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.

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

I have not quoted the squadrons rule.
I have been quoting "Own Unit" in Line of Sight from General Principles. While there are also the squadron rules, we are not told to discount the more general rule and they do not conflict.

We are told that even single models count as a unit.

A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.

So can you please show how the vehicle is not a member of its own unit.

Yes, you have quoted rules that do not apply Vehicles have their own rules for determining line of sight. You're either trying to use the rules for infantry or the rules for vehicle squadrons, neither of which apply to this case.

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, you have quoted rules that do not apply Vehicles have their own rules for determining line of sight. You're either trying to use the rules for infantry or the rules for vehicle squadrons, neither of which apply to this case.

The rules are found under General Principles which cover measurement, line of sight, owning player, opposing player, controlling player, leadership tests, scatter, blast markers, ect.
These are rules that apply to all models and units which try and use said rules unless specifically stated otherwise.

Please better explain your argument or use a different argument to discount mine.

 insaniak wrote:
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.

OOOH, okay, sorry I didn't know that GW appointed you as the judge for that. Alright, well in that case, that's GREAT news!

That means that nobody can trace line of sight to any of my warp spiders, since the warp spiders are attached to their gun models! If a model attached to the gun model counts as the gun, then the entire warp spider is a gun! You can't trace line of sight to weapons, so they just got a LOT better.

Bojazz wrote:

OOOH, okay, sorry I didn't know that GW appointed you as the judge for that. Alright, well in that case, that's GREAT news!

What on earth are you talking about?

My opinion is my opinion. You're free to disagree... Nowhere have I claimed that my opinion was in any way any more 'correct' than anyone else's.

That means that nobody can trace line of sight to any of my warp spiders, since the warp spiders are attached to their gun models! If a model attached to the gun model counts as the gun, then the entire warp spider is a gun! You can't trace line of sight to weapons, so they just got a LOT better.

Let me know how that works out for you.

You're absolutely right, I was WAY more sarcastic than I needed to be. It's been a long day I suppose. Anywho, It'll likely turn out about as good for me as telling a dark eldar player his pintle mounted gun can't shoot 360 degrees because I consider a person holding the gun to count as part of the gun. As in, I'll most likely get laughed at.

OK, so now that's out of the way - have a look at the model, and explain how the gunner is going to fire that gun towards the rear of the Voidweaver.

Being a pintle-mount doesn't automatically mean 360 degree arc.

I'm not saying being a pintle mount automatically gives 360 degrees of movement, I'm saying the rule on p74 says if the way the model is assembled would prevent the gun from rotating, then you should assume the weapon is free to rotate on it's mounting. If the gun were free to swivel on it's mounting it would have a 360 degree arc of fire. I've never even heard of it being it played any way other than a 360 degree firing arc until this thread. looking at the venom sprue, the gunner is a separate piece from the gun itself, so there's no reason to conclude that the gunner is a part of the gun. I'd feel like quite the TFG if I tried to tell a dark eldar player he couldn't shoot me because of the way he assembled his venom.

Bojazz wrote:
I'm not saying being a pintle mount automatically gives 360 degrees of movement, I'm saying the rule on p74 says if the way the model is assembled would prevent the gun from rotating, then you should assume the weapon is free to rotate on it's mounting. If the gun were free to swivel on it's mounting it would have a 360 degree arc of fire.

Except it wouldn't, because it has a gunner hanging off the back of it.

. I'd feel like quite the TFG if I tried to tell a dark eldar player he couldn't shoot me because of the way he assembled his venom.

Would you feel equally 'TFG' for insisting that a Guard player can't shoot directly backwards with his Leman Russ sponsons?

This isn't an issue of a player gluing something in place that should move. It's an issue of model design. Leman Russ sponsons aren't designed to face backwards... and so they can't shoot backwards. Same thing here... it's not an assembly issue that stops the weapon from firing backwards, it's the design of the vehicle. Which is exactly what is supposed to define the fire arc.

Bojazz wrote:
I'm not saying being a pintle mount automatically gives 360 degrees of movement, I'm saying the rule on p74 says if the way the model is assembled would prevent the gun from rotating, then you should assume the weapon is free to rotate on it's mounting. If the gun were free to swivel on it's mounting it would have a 360 degree arc of fire. I've never even heard of it being it played any way other than a 360 degree firing arc until this thread. looking at the venom sprue, the gunner is a separate piece from the gun itself, so there's no reason to conclude that the gunner is a part of the gun. I'd feel like quite the TFG if I tried to tell a dark eldar player he couldn't shoot me because of the way he assembled his venom.

So let's assume the gun can swivel freely.
Are you also assuming the gunner isn't there? Because I'd bet money the gun can't swivel through the gunner.
If you can figure out a way to make that happen you'll be rich.

rigeld2 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
I'm not saying being a pintle mount automatically gives 360 degrees of movement, I'm saying the rule on p74 says if the way the model is assembled would prevent the gun from rotating, then you should assume the weapon is free to rotate on it's mounting. If the gun were free to swivel on it's mounting it would have a 360 degree arc of fire. I've never even heard of it being it played any way other than a 360 degree firing arc until this thread. looking at the venom sprue, the gunner is a separate piece from the gun itself, so there's no reason to conclude that the gunner is a part of the gun. I'd feel like quite the TFG if I tried to tell a dark eldar player he couldn't shoot me because of the way he assembled his venom.

So let's assume the gun can swivel freely.
Are you also assuming the gunner isn't there? Because I'd bet money the gun can't swivel through the gunner.
If you can figure out a way to make that happen you'll be rich.

Make it so the magnetic fields of the gun and gunner are out of phase so they don't interact with each other and their atoms can pass in between each others without causing damage?

Can the gunner not just jump round and stand on the windscreen?

 vipoid wrote:
Can the gunner not just jump round and stand on the windscreen?

Not if he doesn't want to get nut-punched by the pilot.

 insaniak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Can the gunner not just jump round and stand on the windscreen?

Not if he doesn't want to get nut-punched by the pilot.

Don't make fun of harlequins customs, the windshield nut-punch is a badge of honor.

 insaniak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Can the gunner not just jump round and stand on the windscreen?

Not if he doesn't want to get nut-punched by the pilot.

Meh, spray the windscreen black and say that the pilot is controlling the craft through a series of external cameras and holographic displays.

(This has the added bonus that you don't have to spend time painting the pilot. )

I am pretty sure the super agile, flip belt assisted, dancing elves could easily pull a neo and fire the gun while spinning through the air if need be. No nut punch required.

Edit* Necroed thread.

Properly modeled, the firing arcs on the Voidweaver's Haywire/Prismatic Cannon and aft firing Shuriken Cannon would not overlap. Therefore there is an advantage to giving the Haywire/Prismatic Cannon a 360 degree arc.

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

This is not true.

a pintle mounted gun on a copula has a 360 degree arc of fire, as shown by a rhinos stormbolters but many guns with pintle mounts do not rorate 360 in real life, and in the game. Adittionally there is no rule stating pintle mount = 360 degree fire arc all the time.