[Captain Austin]

Ever have one of those situations come up in a game that should be stupidly obvious, but you've never actually thought of before, and actually never seen, in spite of how simple it is?

So I'm playing a game, and my Demolisher gets surrounded. It's backed against a hill to keep its rear armor away from incoming fire, and now it's getting advanced on by a number of units. Not wanting to expose the rear amor, and missing the main gun after taking fire earlier, I figure "no problem, I'll just swivel one of these here sponson Plasma Cannon at that there unit and let 'em have it."

So the issue arose when I declared the fire. See, the flanking unit was on a rear quarter of the Russ, and so the cannon had to swivel past the point where the model's gun physically stops. My opponent then informed me that the Russ sponsons couldn't swivel that far back, because the model's guns couldn't. Oddly, I've never actually fired at that angle before (because up until now the Demolisher has done a good job of keeping its 'front toward enemy&#39.

He said it very authoritatively, and quoted some vague "rules clarification", in exactly the sort of way that could have gotten heated and silly, but it thankfully didn't. Rather than make a scene and argue, I just fired on a different unit, and play continued. However, I then went back to my rulebook in case I had missed something, and I'm not finding anything about physical model limitations in regard to side fire arcs on vehicles. Is there something obscure I've missed in some forgotten corner of the book?

Anyone?

[SqurielLord]

Fire archs....dunno.

I'd use Hull &Sposoon weapons: 360 degree fire archs, so long as they arent shooting into the vehcile, and Turrets have 360 degrees.
a__c
I I
<( )>
I_I
b d
< and >, respectivly, being your spontoon guns, you can shoot with < to point a &b (Ie 180 degrees.) and with > to c&d. (180o as well).

Get Wargamer to clarify, why dont'cha?

[wonderboy]

you were correct, austin. next time that happens, show your opponent the rule book, i guess.

[Elessar]

sez in the ol book:
"trace the actual line of fire from the weapon mounting to see if it will be blocked by terrain or other vehicles."
this would suggest that sponson weapons can only fire at targets they can physically aim at. for example the predator has a line of site greater than 180 degrees since it is a few centemeters away from the actual hull, meaning it can shoot at people who aren't on that side of the tank. of course this would raise the issue of "ill just slice a gap into my sponson that allows my weapons to go all the way around." meaning that a models efficieny would be increased depending on how it was built. so that people who are willing to rip apart their models have a better chance of winning, which makes no sense. what i do is use the example line of site for sponsons in the rule book for all sponson weapons.

[Kais]

just as a side note, unless you're imobilized, you can pivot as much as you like in the shooting phaze, thus the argunment over LOS is overruled, 'cause yo ucan turn to attack anyway

[Elessar]

Originally Posted by Kais

just as a side note, unless you're imobilized, you can pivot as much as you like in the shooting phaze, thus the argunment over LOS is overruled, 'cause yo ucan turn to attack anyway

but that would expose your back/flank, which he was trying to avoid. also this question is important for armoured companies using the ace sponson gunners doctrine.

[Wargamer]

Okay, Imperial fire arcs:

Turrets: 360.

Hull-mounted weapons: Forward 90.

Sponson mounts, side 90.

[Trillian_1369]

Originally Posted by Wargamer

Okay, Imperial fire arcs:

Turrets: 360.

Hull-mounted weapons: Forward 90.

Sponson mounts, side 90.

Exactly..

I don't like that this is only a one word post but.. Wargamer is correct.. that is exactly how it has always been.. I'd imagine any Vet Guard player could tell you that but... I can see the confusion..

[Wargamer]

What may cause confusion is where you draw the arcs from... as stupid as it sounds, there is dispute.

Personally, I draw all arcs from the centre of the tank. This means that, even if you were stood 1/100" away from the dead centre of a Leman Russ, the sponsons could still shoot you.

However, once the tank is immobilised, all weapon arcs are drawn from the weapon.

The reason for this is that 40K is not static, unlike the models. Just because the rules say the tank is stationary does not mean it is. The Russ will be rotating on the spot, seeking to bring its guns to bear.

For those who skoff at this (and many do, for some reason...), picture this:

Shooting by the rules:
A Leman Russ advances across an open field. It moves right into the open, comes to a dead stop, then fires its sponson at the Orks in the trees (who, by the way, are stood still as well... it's not their turn to move).

Shooting by "reality":
A Leman Russ advances across an open field. As it advances, its Sponson rakes left and right, spewing fire into the Orks who are advancing through the trees towards it.

[Earlydawn]

Side, related question. Is there a list of what vehicle weapons are what class of turret in the case of confusion / dispute?

[Disregard: I just reread my Big Book, and realized it's based on how you can move the weapon. Still, is there any critera?

Btw, Wargamer. Is there any official ruling on that compromise that I can direct players to?]