future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bojazz wrote:
Why not? Why can the gunner be part of the gun, but not the vehicle? They're both attached, they're both part of the vehicle model. How do you draw the line on that?

I look at the model, and judge that the parts of the model that are a part of the gun assembly are a part of the gun assembly, and the parts that aren't, aren't.

The guy standing behind the gun firing it is a part of the model's weapon assembly. So when determining how far the gun can pivot, he should be taken into account. Meaning the gun should only be able to pivot as far as the guy holding it can actually rotate it.

 insaniak wrote:


The guy standing behind the gun firing it is a part of the model's weapon assembly. So when determining how far the gun can pivot, he should be taken into account. Meaning the gun should only be able to pivot as far as the guy holding it can actually rotate it.

Which is 360

Not if the gunner prevents the gun from rotating 360 degrees.

If he stands on the pilot's head, sure.

I would be going with more like a 180 degree arc to the vehicle's front, personally. Any more than that is getting a little silly.

It is interesting in the LoS diagrams for Pintle-mount and Turret-mount that they show the LoS going through the tanks if isn't inside the barrel's arc, letting it shoot things that should be out of LoS.

I also can't find the rule that a vehicle can block the LoS of its own guns. It looks like it is suggested with the Sponson-mount diagram, however, there is nothing directly written about it.

 Nilok wrote:
It is interesting in the LoS diagrams for Pintle-mount and Turret-mount that they show the LoS going through the tanks if isn't inside the barrel's arc, letting it shoot things that should be out of LoS.
.

Not sure what you mean here. LOS from a turret goes over the top of the vehicle, not through it.

 Nilok wrote:
I also can't find the rule that a vehicle can block the LoS of its own guns.

From 'Vehicle 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 model.

There is no exception listed for vehicles as there is for infantry when it comes to line of sight with the exception of squadrons. A vehicle can be an 'intervening model' for its own weapons and thus block line of sight.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
It is interesting in the LoS diagrams for Pintle-mount and Turret-mount that they show the LoS going through the tanks if isn't inside the barrel's arc, letting it shoot things that should be out of LoS.
.

Not sure what you mean here. LOS from a turret goes over the top of the vehicle, not through it.

Assuming that is true it should have blind spots around it's base especially at the back.

The problem is there is I can't find any rule to support that a vehicle does block it's own LoS.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
I also can't find the rule that a vehicle can block the LoS of its own guns.

From 'Vehicle 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 model.

There is no exception listed for vehicles as there is for infantry when it comes to line of sight with the exception of squadrons. A vehicle can be an 'intervening model' for its own weapons and thus block line of sight.

Just to complete the argument for devil's advocate;
You say for squadrons, however it just says members of its own unit. Would the model of the vehicles not be a member of it's own unit?

Firing models can always draw line of sight through member of their own unit as if they were not there.

Where does it say that it doesn't block its own line of sight? A single vehicle is not a Squadron.

 Nilok wrote:

Assuming that is true it should have blind spots around it's base especially at the back.

Sure, against short targets. Taller targets won't have that problem.

Bit hard to show that in a top-down diagram, though.

The problem is there is I can't find any rule to support that a vehicle does block it's own LoS.

The requirement to trace LOS down the weapon's barrel for the most part makes it irrelevant. There are very few weapons that can be pointed at the vehicle's own hull.

 Ghaz wrote:
Where does it say that it doesn't block its own line of sight? A single vehicle is not a Squadron.

Please show how the vehicle is not a member of its own unit and why the rule doesn't say other members of its own unit instead.

Please show why you're using the Squadron rules for a model that is not a part of a squadron.