Soft imperial knight armies?

[Guest]

@fluger: Yeah, they used epic models being painted by 28mm 40k models...

[VonVilkee]

I think the new carapace would be good for that.

 

Turn around and shoot a dude. Have your icarus shoot a guy behind you that you want to charge. Charge that dude.

Still doesn't work that way, the guns on the top are listed as carapace weapons so it would have to abide by walker fire arcs, ie frontal 90.

 

Another note is that by rule weapons can only depress 45 degrees. Haven't done the math but I think those top mounts can't shoot anything closer than about 8 inches...

 

All this ties into why people think knights are to powerful. ITC rules opening the vertical fire arcs to 180 to avoid disputes makes super gun big guys like this more powerful than GW uses them (maybe). I have found that the weapon shadows make board control easier if you close and force the Knight player to make choices. You won't be his friend as you point out that his stubber can't fire in certain ways but you can totally dictate his movement and make it very difficult to stop. Also if you are worried exact definition of stomps just use vehicles to block their movement, they will kill it with their melee attacks and have nothing to stomp so no attacks will be made.

 

Knowing is more than half the battle this edition and super heavy walker rules are the newest and least known right now.

[pretre]

Still doesn't work that way, the guns on the top are listed as carapace weapons so it would have to abide by walker fire arcs, ie frontal 90.

 

Another note is that by rule weapons can only depress 45 degrees. Haven't done the math but I think those top mounts can't shoot anything closer than about 8 inches...

 

All this ties into why people think knights are to powerful. ITC rules opening the vertical fire arcs to 180 to avoid disputes makes super gun big guys like this more powerful than GW uses them (maybe). I have found that the weapon shadows make board control easier if you close and force the Knight player to make choices. You won't be his friend as you point out that his stubber can't fire in certain ways but you can totally dictate his movement and make it very difficult to stop. Also if you are worried exact definition of stomps just use vehicles to block their movement, they will kill it with their melee attacks and have nothing to stomp so no attacks will be made.

 

Knowing is more than half the battle this edition and super heavy walker rules are the newest and least known right now.

You are mixing up rules. Walkers aren't restricted to a 45 degree fire arc or a front 90 arc. They are restricted to the arc of the weapon. In addition, the weapon is assumed to be able to move horizontally and vertically up to 45 degrees.

 

"A Walker that moved can still fire all of its weapons in the subsequent Shooting phase.

When firing a Walker’s weapons assume that weapons mounted on a Walker can swivel

horizontally and vertically up to 45°. Range is measured from the weapon itself and line

of sight is measured from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as

normal for vehicles."

 

This is similar to how normal vehicles shoot.

 

"Vehicles Weapons & Line of Sight

When firing a vehicle’s weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight

from each weapons’ mounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by

intervening terrain or models.

If the target unit is in cover from only some of the vehicle’s weapons, then work out the

target’s cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing

unit. Note that, even when firing Barrage weapons, the target unit must be in the

weapon’s arc of sight.

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the

target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume

that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases

when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45 o , even if the barrel on the

model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons

can swivel horizontally up to 45 o ."

 

So you point your gun at the model you want to shoot. In the case of the arm weapon on a knight, you can get a much greater than 45 degree arc of fire. This would include the gun on the top, which I'm not sure why you're saying a 'carapace' weapon is any different. The word 'carapace' isn't even in the main rulebook. 

[InfestedKerrigan]

We need 40k-ception.  Someone model a kid playing with a baneblade or something...

 

Oh wait, didn't someone do that space marine painting a space marine already?

 

There's also the Orc and Space marine playing Chess, I believe.  

 

How about a couple of kids playing "40k" using Epic Models?  That'd probably look closer to Inquisitor Scale in comparison, wouldn't it?

[VonVilkee]

Pretre you actually posted the rule. Weapons on a walker get 45 degree change in all detections period. Next sentence says line of sight etc is from the barrel. So you are not allowed 360 for any of the weapons. I would concede that you could fix the weapons pointing in differing arcs but walkers only get 45 degrees in any direction from where the barrel is.

 

I think GW is assuming glued in place walker weapons Hooray! So yes you could pay heavy points and point that top gun backwards but wouldn't be able to change it throughout the game by my reading. Only line of sight is from barrel not firing arc.

 

Apparently I'm to pedantic with my reading, but I stand by walker weapons effectively being hull mounted based on the single sentence saying that you assume the gym can only swivel 45 degrees, which you quoted. There is no stipulation for if the gun swivels more.

[pretre]

Range is measured from the weapon itself and line

of sight is measured from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as

normal for vehicles."

 

 

 

You're wrong. You point the gun and then check LOS. This is pretty clear on the rules there. 

 

When firing a vehicle’s weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight

from each weapons’ mounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by

intervening terrain or models, 

[pretre]

The 45 degree thing is almost exactly the same as this:

 

"On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the

target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume

that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases

when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45 o , even if the barrel on the

model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons

can swivel horizontally up to 45 o ."

 

It's just a shorthand for the 'go use the vehicle rules' part.

[VonVilkee]

As to the carapace weapon mattering it isn't listed as a turret, or pintle mounted weapon so would fall back to the specific walker rule of effective hull mounted. Specific rule vs general rule unit restriction trumps the rest...

[pretre]

I think GW is assuming glued in place walker weapons Hooray! So yes you could pay heavy points and point that top gun backwards but wouldn't be able to change it throughout the game by my reading. 

Citation needed. I have never seen any requirement for guns to be fixed in place.

[pretre]

As to the carapace weapon mattering it isn't listed as a turret, or pintle mounted weapon so would fall back to the specific walker rule of effective hull mounted. Specific rule vs general rule unit restriction trumps the rest...

Show me the Walker Hull Mounted rule.

[VonVilkee]

You're wrong. You point the gun and then check LOS. This is pretty clear on the rules there. 

 

I'm coming around to that but you still have to account for the sentence prior that has a hard stop that says assume walker weapons can swivel 45 degrees. Then continue with the rules.

[pretre]

I'm coming around to that but you still have to account for the sentence prior that has a hard stop that says assume walker weapons can swivel 45 degrees. Then continue with the rules.

We will have to disagree on this. IMO, the rules are clear that walkers function as normal vehicles for shooting and have the same 45 degree exception for vehicles. You think that that exception is a limiter and not an addition.

[VonVilkee]

You actually quoted it man!

 

When firing a walker's weapons assume that weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees. Yes there is a period.

 

Range and Los is then figured from mounting point down barrel. The rules really are written assuming fixed weapon. As the first sentence dictates swivel without a caveat for additional swivel via model and the removal of the agile rule from walkers (spin on spot to fire)

[pretre]

You actually quoted it man!

 

When firing a walker's weapons assume that weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees. Yes there is a period.

 

Range and Los is them figured from mounting point down barrel. The rules really are written assuming fixed weapon. As the first sentence dictates swivel without a caveat for additional swivel via model and the removal of the agile rule from walkers (spin on spot to fire

I know I quoted it. I've referenced that sentence. The rules are written that way because most walkers had fixed weapons (dreadnoughts, etc) and provides them a benefit since they can't move normally. It does not remove the ability to point at your target.

[VonVilkee]

We will have to disagree on this. IMO, the rules are clear that walkers function as normal vehicles for shooting and have the same 45 degree exception for vehicles. You think that that exception is a limiter and not an addition.

Yep absolutely no hard feelings about it this is prolly a big part of the reason for our differing views on knights!

[pretre]

Yep absolutely no hard feelings about it this is prolly a big part of the reason for our differing views on knights!

Yep. And I have no problem with you restricting the fire arcs of your own knights, but I don't think you'll find that is the commonly held view or playstyle.

[VonVilkee]

I know I quoted it. I've referenced that sentence. The rules are written that way because most walkers had fixed weapons (dreadnoughts, etc) and provides them a benefit since they can't move normally. It does not remove the ability to point at your target.

Which is how I jumped to the assuming GW thoughts on glueing weapons down on walkers. If you restrict the knights this way they are still good bit they cease to be the crazy good people panic about. And the rule is pretty raw, although Rai more swivel is totally there.

[pretre]

I don't think RAI is clear at all. It never is. :)

[VonVilkee]

Yep. And I have no problem with you restricting the fire arcs of your own knights, but I don't think you'll find that is the commonly held view or playstyle.

Common pretre you know that commonly played is wrong allot of the time! Biggest reason for "op" units is common play and misapplied rules...

[pretre]

And I do agree that your interpretation lowers their power.

[pretre]

Common pretre you know that commonly played is wrong allot of the time! Biggest reason for "op" units is common play and misapplied rules...

Agreed. I just happen to believe that the RAW follows that in this case.

[VonVilkee]

Agreed. I just happen to believe that the RAW follows that in this case.

How so? Rules clearly state assume 45 degrees of swivel then sight down barrel. It does say like other vehicles at the end but all the rules are there. The as normal only applies to Los and range not the amount of swivel. But like you said we totally differ on that. I find that most claims of crushing power are based on rules having two interpretations, pretty decently shared, and people going with the more powerful one. I've always gone to the side of less powerful for the sake of my opponent makes for a more enjoyable game. Also I fail to feel the nerf hammer, cuz most of the time the nerf ends up playing like I was doing it all along :)

[pretre]

I think I've covered my position on it. :)

[VonVilkee]

I think I've covered my position on it. :)

Totally :P

[Guest]

@pretre: Vonvilkee has it right, though I agree that it is commonly misused. Actually had an imperial knight player refuse to use the the 45 degree arc in a game, despite page citations. Knight players just don't want to learn the rules'.