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.

konst80hummel wrote:
Well it could be argued that it is coming from the intended target point.

No it can't. Shooting is always determined from the firing unit's PoV (unless specified like barrage).

So where does that leave us concerning blasts scattering back to your self?

I think RaW, you'd trace a line from the barrel to the destination and hit the first side it crosses.

Elsewhere people have been running down the demolisher. I'm curious as to why this is. It can deal with hordes, heavy armor, and heavy infantry with equal ease. Sure it's pricy at 170, but it's still cheaper than a sponson'd up executioner which gets hot and can't deal with AV 14.

Is it just the range, or is cover a problem too?

Does the plasmacutioner get better with the inclusion of prescience and/or Kurov's Aquila?

If you were taking a tank commander, what would his russ be and what would his squadron mates run? Same tank or different? Similar roles or opposite ones?

Does the vanquisher have a place or is it up to the infantry to deal with armor?

Do you want to push up or hang back? Do some variants do one or the other better, and are there variants that can do both just fine?

Are there any variants that can cope with d-weapon knight/bike spam eldar?

170 points for a single S10 AP1 Pie plate with a 24'' range that can only move 6 every turn is the opposite of points efficient.

With that single pie plate you can easily:
Scatter off target
Fail to wound
Fail to penetrate armor

It is generally accepted that the more dice you can roll in the game the better off you are. That is why mid-strength weapons with multiple shots in the 3-6 range and haywire weapons are favored. They simply produce better results than a single shot high strength weapon in all categories.

konst80hummel wrote:
Well it could be argued that it is coming from the intended target point.

I'm aware that 40k is not a physics simulation, but blast scatter is bad aiming, not shells bouncing back.

Zsolt wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
Well it could be argued that it is coming from the intended target point.

I'm aware that 40k is not a physics simulation, but blast scatter is bad aiming, not shells bouncing back.

So how do you badly aim such that the shell travels out the back of the turret and then explodes on the engine deck?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zsolt wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
Well it could be argued that it is coming from the intended target point.

I'm aware that 40k is not a physics simulation, but blast scatter is bad aiming, not shells bouncing back.

So how do you badly aim such that the shell travels out the back of the turret and then explodes on the engine deck?

The shell jammed and exploded inside the barrel. The abstraction of the game doesn't have to be taken literally.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zsolt wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
Well it could be argued that it is coming from the intended target point.

I'm aware that 40k is not a physics simulation, but blast scatter is bad aiming, not shells bouncing back.

So how do you badly aim such that the shell travels out the back of the turret and then explodes on the engine deck?

The shell jammed and exploded inside the barrel. The abstraction of the game doesn't have to be taken literally.

So what armor facing does a shell exploding inside the barrel hit? Is there an armor facing for the breech?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zsolt wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
Well it could be argued that it is coming from the intended target point.

I'm aware that 40k is not a physics simulation, but blast scatter is bad aiming, not shells bouncing back.

So how do you badly aim such that the shell travels out the back of the turret and then explodes on the engine deck?

The shell jammed and exploded inside the barrel. The abstraction of the game doesn't have to be taken literally.

So what armor facing does a shell exploding inside the barrel hit? Is there an armor facing for the breech?

Which ever facing the barrel was in when it fired.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zsolt wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
Well it could be argued that it is coming from the intended target point.

I'm aware that 40k is not a physics simulation, but blast scatter is bad aiming, not shells bouncing back.

So how do you badly aim such that the shell travels out the back of the turret and then explodes on the engine deck?

The shell jammed and exploded inside the barrel. The abstraction of the game doesn't have to be taken literally.

So what armor facing does a shell exploding inside the barrel hit? Is there an armor facing for the breech?

Which ever facing the barrel was in when it fired.

Which part of the barrel? The breech? The tip? The breech is over the center of the tank, so wohoo, I guess the 'center facing' and on things like Vanquishers, the tip is so far away from the tank that centering a blast over it wouldn't hit the tank.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Which part of the barrel? The breech? The tip? The breech is over the center of the tank, so wohoo, I guess the 'center facing' and on things like Vanquishers, the tip is so far away from the tank that centering a blast over it wouldn't hit the tank.

Why are you trying to take this so literally? There is no rules for doing so. There are no actual rules for a shell exploding in the barrel. When I said that i was giving a fluff explanation for how a blast could hit the tank that fired it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Zsolt wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
Well it could be argued that it is coming from the intended target point.

I'm aware that 40k is not a physics simulation, but blast scatter is bad aiming, not shells bouncing back.

So how do you badly aim such that the shell travels out the back of the turret and then explodes on the engine deck?

That's where the "not a simulation" part kicks in. Same with demolition charge, which has 8" (or so, can't remember) range, and scatters 12". It's clearly bs.

I'd say the point where the shot started is the muzzle, LR's main cannon and hull weapon hits on the front armor, sponson on the side.

It clearly can't be the muzzle, because there are clearly places where that rule doesn't work either.

What about a Demolisher firing backwards? The muzzle isn't obviously over any particular facing. If anything it's more centrally located than it was before.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It clearly can't be the muzzle, because there are clearly places where that rule doesn't work either.

Why is that? Please explain

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It clearly can't be the muzzle, because there are clearly places where that rule doesn't work either.

What about a Demolisher firing backwards? The muzzle isn't obviously over any particular facing. If anything it's more centrally located than it was before.

It missfires so much, that the turret turns backwards. Use your imagination. Btw it's in the rules, that for blast weapons you check the facing from where the shot is fired (look up BRB for exact wording). On vehicles you check stuff like this from weapon, along the line of the barrel. I think we can agree that a projectile exits the barrel at the muzzle, so that's a really good candidate to check for firing points.

And stop trolling unless you have something useful to say.