Venom arc of fire

At a recent tournament, TFG raised a stink about my Venoms' arc of fire. He insisted that since there was no specification in the book, that both weapons were hull mounted (!) despite that obviously not being the case for the top weapon at least. The TO came over and ruled that both weapons had 360 degree arcs. The guy whined about it for the rest of the game, but I am wondering if the TO was right about the bottom weapon. I could see equal arguments for pintle or hull mount for it. Is there an official answer?

I usually rule my bottom as hull mount and the top as pintle, after all a wych climbing on the canopy and shooting backwards just seems so darkeldar-esque.

I have had opponents give me a 180* on the bottom gun, they figure if a modern helicopter gunship can almost do it a 41st millenium space elf super boat ought to be able to as well.

I have not seen an official wording, but I suspect the TO felt the need for punitive measures vs TFG, so I wouldnt count on so generous a ruling in the future AFAIK, the brb says to use common sense regarding arc of fire, if it looks like it could then it could, but as we all know common sense is often in short supply around the game table......

Yeah, the bottom gun is clearly not 360 degrees. Not that it would ever matter seeing as they're the same AV all the way around.

I play it as what you see is what you get; top is 45 degree arc of fire bottom has at least 180

Did you mean top 180° and bottom 45°? They're the firing arcs we use anyway.

Why does it even matter?

You were doing some far fetched LoS hiding?

No, no shenanigans on my part. I had two venoms set up to target one unit, but due to some bad rolls on his part the first venom cleaned up the unit all by itself. So, I wanted to target a second unit which he now said was an ineligible target due to arc of fire.

Top is pintle mounted, the same way that the Raider and Ravager front guns are, and like all Storm Bolters and Multimeltas on Rhinos/Land Raiders. Bottom can move 45 degrees to either side. That's how I've been using mine, anyway.

It's a shame that the 6e rulebook is supervague about this. Four pictures and that's it, as if every single vehicle was on a Rhino hull, but that's not really the case.

I like 180 top and bottom, personally. I even said that when the TO said I could have 360. I wanted a fair ruling, not an unfair advantage due to TFG shenanigans. I feel that the gunner could move all the way to either side up top, but I think that climbing onto the canopy is a little ridiculous. Fluffwise I love it, but I can't see any way it's justified as far as the model goes. I could see a case being made for the bottom being 360, as there is nothing on the bottom of the Venom inhibiting its movement, but I think that 180 is a fair compromise, especially given the helicopter example above and that you have to assume that the pilot is firing, and can only fire at what he can see.

Eh, the same argument can be made about Storm Bolters on Rhinos and Guard vehicles. It'd be hilarious to see a Space Marine stomping all over the hull to get a shot at the targets behind his Rhino, but sadly they'll have to remain in our imagination, as the models will always only stay in the pose they are glued in.

I wouldn't argue against 180 arc of the bottom cannon, though, for the very same reasons already stated.

Had this discussion about raider's Dark Lance. The BRB does not give static Pintle = 45 or 360 anymore. it saus draw from the weapon. So... how far does it turn? thats your arc. If it is glued down, how far SHOULD it be able to turn? etc...

I'm a big fan of a rough 90 (45 to the left and right of center)

I always assumed they were both 90°. Bottom was fixed and used the standard rules and the gunner can't physically move any more due to the railings etc without climbing on the sides. Keep in mind a venom would move quick and without hooks like the passengers have the gunner would not last long trying to fire backwards.

As for Pintle mounded on Rhinos I always assumed the whole mounting rotates turret style rather than the gunner moving around.

Huh, I have always played the Venom's top cannon as pintle-mounted with 90 degrees to each side, if the gunner leans forward a bit (same with my Raiders & Ravagers). But the bottom one I have always played as fixed, forward-firing. I don't see what would allow it to swivel, plus the Venom is so maneuverable it wouldn't have to.

Orthien wrote:

As for Pintle mounded on Rhinos I always assumed the whole mounting rotates turret style rather than the gunner moving around.

^ this.

Orthien wrote:

As for Pintle mounded on Rhinos I always assumed the whole mounting rotates turret style rather than the gunner moving around.

This is how it works, and that's why the picture in the rule book shows a pintle mounted storm bolter as having a 360degree arc of fire.

Just a query though, when putting together a venom the under slung cannon fit into a 'circle' holding with a square box to hold it in, if I replace this with a magnet it will rotate 360 degrees. The way it is modelled when putting it together to me implies it is a turret not a hull mount- and only by glueing it into a static pose is the reason it doesn't move.

Example - a predator turret is clearly a turret however if it is glues in place and doesn't move it still have the turret rules. Just because the venom cannon isn't a conventional turret to me shouldn't imply it is anything but.

I have always played 90 degree arc on top and bottom guns, it would be nice if GW gave a definitive ruling on it though.

ive always assumed 180 on top and 90 on bottom but it seriously has never come up just because they get where they need to be anyway. Agreed with Ivan tho I wish there was a more definitive answer.