Vendetta

[Jangalak]

I was playing against my mates IG Army and he fields a vendetta with the 3 TL Lascannons. We were uncertain about the firing arcs for these despite a search of his codex - can anyone clarify what the firing arcs are for the two wing mounted las and the single 'nose' mounted las are?

 

It looks as though the 'nose' las just piints straight ahead with little room for aiming unless the vendetta moves. Whilst the wing mounted las look like they either have a 45degree arc from the front or are possibly 360 degrees.

 

Can anyone help?

[avatar8481]

probably like all hull mounted weapons, 90 arcs bisected by the line extending from the barrel straight forward.

[Commander Remiel]

Check the main rulebook. It has a section on fire arcs based on mounting type.

[Cale]

Remiel is right, Avatar is mostly wrong.

 

The Vendetta's weapons are hull mounted, and thus follow the rules for hull mounted weapons, which gives them 45 degree arcs of fire, which is to say that each can fire in exactly the direction it is pointing or up to 22.5 degrees clockwise or 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the direction in which it is pointing.

[Jangalak]

Thanks to all, that makes sense. We rolled off for it in the last game and he got an extra 3 LC shots off at my dread, luckily for me they all failed to damage!

[Steelmage99]

Remiel is right, Avatar is mostly wrong.

 

The Vendetta's weapons are hull mounted, and thus follow the rules for hull mounted weapons, which gives them 45 degree arcs of fire, which is to say that each can fire in exactly the direction it is pointing or up to 22.5 degrees clockwise or 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the direction in which it is pointing.

 

While I agree that they should count as being hull mounted, it doesn't says so anywhere.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Well they aren't provided on any sort of swiveling mount like a turret or pintel mount, the track rails on attack bikes and land speeders or even the Valk/Ven's own heavy bolter 'sponsons' (even the FW vendetta upgrade, as far as I can tell). They are fixed to the hull/wings unless the player purposefully modeled them to swivel way, which goes beyond the rules into 'opponent consent'.

[Steelmage99]

The problem arises because GW tells us, in the rulebook, that individual vehicle entries in the relevant codexes will tell us the type of mounting of their weapons......and then they, in their infinite and holy wisdom, chooses not to do so.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

The problem arises because GW tells us, in the rulebook, that individual vehicle entries in the relevant codexes will tell us the type of mounting of their weapons......and then they, in their infinite and holy wisdom, chooses not to do so.

 

The rule book also says to use the actual arcs the weapons can rotate. In the case of the Vendetta, they can't. Which implies either hull-mounted, or, if you want to be a RAW advocate, just firing straight ahead without any arcs.

[King Tiger]

and then they, in their infinite and holy wisdom, chooses not to do so.

they probably expect players to have some common sense

are they mounted on turrets.....no

are they mounted on pintles.....no

are they mounted in sponsons.....no

are they mounted to the hull of the aircraft.....yes

therefore common sense (something so rare its a super power) shows us there hull mounted and would follow hull mounted rules.....TA-DA!!!

[Cale]

they probably expect players to have some common sense

are they mounted on turrets.....no

are they mounted on pintles.....no

are they mounted in sponsons.....no

are they mounted to the hull of the aircraft.....yes

therefore common sense (something so rare its a super power) shows us there hull mounted and would follow hull mounted rules.....TA-DA!!!

 

That's basically how I approached it. I'd prefer it if they had bothered to specify what type of mounting the guns get, but, barring that, we really have no choice but to ask ourselves how the guns are actually mounted on the model. In this case, they're pretty much hull-mounted, and that's both an easy and a reasonable answer to the question.

[nighthawks]

as far as the "they failed to tell us" argument goes, the biggest "possible" problem, for all of you RAW junkies out there, is the SM / SW etc... tank entries where the models "may take any of the following: A storm bolter, A [HK] missile, A multi melta," etc... precedence on the models shows NON pintle NON turret mounted SBs and HKs all the time (hatch mounted and bolted to the side of the turret most frequently, respectively.)

 

now, we all "know" that these are pintle-mounted, or at the very least on a dedicated turret, but the lack of specificity CAN matter around here...

 

but yeah, letting it slide and having fun really is the way to go.

[Cale]

Eh, I play my pintle-combi-bolters as hull mounted all the time. It's occasionally irritating, but never really important. After all, it's just a combi-bolter. I don't need to ever take any shots at all with my Rhinos to make them worth bringing.

[chapter master 454]

therefore common sense (something so rare its a super power)

 

You, sir, made my day with that

 

Anyway, I would assume that as in king tigers post said it's a hull mounted weapon and thus has a 45 degree arc (and to whom this may be a problem you normally point the forsaken weapons at the target anyway in the movement phase!). yes the RAW people will have certain dreams over trying to deny you it but tell them to be RAW about the most important rule: have fun! Remember children, if the weapon in question can rotate before being glued in (IE doesn't have a fixed mount point) then it can rotate.

 

Trust me, if thats bad try having to argue to some newbie that shooting through the window of a building (with no other means of seeing target) at my land raiders lascannons negates my cover save. Did nothing to the raider and I promtly fired back with the same logic and plastered the dark lancing git!

[Cale]

On the Rhino issue, note this FAQ from the March 2009 40K Rulebook Errata/FAQ document per GW:

 

Q. On page 59, the rules for the arc of fire of

pintle-mounted (or bolt-on) weapons address

those mounted on turrets and those mounted

directly on the hull. But what about those

mounted on smaller structures (like a Rhino’s

cupola) that look like they can rotate 360º, even

though they aren’t proper turrets?

 

A. Remember that the rule is: if it looks like you

can point the gun at it, then you can, even if it’s

glued in place’. The rest is just a set of guidelines

about the arcs of fire of weapons glued in place,

and does not cover all possible weapons

mounting and vehicles. If the structure the gun is

pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of

rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola,

then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of

fire. However, if you mount the same storm

bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can

rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire

through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it

will have a ‘blind spot’. In the same way, the

shuriken catapult mounted under the hull of a

Wave Serpent, Falcon, etc. looks like it can rotate

360º, but it does not look like it can be fired

through the main hull right behind it, so we

normally play that it can be fired roughly in the

180º to the vehicle’s front, which seems like an

acceptable compromise.

 

 

So, actually, I've been playing my Rhinos with an unnecessary handicap. Good to know.

[Frosty the Pyro]

The big problem with them not specifying the type of mounting for guns in the codex is not an issue of common sense, its an issue of this.

 

Q: How much effort would it take to remodel the vendetas lascanons to BE on a turret.

 

A: Very little.

 

Heck people already change the position of sponsons to get better fireing arcs, its not a huge step to model turrets for unspecified weapons.

[rat of vengence]

The big problem with them not specifying the type of mounting for guns in the codex is not an issue of common sense, its an issue of this.

 

Q: How much effort would it take to remodel the vendetas lascanons to BE on a turret.

 

A: Very little.

 

Heck people already change the position of sponsons to get better fireing arcs, its not a huge step to model turrets for unspecified weapons.

I believe this has already been answered by HFE;

They are fixed to the hull/wings unless the player purposefully modeled them to swivel way, which goes beyond the rules into 'opponent consent'.

 

Unless of course you think I can model my demolisher cannon onto a predator turret and use it with 360 degree arc of fire? :)

 

RoV

[King Tiger]

The big problem with them not specifying the type of mounting for guns in the codex is not an issue of common sense, its an issue of this.

 

Q: How much effort would it take to remodel the vendetas lascanons to BE on a turret.

 

A: Very little.

 

Heck people already change the position of sponsons to get better fireing arcs, its not a huge step to model turrets for unspecified weapons.

actually that still is an issue of common sense, your not supplied with a way to just make them turrets (or in your second part to make sponsons gets better LOS angles), you have to purposely go and make them turrets (or change sponson layouts/designs), common sense tells us if your not supplied with bits to actually do this, your probably not supposed to do it.