5th ed Space Marines - Rhino w/Storm Bolter?

[D6Veteran]

I was looking over a copy of the new SM codex and it says that the Rhino comes with a Storm Bolter, but another entry says you can buy one for x points. Anyone else seen this?

[dragonlady]

Thats been a standard entry for Rhinos since at least 2nd edition.

 

One comes standard and you can buy a second one.

 

That is one of the reasons why the older rhino chassis provided two guns to place on the lids of its hatches.

 

I know that I've always upgraded my rhinos to a second gun for years now.

 

Ok, weapon removed result: aha, I still have a gun on board to shoot your butt with.

[D6Veteran]

I just checked my older SM codex - you're right. HA! Never noticed that before as a Tau player.

[WarpSpawn]

If I may be permitted to change the subject a little, what it the fire arc of these weapons?

 

Short of an explicit statement in a codex to the contrary, the BRB seems to indicate they are pintle mouted on the hull, giving a 45 degree arc to the front. This does admittedly appear pretty clear, it's just that they have traditionally been 360 so I may just be suffering from previous edition hangover.

 

Any comments?

[nighthawks]

well, the vindicator also has, standard, "a sorm bolter" and both may purchase "a storm bolter".

 

big difference between 4th and 5th eds seems to be the loss of 4th's explicit "pintle mounted" language for the upgrade SB, where the 5th ed wargear section states that there is a pintle mounted SB, but no statement of just an SB.

 

as for arc of fire: in the old days, the basic equipment measured 360° from the hull, propper pintle mounts have full rotation, as well. This is all supported in the DA FAQ, where the arc for the pintle and standard SBs is indicated as 360°. understood that the DA FAQ does not affect the C:SM equipment, but the support of the concept is relevant.

 

the next question is wether the "standard" SB counts as pintle-mounted, as that would give it AA capabilities in Apoc...

[King_Pash]

The SB upgrade to the SM vehicles are pintle mounted; hence, 360 rotation.

[WarpSpawn]

Except it's not so much whether it's pintle mounted or not that is the issue. It's more what the pintle mount is itself mounted on.

 

A pintle mount in 5th edition, unless specified otherwise, has a fire arc appropriate to what the pintle is mounted on. Page 59 tells us a pintle mounted weapon attached to a turret has a 360 arc, whereas one attached to the hull has a 45 degree arc.

 

Now, unless the codex states otherwise, it is hard to view the pintle mount on a rhino as being anything other than hull mounted, hence the suspected 45 degree arc.

 

The DA FAQ may provide some evidence intent is for 360, though I'm sure DA players would like 3+ shooting and CC saves for their storm shields as well, which i don't think is gonna happen this side of a new codex for them.

 

Basically, I'm looking for some evidence it is still the traditional 360 arc in the new marine book, otherwise I can only assume page 59's arc for hull mounted pintles applies.

[Shiodome]

pintle-mounted (or bolt on) weapons can either fire in a 360 arc, if they are mounted on the vehicles turret; or can fire in a 45 degree arc from their mounting point if they are mounted on the vehicles hull

- pg59

 

doesn't seem ambiguous at all. both standard rhino stormbolter, and additional pintle mounted option storm bolter have a 45 degree fire arc from the hull.

[WarpSpawn]

That's pretty much what I figured.

 

As I said, just 4th edition hangover. Judging by other's comments here and elsewhere, I'm not the only one.

[Mordekiem]

pintle-mounted (or bolt on) weapons can either fire in a 360 arc, if they are mounted on the vehicles turret; or can fire in a 45 degree arc from their mounting point if they are mounted on the vehicles hull

- pg59

 

doesn't seem ambiguous at all. both standard rhino stormbolter, and additional pintle mounted option storm bolter have a 45 degree fire arc from the hull.

Except the model allows you to mount the stormbolter on the cupola and it would be a turret. You can also mount it in a fixed position. So I'd say it'd depend alot on how you mount it and which mount you use.

 

Most codexes don't indicate where vehicle weapons are located. Occasionally you will see a reference, but they are inconsistant at best. The rulebook seems to imply that you use the actual model. For models that can mount weapons in different areas or by different types of mounts you have to use the actual model. For most models this is pretty clear, but the rhino can be ambigous.

 

Unfortunately the new codex could have cleared it up quickly and easily by saying it was hull mounted or turret mounted but GW choose not to.

[Shiodome]

you're pretty much clutching at straws if you think the cupola counts as a turret. stick a razor back, a whirlwind, a predator, a vindicator, and a rhino with 'cuppola' on a table and ask anyone to point out the ones with turrets, and everyone will pick 3 out of the 5, and it's obvious which ones. common sense is the only way we know what is and isn't a turret, doesn't seem to say anywhere in the predator entry that the autocannon is on a turret, but i've never had issues using it as a turret because it clearly is a turret. maybe the scribes writing down the rulesets should have less faith in the common sense and fairness of their customers, and everything should be lengethened to accomadate rules and descriptions laid down in legal precision with no room for misinterpretation. but currently they expect the players to on occasion be sensible and reasonable, and i'm fine with that.

[WarpSpawn]

Key question though is can you mount it on a turret?

[Mordekiem]

you're pretty much clutching at straws if you think the cupola counts as a turret. stick a razor back, a whirlwind, a predator, a vindicator, and a rhino with 'cuppola' on a table and ask anyone to point out the ones with turrets, and everyone will pick 3 out of the 5, and it's obvious which ones. common sense is the only way we know what is and isn't a turret, doesn't seem to say anywhere in the predator entry that the autocannon is on a turret, but i've never had issues using it as a turret because it clearly is a turret. maybe the scribes writing down the rulesets should have less faith in the common sense and fairness of their customers, and everything should be lengethened to accomadate rules and descriptions laid down in legal precision with no room for misinterpretation. but currently they expect the players to on occasion be sensible and reasonable, and i'm fine with that.

Realistically, common sense would tell me a cupola of that style can swing around 360 degrees. Look at modern day tanks. They have the exact same style and they can turn and fire.

 

So if it is modeled that it can reasonably turn and fire in a 360 degree arc then I am good with it being a turret. There is no real definition of what a turret is. For example it is pretty obvious on the predator, but what about the wave serpent? The weapon up top looks and acts alot like a turret, but what about the weapon underneath? It is modeled to rotate 360 so I'd call it a turret as well.

 

For an example, here is a modern tank with very nearly the exact same syle of cupola that is included with all SM tanks. I am nearly 100% sure that the .50 cal on top has a 360 firing arc.

 

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s118/Mordekiem/tank.jpg

[Captain Donahaigh]

take a look at the M114 here, the weapon mount looks nearly identical to the Rhino's, and rotates 360 deg. If i have to call it a "turret" for the sake of rules, then so be it, it's a "turret".

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u269/ghulshagg/m114.jpg

[WarpSpawn]

I was going to dismiss these last two as assuming things not defined by RAW but instead, I'm going to admit you may have a point.

 

This is from Wikipedia, so add salt to taste.

 

Turret

 

A small turret, or sub-turret on a larger one, is called a cupola.

 

So yes, I guess a cupola could be described as a turret. It is not clear if RAW agrees with you but plain english certainly can.

[Mordekiem]

I was going to dismiss these last two as assuming things not defined by RAW but instead, I'm going to admit you may have a point.

 

This is from Wikipedia, so add salt to taste.

 

Turret

 

A small turret, or sub-turret on a larger one, is called a cupola.

 

So yes, I guess a cupola could be described as a turret. It is not clear if RAW agrees with you but plain english certainly can.

That is exactly the problem. The BRB does not define what a turet is. Ideally the vehicle entry would define how each weapon is mounted. With that not happening for a great number of vehicles then we have to decide for ourselves. IMO the best thing to go by is the model itself.

 

In the end a turret mounted storm bolter or even two on a rhino is not going to make or brake a game. So I will happily let people shoot it in a 360 arc.

[nighthawks]

I am inclined to agree with Mord and company on this one. "hull mounted / Bolt on" weaponry is best described by the lasguns on the Chimera, or the front hull weapon (HB) on the Leman Russ. pintle mounts are often for 360° anti-personnel fire on large tanks. there is the definition of cupola presented by WarpSpawn.

 

So it seems at least VERY plausibly that the "pintle mounted" SBs are 360°, and that all optional C:SM armoury upgraded SBs are pintle mounted for lack of another presented definition.

 

The mounts of the standard (not inidcated to a mount) SBs of the Rhino and Vindicator are, I suppose, fully up for debate.

[nurglespuss]

Just a quick comment on the old rhino's armament: those were two single bolters (counting as twin linked) not two storm bolters :>

[WarpSpawn]

I think you guys are still missing the point a little about pintles though.

 

Being on a pintle alone does not define it's arc of fire, you have to demonstrate that the pintle mount is on a "turret" to claim 360 degrees, otherwise it's 45. The rules already have an entry for hull mounted weapons, so the Chimera's lasguns, etc, are already taken care of, without even looking at the pintle rules.

 

Now, I'm not entirely sure that saying "it's kind of a turret" is sufficient or not but it certainly seems like a possibility because, as you said, "turret" is not clearly defined.

[nighthawks]

I think I very much get it... the distinction between hull mounted and turret mounted is what the BRB calls out for determining 45 vs 360 arc. you seem to agree.

 

so what defines a turret? the languge in the book states mounted on "the vehicle's turret" IIR, and that would suggest that the mount, when placed upon the vehicles standard turret (pred.) is a pintle, otherwise it is a "bolt on" or "hull mount". BUT a pintle mount, as modeled, is commonly understood to have a 360° arc - even if said arc might pass through other parts of the vehicle. See Indiana Jone and the Last Crusade for examples of how this can be a problem...

 

Traditionally, and in other sources (C:DA, for example), a pintle is a 360° mount. yes, we all understand that this is not relevant, except when it is, like in the absense of clearer info.

 

so then this comes down to "is the pintle mount a turret" and "what is the mount of the standard equipment SB for the vindi and rhino?"

 

I say "yes" to one and "I don't know" to the other, as it is not indicated nor clearly modeled. (though they are often shown as mounted to the top of a hatch cover, I could see arguments both ways on that)

[WarpSpawn]

Right, but a pintle mount is not a turret. A pintle mount is not automatically entitled to a 360 degree arc. A pintle mount only gets a 360 arc if you can deomonstrate it is attached to something that counts as a turret. It cannot in any way be described as a turret in itself.

 

So then, can we call a cupola a turret? If yes, and the pintle mount is clearly attached to something that can be defined as a cupola, then yes, you get your 360 degree arc. If no to either of these points, it is a 45 degree arc, regardless of what they may historically have had and regardless of how it may move on the model. Obviously, individual codices may have the right to over-rule this but a DA FAQ does not make it standard for all.

 

Pintle mounts have an explicitly stated fire arc depending on what structure they are mounted on. They do not have a subjective, model based, LoS to weapon mount rule. There is no ambiguity in this part. The only ambiguity I see is based around what you can get away with calling a turret (and this most certainly does not include the pintle mount).

 

I can appreciate this may have changed since 4th edition but it is spelled out pretty clearly on page 59

 

Oh, and a "bolt on" weapon is a pintle mounted weapon, as far as this same page is concerned. There is no distinction.

[nighthawks]

ok ok, the Cupola has a 360 arc. sorry. typically, at least on the rhino, pintle mounts are cupola mounted.

 

is the cupola a turret? this question is going to lead to arguments.

 

in the case of a "hull mounted" SB - we could say that the hatch-panel mount, also used for the dish and spotlight, is hull mounted when used as a SB mount. fine.

 

we still have no idea if the standard equipment is pintle or hull mounted, so how to appropriately model our standard equipment? of course, if the standard is pintle, and we agree that pintles in this application occur on copulas, and that copulas are turrets, we have 360 arc guns. same for the upgrade pintle-mounts.

 

the debate is the mount itself, not what the arc is for a mount. further, the upgrade should affect all players the same way (given the same codex) and as such, the guy who mounted his SB to a fixed cupola pintle, or used the flat-mount to the hatch plate to represent same, not knowing better, is redefining their model's fire arc based on a caveat, and p 59 clearly states that weapons that are modeled in such a way that restricts the arc unnaturally (glued in place, etc...) still have the intended arc.

 

to me, the upgrades are all pintle, and all SM pintles are mounted upon cupolas, and all of these have full 360° rotation, effective where NOT drawing LOS through other parts of the tank. Model position to your advantage if you like.

 

the standard equipment SBs I can live with calling a front hull mount, but again, without a "standard" model, there's no way to know exatly where to measure from nor where to plave the point of the 45°arc.

[WarpSpawn]

It's not a cupola that has a 360 degree arc as such (no matter how it's modeled). It's a turret. So, unless you can convince your opponent that a cupola is a turret (possible, geven the definition I linked to), you do not get a 360 arc.

 

It is not a case of "pintle or hull mounted" it is a case of "pintle mounted onto a turret" or "pintle mounted onto the hull". As I already said, the pintle mount itself does not have it's own fire arc, it is defined by the structure the pintle mount is attached to. Turret (or something that counts as a turret) and you get 360. Pretty much anything else would have to be hull mounted, and therefore 45.

 

The weapons glued in place thing simply means a weapon gets it's full arc, as defined by RAW for that mounting, even if it cannot physically turn that way. It does not give it a larger arc than RAW says, just because it might move further in an unglued state.

 

As for where to measure from, you measure from wherever the gun it attached, giving it a 45 degree arc from whichever direction the gun is pointing I assume. If the player has modeled it on at an unusual angle, I would assume they must declare what the normal, forward position is and measure from there.

 

The thing is, you are still talking as if you think the pintle mount has it's own, subjectively established fire arc. It does not. It has an explicitly states fire arc, based on what it is stuck on to.

 

(Incidentally, it is far from being a given that all upgrades, in all codices, are created equal, much as we might assume they should be. Just look at smoke launchers in at least one older book, as well as infantry upgrades, such as storm shields, Quite a few things are not standardised and possibly never will be.)

[nighthawks]

yeah, look - we all understand the differences in wargear from codex creep. that's not the point. likewise, it is not the point that a hull-mounted weapon vs. turret mounted weapon have differing, and well understood, fire arcs.

 

nor is the point that a weapon is pintle mounted or not - though the optional pintle mounted SB on a rhino-chassis tank is typically on a cupola, and like you said, there's a clear argument for that being a turret. but is it? what is the intentded type? And what mount is the "standard" SB with the Rhino and Vinidcator? it's not modeled, per se, nor need it be, by the rules (like a SMs bolt pistol, it's just there, see it or not). where do you measure from for THAT?

 

as for gluing the weapons, I was just pointing out a clear rule that could be used by some to declare a cupola as turret to be a cupola as hull mount, based on how they wanted their own or their opponent's stuff to work. exploiting loopholes is a long-standing tradition of the beardy set.

 

how one models their C:SM tank's PMSB should not be the deciding facor as to wheather the gun is on a turret or not. it should be a standard, understood configuration. So long as the vehicle is modeled to show the presence of the weapon, like all other wargear options. obviously, a weapon mount such as a pred turret, side sponsons, etc.. have understood arcs, and glue or no glue, that remains the same. they are well established concepts. since 5th, pintle mounted storm bolters are not, as this thread shows, understood to have a standard mounting configuration. IF the standard for a SM PMSB is 360°, they a gun glued directly to the hull should still count, just as a model with a sword on his back, a pistol in a holster, and a boltgun in both hands passes the WYSIWYG test for having all three and gains all effect for each, per the rules. there is no limit to the sword's useability because he hasn't seemingly got enough hands to juggle all of that gear. one's ability, effort, creativity, etc... with modeling should not forbid the usefullness nor promote additional usefullness of typical options or standard equipment, it should be understood what that item is, how it moves, what its capabilities are. (within a codex definition, of course). - and yes, it is understood that tricky modeling can help in many situations. the effect of standard equipment is NOT one of them, at least it shouldn't be.

 

you startiong to get what my issue is?

[King Tiger]

well the rhino entry does not say whether the Storm bolter is hull mounted or pintle/turret mounted, it only says "Storm bolter", so technically since its not defined correctly as to what it is it has no fire arc, its just a weapon mounted on a vehicle, that without an arc cannot fire at anything.

 

although personally to save arguments I would agree with an opponent that no matter how you mount it, the standard storm bolter is hull mounted, and any added on are pintle mounted