"40K: is rotating infantry 'movement'? (heavy wpns question)" Topic

Can a model with a heavy weapon shoot if it turns (as in, just rotates in place) in the movement phase?
Is turning in place considered movement? I can't find anything clear about this in the rulebook.

I am asking because a heavy weapon Space Marine was facing away from the target I wanted him to shoot at, and my honorable opponent said that if the Marine rotated in the movement phase, he would not be able to shoot. He explained this as 'rotating is moving.' He said that 5th edition is played as determining LOS through the model's eyes so the model could not see the target if he was facing away from it.
If this is correct, then where is the field of vision (say 90 degrees?) defined in the rules?

Linked to this is another question- if one model in the unit rotates (classed as movement) then all the heavy weapons in the unit cannot shoot?

If anyone has any input, official or otherwise, I would appreciate your help. If you can resist posting snide comments about "40K" and "clarifications" being mutually exclusive, I would appreciate your restraint. I know 40K rules are demented. I am just trying to get some clarification.

We always played it that to rotate didn't count as movement, a model has a 90 degree fire arc to the front, but to turn doesn't count as movement.

Assuming you play the latest (i.e. 5th edition), the take a look at page 11, under turning and facing: Turning doesn't count as movement, you may even turn your models to face a target in the shooting phase.

If you play the previous edition, the same is said on page 16.

Hope that helps!

As of 4th and 5th edition warhammer 40k, facing of an infantry model (and thus rotation) has absolutely no bearing on the game. I could have all my infantry facing the opposite direction of the enemy and still shoot them. Its recommended you dont do this as it isn't nearly as dramatic/cinematic, but whatever.

In other words, your "honorable" opponent lied to you.

IIRC no edition counted turning as movement for infantry, tanks and warmachines without sponsons do though.

Facing for infantry wasn't even an issue in 3rd edition from back in 1999-2000 timeframe. Only vehicles had to deal with that.

In current edition, as a matter of fact, even vehicles can pivot on the spot w/o 'moving'. "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot).

Page 11 of the 5th edition rules has your answer, your opponent won't be able to rationally argue his point.

Here's where a rules lawyer will come back on all of us. On p. 16: "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit…"

But that's where we get into rules as written (RAW) vs rules as intended (RAI) and I've not run into anyone who argues against 360 degree visibility for infantry. Their placement may block vision (e.g., I put my guy behind a girder so anything on the other side of that girder is impossible to target) but we assume the model can turn his head :)

On p. 16: "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit…"

Where are the eyes on a dreadnought suit again? :)

Here's where a rules lawyer will come back on all of us. On p. 16: "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit…"

Shoot the rules lawyers… The rules say (on page 11) that you may rotate your minis to face their targets in the the shooting phase.

Here's where a rules lawyer will come back on all of us. On p. 16: "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit…"

I have met sometimes with that kind of players, specially in Tournaments. In a local tournament my oponent started an argument based exactly in the point under discussion. Even after the umpire told him that turning wasn't considered movement he insisted. At that point I conceded defeat (though I was wiping his ass!) and left the table. Although I lost the game it was worth it just to contemplate his frustration when I refused to play along his little cheesy game.

Those people rob us the joy of gaming.

I would rotate the model as desired then determine LoS from the model's eyes… this is probably only important in the case of a weapon with multiplt shots, like a heavy bolter, where th ability to see nore than one target becomes important.

I would rotate the model as desired then determine LoS from the model's eyes… this is probably only important in the case of a weapon with multiplt shots, like a heavy bolter, where th ability to see nore than one target becomes important.

Even with multiple shot weapons, there shouldn't be a problem. If, for example, your heavy bolter guy can see a target model, he may fire all of his shots. In the end , the player of the unit under fire decides which models to remove as casualties, and he may even remove those out of range and out of line of sight.

The better idea would be to shoot the rules lawyer, or if that is frowned upon where you play, just do not play with him.

These people suck the life out of what is supposed to be a bit of fun, it is a game with little model soldiers not life and death after all.

1. Turning to face the enemy is not moving, infantry models have 360 degree arc of fire anyway.

2. LOS is as stated previously.

3. Common sense should be brought to the games table not checked in at the door of the gaming venue.

4. Play should be by the spirit of the rules, not by the letter. This is especially true of GW rules as some interpretation is always needed, see 3 above.

5. If 1 to 4 are ignored or twisted to suit, play someone else nicer instead.

AS

Just to add even more of the same…turning on the spot is NOT movement. even the quote from page sixteen doesn't apply here, because this is in reference to a visual, AFTER any pivoting might be done.

Yes, you must turn the model to face its target in the shooting phase, and that is FREE and DOES NOT count as movement, then, you check to see if you have line of sight, and then you flip over the table, call him an f'ing cheater and kick his as$ for being a dousche.

"IIRC no edition counted turning as movement for infantry, tanks and warmachines without sponsons do though."

Nope. Second Edition had an arc of fire on each model, and if you turned it was considered movement. You had to be very aware of which direction your Overwatch troops were facing when you placed them! I liked it much better that way-- it allowed for flanking maneuvers.

But then 2nd edition also made you account for how many sticks of fruit-stripe gum your Ork had in his pocket :)

It amazes me how people will cheat/ruleslawyer for an advantage. The OP was screwed by his opponent in my opinion and from the looks of it most of the thread says the same thing.

And from where I stand is pivoting even neceary? Since by the rules an infantry model has 360 movement and fire arc and a pivot doea not count as moving to stop heavy weapons from firing why even bother spining the model unless you really want to for some reason? A claim of TLOS fails since the head heigth will not change on a pivot if based normaly, and there are rules that specificaly cover things if the base is nonstandard. My main point is the the rules say "you may pivot to face" and figureing out LOS aint that big of a deal if a model isn't facing directly at the target since the 360 arcs already cover things.

Sorry for the rant but the cheaters and rules lawyers have been chaffing me a lot lately. The object of a game is to allow BOTH players to enjoy the experience. There are no "poor or bad games" just "BAD" players

1st Rogue Trader edition disallowed rotating and firing heavy weapons. I don't have my second edition handy, but by the time that came out we had a house rule that allowed rotate and fire even if the rules didn't. Later editions for sure let you rotate and fire heavies.

I was reading 40K Rogue Trader today… I saw that melta-guns are unable to fire if the model moved… LOL. With a range that short, and not being able to move and fire, no wonder I couldn't remember ever using one!

Luckily they fixed the meltagun in the Battle Manual, as well as grenades.

I would love to field an army of peacock marines covered in eyes, just to bug the rules lawyers ;)

Thanks to everyone for the answers. My opponent was very generous in forgiving some oversights on my part so I don't think he was trying to fudge the rules in his favor at all. There were also 4 other people watching, 3 of them 40K players, and with 2 rulebooks we could not find anything that clarified the situation. You can still say that (p.11) the model "moved" in the shooting phase to rotate because the rules are unclear.
Personally I think the heavy weapon infantry can rotate and shoot.
My excuse for playing the zany 40K rules is that it a gateway to introduce players to more sensible systems. I use rules disputes like this one to get people interested in playing Forge of War!

Dr Mathias – you're right, meltas are 'slow' weapons in Rouge (sic), I'd forgotten and just looked it up. When they converted them over to Space Marine (the original rule set) they'd changed them so they could move and fire as the support weapon of a Tactical stand of Marines.
To add my 10p's worth to the debate, in earlier versions of the rules moving slow weapons in any way, including rotation, invalidated their chance to fire. Later iterations focussed more on fast play so did away with that proviso. And following fire….curse their eyes…..

And this is why I like the new page 5 from Warmachine Prime MkII. Page 5 Rule 5 "page 5 does not give you license to …" be an unpleasant rulesmongering

I'd talk to the Tournament Organizer. Warmachine tournaments actually tank someone's VP totals if their opponent concedes, and the current tournament pack includes a phrase about people being unpleasant to play against may be asked to leave the tournament, and the local 40k group is starting to do the same thing.