Just out of curiosity, what do you do when the rules as they are written are not 100% clear? For example, 5th ed FNP, on a 4+ the injury is ignored. As it is written, FNP did nothing. On a 1-3 you suffered the Wound. On a 4+ you ignored the injury (whatever that means, since injury is an undefined term).

No, injury is not an undefined term. Webster's dictionary is your friend for Terms GW didn't bother to define(because GW assumes a base level of intellegence in their gamers, obviously their faith is misplaced)

SO basically, if you don't let someone cheat, you are a power gamer/WAAC?

This is the only game where you don't get laughed at for holding that kind of position...

I'm sure you wouldnt mind me altering the ork battle wagon so its sides weren't so damn long making the Front armour 14 less effective, or giving my rhinos huge dozer blades that BLOS behind them either then.

Stormravens have, and have always had, a blind spot for the top mounted weapon. This is not news.

Grey Templar wrote:No, injury is not an undefined term. Webster's dictionary is your friend for Terms GW didn't bother to define(because GW assumes a base level of intellegence in their gamers, obviously their faith is misplaced)

You've answered this yourself.
GW explicitly do NOT make rules for "rules lawyers". They write them with certain assumptions in mind, not only does this make them a hell of a lot easier to read but it makes for a quicker, smoother game.

Grugknuckle wrote:

So if I use parts that are not in the kit, am I cheating? For example, meltaguns on my spess mehrines?

No, but you are living and dying by 'rule of cool'. If your conversion using other parts doesn't change how your model interacts with the game rules (by standing him on a 3" rock to gain LOS advantage or a 3" long barrel to gain distance) then no one will have an issue. If you did put him on a giant rock for 'coolness' then you would play the model as if he was a standard space marine size.

The trick is when converting your model is to not change how it interacts with the game. Putting Ghaz (or a counts as Ghaz stand-in) on a 60mm base had huge in-game advantages when assaulting out of a transport. It is best to not take advantage of the extra distance generated by an oversized base and by telling people you are not taking advantage and measuring as if he was on a 40mm base, most people then are 'cool' with it. In 6th edition, you don't gain extra distance from disembarking with oversized bases anymore so there is less issue with it.

If you use conversions, you need to be respectful of how your custom models or conversions change the game and be willing to play as if the model was 'stock'. 6th edition says this for base sizes explicitly.

No, but you are living and dying by 'rule of cool'. If your conversion using other parts doesn't change how your model interacts with the game rules (by standing him on a 3" rock to gain LOS advantage or a 3" long barrel to gain distance) then no one will have an issue. If you did put him on a giant rock for 'coolness' then you would play the model as if he was a standard space marine size.

The point I was making with the meltagun example is that you can't insist that models be built by the instructions provided in order for them to be legal. In any case, I'm not even talking about conversions when it comes to the Storm Raven. If you and I both built storm ravens by the instructions, then I guarantee that one of them will tilt more than the other - even if neither of us intended them to. Model builders are not precise people.

So I ask again - How much of a down tilt is acceptable before it's called cheating? Is it 1 degree? 5 degrees? 10 degrees? Because there WILL be variation in this tilt even among models that were built without knowledge of the blind spot.

Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

You have no RAW basis for that whatsoever.

Grugknuckle wrote:

No, but you are living and dying by 'rule of cool'. If your conversion using other parts doesn't change how your model interacts with the game rules (by standing him on a 3" rock to gain LOS advantage or a 3" long barrel to gain distance) then no one will have an issue. If you did put him on a giant rock for 'coolness' then you would play the model as if he was a standard space marine size.

The point I was making with the meltagun example is that you can't insist that models be built by the instructions provided in order for them to be legal. In any case, I'm not even talking about conversions when it comes to the Storm Raven. If you and I both built storm ravens by the instructions, then I guarantee that one of them will tilt more than the other - even if neither of us intended them to. Model builders are not precise people.

So I ask again - How much of a down tilt is acceptable before it's called cheating? Is it 1 degree? 5 degrees? 10 degrees? Because there WILL be variation in this tilt even among models that were built without knowledge of the blind spot.

If you both assembled them correctly, there will not be differences between the angles of your two assemblies. The top of the flight stand sits flat against the bottom of the model in a slotted entry, if it doesn't, you've done something wrong.

That being said, I'd say the cut off is "is it noticeably angled?". No one is going to grab their protractor to bring with them, so if your model is a couple degrees off due to some caked glue or scratches, you're fine. If it's noticeably tilted, play it as level.

And to the part I bolded - Come again? Model builders would be a primary example of precise people. Wargamers might not be, but scale modelers are precision personified typically.

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

You have no RAW basis for that whatsoever.

You have no RAW ability to use a non-correct model in the game. So, assumin you want to actually play a game playing the model as if it were correctly assembled would be a big help.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

You have no RAW basis for that whatsoever.

You have no RAW ability to use a non-correct model in the game. So, assumin you want to actually play a game playing the model as if it were correctly assembled would be a big help.

I think that their point is, though, that even "correctly assembled" models could have slightly different arcs of fire because of manufacturing imperfections or unintentional errors during construction.

I like how this will go in a giant circle for all time. Really until there is an FAQ no one can cite RAW for or against MFA.

I know things are heated in here but I have an honest question. What if I purchase a Storm raven and the stand comes bent/damaged but I can still assemble it. What if it makes it lean down or up? How do I tell the fire arc? I have used the pieces given to me only but because its not the exact same my model is a little different.

This isn't meant to say one side is right or wrong its an honest question as I look to by a stormraven this week and the last 3-4 models I have bought have had badly warped/damaged pieces.

I've never seen a broken flight stand come out of a box. If you got one, GW should replace it.

jcress410 wrote:I've never seen a broken flight stand come out of a box. If you got one, GW should replace it.

Yep, if you get any warped/miscasted pieces, GW is generally good at replacing them (by sending you a whole new kit typically).

You paid for the product, expect quality!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

I would amend that; Perfectly level, from every image of the Storm raven on its flight stand I have seen, would require alteration or balancing.

Play it at its natural tilt, and then you don't gain any advantages.

Again though, I will State: If you alter the Angle you will alter the Arc; the natural Angle will allow most weapons to fire at least 48"; for every degree you drop you lose roughly between 1-2" of maximum Range. Test it with your models if you want to see; Take a piece of Paper and fold it through a Corner(giving you a 45* arc), then fold it a second time(giving you a 22.5* arc). Now start fiddling with the Angles of your model with the Paper Triangle centered on your long range guns, see how as you dip the nose you start losing range?

Doesn't the cannon on a thunderhawk have a range of 6 feet plus. Shoot what every you want that is more then 4 feet away.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

I would amend that; Perfectly level, from every image of the Storm raven on its flight stand I have seen, would require alteration or balancing.

Play it at its natural tilt, and then you don't gain any advantages.

Again though, I will State: If you alter the Angle you will alter the Arc; the natural Angle will allow most weapons to fire at least 48"; for every degree you drop you lose roughly between 1-2" of maximum Range. Test it with your models if you want to see; Take a piece of Paper and fold it through a Corner(giving you a 45* arc), then fold it a second time(giving you a 22.5* arc). Now start fiddling with the Angles of your model with the Paper Triangle centered on your long range guns, see how as you dip the nose you start losing range?

Except your weapon can also pivot 45 degrees up. So try it again with a 90 degree paper, and remember that there is NOTHING that flies higher than you.
Spoiler: You lose NOTHING.

Purifier - incorrect. You havea total vertical fire arc of 45 degrees, same as your horizontal traverse of 45 degrees when hull mounted. 22.5 degrees up and down.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Purifier - incorrect. You havea total vertical fire arc of 45 degrees, same as your horizontal traverse of 45 degrees when hull mounted. 22.5 degrees up and down.

Ok, my mistake. Then you can still arc it 22.5 degrees before you start getting any negative effects.

edit: so does that mean a tank can only rise its cannon by a pathetic 22.5 degrees and also press it through its hull by 22.5 degrees? That seems silly. And haven't the people in this thread made their calculations of distance based on the weapon pointing 45 degrees down? Otherwise, it's gonna have a ... much larger blind spot.

Yes, unless it can actually rotate by more than that itself. FOr example a basilisk can move through most of 90 degrees.

Target wrote:
If you both assembled them correctly, there will not be differences between the angles of your two assemblies. The top of the flight stand sits flat against the bottom of the model in a slotted entry, if it doesn't, you've done something wrong.

I've seen plenty of players build their models and have obviously, but unintentionally, "done something wrong". How many times have you seen rhinos and / or land raiders with big gaps in the hull?

That being said, I'd say the cut off is "is it noticeably angled?". No one is going to grab their protractor to bring with them, so if your model is a couple degrees off due to some caked glue or scratches, you're fine. If it's noticeably tilted, play it as level.

Noticeably angled like the one GK storm raven featured on GW's website? Someone posted a picture of it about half-way down page 8 of this thread. Check it out.

And to the part I bolded - Come again? Model builders would be a primary example of precise people. Wargamers might not be, but scale modelers are precision personified typically.

Let me clarify. I take pride in my model building and I try to be precise so I see what you mean. But what I meant was is this; MANY of the people who play this game (perhaps most people in my area) are NOT precise model builders. They usually just slap the plastic together and probably don't even paint it. I see lots and lots of models that were obviously constructed in a hurry and without much attention to detail. And that's what I meant. Some model builders are very precise, granted. But in my experience, most of the model builders who just build the models for the game are not.

Grugknuckle wrote:

Target wrote:
If you both assembled them correctly, there will not be differences between the angles of your two assemblies. The top of the flight stand sits flat against the bottom of the model in a slotted entry, if it doesn't, you've done something wrong.

I've seen plenty of players build their models and have obviously, but unintentionally, "done something wrong". How many times have you seen rhinos and / or land raiders with big gaps in the hull?

That being said, I'd say the cut off is "is it noticeably angled?". No one is going to grab their protractor to bring with them, so if your model is a couple degrees off due to some caked glue or scratches, you're fine. If it's noticeably tilted, play it as level.

Noticeably angled like the one GK storm raven featured on GW's website? Someone posted a picture of it about half-way down page 8 of this thread. Check it out.

And to the part I bolded - Come again? Model builders would be a primary example of precise people. Wargamers might not be, but scale modelers are precision personified typically.

Let me clarify. I take pride in my model building and I try to be precise so I see what you mean. But what I meant was is this; MANY of the people who play this game (perhaps most people in my area) are NOT precise model builders. They usually just slap the plastic together and probably don't even paint it. I see lots and lots of models that were obviously constructed in a hurry and without much attention to detail. And that's what I meant. Some model builders are very precise, granted. But in my experience, most of the model builders who just build the models for the game are not.

You can't follow pictures on GW's website for how to correctly play the game. They commonly get rules just completely wrong in white dwarf for example, or feature models with great but impractical conversions, or have army lists with incorrect points costs/etc. Just because there's a picture of it on their website doesn't make it a legal way to use it, in a tournament game.

And yes, some model builders may be precise and some folks may leave gaps in their rhinos. But they all know how it should have been assembled, even if they couldn't produce that result. It's obvious that the stormraven base sits flat on the bottom of it, it's shown in the instructions to build the thing, and it's the only way it fits. No one will be thick enough to assemble it with an extreme example and then claim "what, i thought this was the correct way!!?"

At this point, it seems more like you're arguing a stance of willful ignorance (and that's not meant as an insult or directed at your personally) of the rules. Such that "well someone could assemble it wrong, and then what???". Yes, they could, but that doesn't change how the model is supposed to be correctly played. The rules are pretty clear on this one.

I don't even use a storm raven personally and more than likely, I would give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. In fact, if he wanted to shoot my dudes with his assault cannon, but they were just a little bit into the blind spot, I'd probably just say, "hey man, just nose it in a little, then you can shoot me."

But here is the thing, I can see a WAAC player (or whatever you want to call that type of guy) instantly start crying MFA any time he sees a storm raven with even a slight tilt. And that irritates me. Especially when it's probably just an accident. People like that ruin the game.

THey will always ruin the game, however claiming that because a small tilt *should* be acceptable that this allows you to model it to gain a real advantage is a bad argument.

In 99.99% of times anyone complaining over a slight tilt, in a tourney, will have the TO raise an eyebrow, shrug, and say to play it as if level. No further issue. I know this because a) have witnessed this at a few GTs in the UK, and b) have been asked as a TO to rule on this before.

We have a standing rulepack entry whcih states that converted models are *encouraged*, but that you *cannot* gain *Any* advantage from the conversion. This means riflemen dreads dont get to shoot over razorbacks (except at models in ruins a decent distance away and a floor or two up) but those funky battlewagons which look cool still get to play.

You can't follow pictures on GW's website for how to correctly play the game. They commonly get rules just completely wrong in white dwarf for example, or feature models with great but impractical conversions, or have army lists with incorrect points costs/etc. Just because there's a picture of it on their website doesn't make it a legal way to use it, in a tournament game.

And yes, some model builders may be precise and some folks may leave gaps in their rhinos. But they all know how it should have been assembled, even if they couldn't produce that result. It's obvious that the stormraven base sits flat on the bottom of it, it's shown in the instructions to build the thing, and it's the only way it fits. No one will be thick enough to assemble it with an extreme example and then claim "what, i thought this was the correct way!!?"

At this point, it seems more like you're arguing a stance of willful ignorance (and that's not meant as an insult or directed at your personally) of the rules. Such that "well someone could assemble it wrong, and then what???". Yes, they could, but that doesn't change how the model is supposed to be correctly played. The rules are pretty clear on this one.

I must disagree with this stance. As a new player, where else would I go to learn how to assemble the models? I don't know dakka exists or even what MFA means as it's not in the rule book. In fact I'd just follow the pictures on the web page or in the hobby section on how to assemble my models. I'm still not seeing where people are getting that things must be perfectly level. I really don't. Quote me a page number. I just don't see it. I've asked this about 5-6 times now and no one can quote me anything other than you should use the base provided and that's not even remotely close enough to what the building instructions say.

Heck, if you look at the perspective lines on the completed figure in step 15 -16 of the assembly manual, the base isn't even parallel to the side of the aircraft. According to the assembly instructions, it actually looks like I should have the storm raven actually bank to the left about 10 degrees to be properly assembled.



Look at the bottom of the base, if it was truely parallel, the bottom of the stand should have the same angle as the body of the storm raven but it's not. It's actually off by several degrees.

For those that can't quite see it, here's the perspective lines placed on the model and the base.

sudojoe wrote:

You can't follow pictures on GW's website for how to correctly play the game. They commonly get rules just completely wrong in white dwarf for example, or feature models with great but impractical conversions, or have army lists with incorrect points costs/etc. Just because there's a picture of it on their website doesn't make it a legal way to use it, in a tournament game.

And yes, some model builders may be precise and some folks may leave gaps in their rhinos. But they all know how it should have been assembled, even if they couldn't produce that result. It's obvious that the stormraven base sits flat on the bottom of it, it's shown in the instructions to build the thing, and it's the only way it fits. No one will be thick enough to assemble it with an extreme example and then claim "what, i thought this was the correct way!!?"

At this point, it seems more like you're arguing a stance of willful ignorance (and that's not meant as an insult or directed at your personally) of the rules. Such that "well someone could assemble it wrong, and then what???". Yes, they could, but that doesn't change how the model is supposed to be correctly played. The rules are pretty clear on this one.

I must disagree with this stance. As a new player, where else would I go to learn how to assemble the models? I don't know dakka exists or even what MFA means as it's not in the rule book. In fact I'd just follow the pictures on the web page or in the hobby section on how to assemble my models. I'm still not seeing where people are getting that things must be perfectly level. I really don't. Quote me a page number. I just don't see it. I've asked this about 5-6 times now and no one can quote me anything other than you should use the base provided and that's not even remotely close enough to what the building instructions say.

cut for brevity, see above post

Here's where we're getting it:

-You must use the base provided
-You have no permission to modify it
-If you've ever assembled a stormraven, the pieces for the mount make it clearly and easily fit in a "level" position. The top of the stand fits into a slotted piece that attaches flat against the bottom of the raven. You've got to really re-kajigger in order to get a non-level raven (within error). IE, if you have a noticeably tilted/etc. raven you have to have cut the stand or the mount up considerably to make it happen.

I've been thinking since I read the 6e rules one of the key strategies against vehicles is going to be exploiting their blind spots, so I can see why MFA on this issue can matter quite a deal without really having to split hairs.

I'm going to be trying to hide a ravager or venom under a flier.
If someone comes to a table with a storm raven pointed nose down, even if it's not a lot, that's not going to work.

I really don't think you have to be super WAAC to want every edge you can get against flyers right now.

jcress410 wrote:I've been thinking since I read the 6e rules one of the key strategies against vehicles is going to be exploiting their blind spots, so I can see why MFA on this issue can matter quite a deal without really having to split hairs.

I'm going to be trying to hide a ravager or venom under a flier.
If someone comes to a table with a storm raven pointed nose down, even if it's not a lot, that's not going to work.

I really don't think you have to be super WAAC to want every edge you can get against flyers right now.

Also, people in this thread have had a tendency to point "power gamer" "waac" and similar labels at the people who don't like severely tilted ravens and believe they shouldn't be "played" that way in game (you can model it that way, just not get the advantage from it).

Why hasn't the more obvious (to me) parallel been drawn? People who specifically model their stormraven pointing down to get an in-game advantage are being waac/powergamey/etc.?

Just a thought!

But yes, blindspots exist for a reason, and the rules support them having blindspots, live with it! (For the record, I run 2x raven, and both are heavily modified, but I play them as unmodified for the rules/ingame effects).

Target wrote:Why hasn't the more obvious (to me) parallel been drawn? People who specifically model their stormraven pointing down to get an in-game advantage are being waac/powergamey/etc.?

Mostly because I don't throw random insulting labels around to anyone unless they've proven it.
I try not to anyway.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

You have no RAW basis for that whatsoever.

You have no RAW ability to use a non-correct model in the game. So, assumin you want to actually play a game playing the model as if it were correctly assembled would be a big help.

No I mean you have no RAW basis on which to judge what is correct and not correct.
You have decided a specific way of modelling the storm raven, and making up that there is a RAW basis for this - there is not.

If there is, it's not that far. Call that guy out on cheating and pack up your army if he insists on it.

jcress410 wrote:
I really don't think you have to be super WAAC to want every edge you can get against flyers right now.

I don't need an "edge" against anything, because there isn't a single game of warhammer 40K that I have to win so bad that it's worth ruining my opponent's fun. I don't want to hear my opponent say, "Aww come on dude!"

I know someone who says that, but it's usually to his models.

He also yells "you're all fired!" when he rolls bad.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I know someone who says that, but it's usually to his models.

He also yells "you're all fired!" when he rolls bad.

For Example:

The other day two guys at my FLGS were starting a game of WH40K. They had just spent 45 minutes pulling out their models, reserving a table, making up army lists etc. There in the middle of setting up and the space wolf player is placing his wolf guard unit on the table. His opponent, (Eldar) says, "That unit isn't legal anymore. All of the wolf guard are characters, and the space wolf "leaders of the pack" rule says they all have to be armed differently. But you have 5 wolf guard all with combi-plasma's and power weapons. So you need to change that unit." And the space wolf player says...(wait for it)..."Aw come on dude." They spent another 10 minutes arguing about it before making a decision of how to play it, but by that time they were both frustrated and not having fun anymore.

EDIT : Probably the reason they were arguing in the first place is because the core rules have just changed and no one is 100% clear on how every thing has changed. But anyway...

I recognize that this forum is about what the rules are and that many (most) people here are interested in tournament play. So naturally, there will be a little bit more competetive spirit. For tournament play, I think it's reasonable to "play the storm raven as if level". That's fine. But here is the argument you should get ready for.

"That's not level!"

"Yes it is!"

"No it's not!"

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

You have no RAW basis for that whatsoever.

You have no RAW ability to use a non-correct model in the game. So, assumin you want to actually play a game playing the model as if it were correctly assembled would be a big help.

No I mean you have no RAW basis on which to judge what is correct and not correct.
You have decided a specific way of modelling the storm raven, and making up that there is a RAW basis for this - there is not.

When assembled according to the instructions, there IS only one way that the model will turn out - within *very* tight tolerances. Assembling it another way means it is no longer a citadel model of a stormraven, and you have no permission to play it in the game.

the rules covering this have been given. Present something proving your point, or retract and concede.

And in situations when GW doesn't even provide the model (conversion beamer)? Intentional or not, they leave a lot of this up to interpretation. In cases like this it is actually in the rules that it is up to the players involved through a dice roll if they can't agree, even if the rules are there but are still "confusing."

But the dice roll shouldn't be whether a player can modify their storm raven's arc of sight (through whatever means they choose); the roll should be deciding whether or not both players can modify any arc of sight.

Edit: Now I'm kind of concerned about my Icarus lascannon...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When assembled according to the instructions, there IS only one way that the model will turn out - within *very* tight tolerances. Assembling it another way means it is no longer a citadel model of a stormraven, and you have no permission to play it in the game.

You've repeatidly referred to your position as RAW - unelss you can point me to the page in the rulebook that specifies this, you're flat out wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

When assembled according to the instructions, there IS only one way that the model will turn out - within *very* tight tolerances. Assembling it another way means it is no longer a citadel model of a stormraven, and you have no permission to play it in the game.

I'm sorry but by your own argument, I can say that you have failed to field a storm raven purely by RAW if you do not have the 10-5 degrees of tilt by the instruction manual. (see above). I've cited now several pages in the book though they are in the hobby section that specifically allows me to model them, as well as the scanned instruction manual showing how it is not level even purely by RAW as you claimed. I again ask, show me the page.

You can most definately have some tilt as well. I have a valk that the base piece barely fits the stem. I really can only get it inserted at an angle to fit but it fits. The piece was cast too small to make it fit level. It's not broken because it still slots the stem though it's crooked when I first assembled it. If I took a knife and hollowed it out some more, or shaved the stand, I can probably get it to fit level. But by your other above definations, I'd be modifying the base and thus cheating. In the end, it looked cooler since it appeared it was turning or banking, so I just left it as such.

Not sure if it's been brought up already or not...

But the BA Baal Pred w/ the Flamethrower of doom is too short to fire with the Template...
The rules state "any model falling completely or partially under the Template is hit", and the first 1/2" or so is over the hull.

And GW put it in the FAQ, you CAN fire the Flamer...

I have seen no such FAQ for the LOS of the SR's Assault Cannons...

Just saying...

The preds bring up a good point in that I've seen land raider crusaders and redeemers mounted with the cannons/guns on both the front or back side of the tank for picking hatches.

Is it considered MFA if I have it up front instead of the back?

The GW web site has the guns in both places. Who wins RAW for placement? i.e. can I put them anywhere? Just in the back? or the front? Or does it matter?

Game play wise, it certainly matters. But is that MFA too? And where should the turrets be then if everyone that puts them up front is MFA?

Skipphag da Devoura wrote:Not sure if it's been brought up already or not...

But the BA Baal Pred w/ the Flamethrower of doom is too short to fire with the Template...
The rules state "any model falling completely or partially under the Template is hit", and the first 1/2" or so is over the hull.

And GW put it in the FAQ, you CAN fire the Flamer...

I have seen no such FAQ for the LOS of the SR's Assault Cannons...

Just saying...

Ignoring the model firing the Template weapon, so that the template may be fired at all, is entirely different from ignoring the model entirely for LOS.

Ignoring the Model is actually in the Template weapon's rules(Second paragraph, last sentence: "A template weapon never hits the Model firing it.") The Baal Predator FAQ answer was there from 5th and never removed(probably as a Reminder).

So per the Rules ytou CAN fire the flamer without it effecting the vehicle in any way; But assault cannons still cannot fire through the storm raven....

Just saying...


Sudjoe: the instruction tell you that Either placement is valid on the Land raiders(have said so since the current base Land raider kit came out in third ed).

My First Raider had the Lascannons in back, My Crusader has the Hurricane bolters up front, I was presented a choice in my build and went with the one that was most advantageous on the table(also the one that seemed less likely that my Bolters would be firing into my marines).

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When assembled according to the instructions, there IS only one way that the model will turn out - within *very* tight tolerances. Assembling it another way means it is no longer a citadel model of a stormraven, and you have no permission to play it in the game.

You've repeatidly referred to your position as RAW - unelss you can point me to the page in the rulebook that specifies this, you're flat out wrong.

You know those rules quotes int eh thread?

Those ones. I'm not doing your work for you by repeating myself here.

Sudojoe - you have posted quotes from the Hobby section, not the Rules section. Find a rules quote that allows you to convert models. Unti you can do so you have no permission to use a converted model, no matter how much you complain otherwise.

You know those rules quotes int eh thread?

Those ones. I'm not doing your work for you by repeating myself here.

Sudojoe - you have posted quotes from the Hobby section, not the Rules section. Find a rules quote that allows you to convert models. Unti you can do so you have no permission to use a converted model, no matter how much you complain otherwise.

nosferatu1001 - you have posted no rules that support your statement including the instruction manual statement which I actually reference above. Until you can find me a rule that tells me how to assemble a model in the rules section that limits positioning on top of the supplied base, I will follow the only instructions available which are from the hobby section, no matter how much you complain otherwise.

I'm fairly certain that we're pretty much at the point where we can agree that we disagree and it'll be up to some TO somewhere to decide one way or the other what they will and will not tolerate for any particular event. I'll keep modeling for cool factor and you'll keep modeling them straight as a protractor. To each his own.

sudojoe wrote:I'm fairly certain that we're pretty much at the point where we can agree that we disagree and it'll be up to some TO somewhere to decide one way or the other what they will and will not tolerate for any particular event. I'll keep modeling for cool factor and you'll keep modeling them straight as a protractor. To each his own.

Model it however you want - but if you're doing it for the cool factor what's wrong with playing it as if it was flat?

Model it however you want - but if you're doing it for the cool factor what's wrong with playing it as if it was flat?

Because I don't really even believe it was meant to be played as it was flat and many a posts keep telling me to model it flat which I disagree heavily with. I can't find a spot anywhere other than people's opinions that it should be played as flat. It's entirely a user convention.

instruction manual - it's not flat (it's actually banked by 5 to 10 degrees to the left if you follow it exactly, see referenced image eariler in thread)
no RAW says it's supposed to be flat
GW site doesn't even show it as flat
It can be assembled without extra parts or green stuff or cutting to be at an angle.
The hobby section tells me to assemble it as I see fit.
The rules of the game allow any model to be used and there is no rule that says it must be flat. It simply doesn't exist.

Some people decided that it should be flat and are trying to tell me that I am somehow cheating if I don't play it flat. I just can't find the justification for it in any and all available reference materials. Frankly it just feels like bullying when people tell me to do something I can't find any proof for and it's just their word against mine. To me, it implies that they feel they are somehow better than me and I can't stand that unless there's actual proof of some kind. We're all equals here playing a game. If there's a rule discreprency we can all roll it off or call a TO to decide. That'd be fair to me.

Some TO's might agree with you and say I should play it flat, and I'm ok when it's like that. Some TO's might agree with me and say that play it as modeled with angles included. You loose range but gain dead space, that's your trade off.

Simply telling me I'm wrong without any evidence just doesn't work for me.

Doubt we'll ever really reach any conclusions here. The camps are pretty much set in their ways but at least it's given me pleny of opportunities to kill time at work lol.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You know those rules quotes int eh thread?

Those ones. I'm not doing your work for you by repeating myself here.

That's because there is no such rule.
This is starting to look a bit sad now. How can you claim that your standpoint is supported by the rules, then when asked where insist that it's not your job to provide a reference?

@ Kommissar Kel

That's what I mean...

The Template rules clearly state that the firing model is never hit, AND they put it in an FAQ...
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc... The SR, not having such an FAQ, and the assault cannons not having such a rule; one must conclude that the SR can NOT fire it's Assault Cannons through it's hull.

I do however see a problem in that actual aircraft can adjust their angle of attack to strafe the ground with their wing-mounted armament... And the SR is called a "gun-ship", a designation typically reserved for anti-ground helicopters; leading one to believe that it would have this capacity... Again, however, the SR is listed as supersonic; and I personally have never heard of a supersonic craft that can hover... Nor have I ever heard of a gun-ship with it's gun-turrets on the roof...

My question then is...
With several of my gaming buddies modelling the turret on the bottom of the SR (looking significantly more awesome!), and not having the ST out yet, do we call this MFA, or just asthetic?
The codeci do not claim that the turret is an anti-aircraft turret, but the model requires significant modification to mount it under the nose. So, while very cool looking, and more in-line with the title "gun-ship", we are led to believe that this is indeed MFA, even if not intentional.
The ST is also designated a "gun-ship", and DOES have the turret mounted under the nose.
Let us look to real-world counterparts...
The bombers of WWII had all manner of turrets - top, belly, nose, tail, and waist(s)... Paratroopers were delivered by planes that had no belly turrets, as they could get in the way of personel deploying from the craft. One could easilly argue that this was the also in the design concept by GW (not that I would ever, in any way, claim that Ward was a rational entity ). Thus we see that the "transport" does NOT have the belly gun.
The transport helo's of modern warfare are the same, with the notable exception of the Soviet Hind (which does look a lot like the SR).
Gun-ships, such as the venerable Cobra, and the Apache, have under-nose mounted turrets. And look more like the ST. And the ST fills the escort roll that these helo's fulfill.

IMHO, the SR's turret is anti-air, and the ST is the anti-ground. The SR does NOT have the ability to fire through it's hull, and so, has a limited arc to the front of the craft when firing at ground targets... It's purpose is delivering troops, not hosing the ground. If you want that capacity, get Storm Talons... AND the ST can escort the SR, to ensure that you get the coverage that you're looking for.

As to the issue of "flat" or "angled", if that mattered, then I would have to ask how one can assault fliers with ground troops.

Not sure why I got involved in this one, as I am an Ork player (primarily), and rarely do anything other than paint spess mehrennz. Of course, I have the same beliefs as to the use of the turrets on my fantastic new burna-bommaz (anti-air).

My Fiea-Berdz iz gonna burn everfing!!!
WAAAAGH!!!! Skipphag da Devoura!!!!

IMHO, the SR's turret is anti-air, and the ST is the anti-ground. The SR does NOT have the ability to fire through it's hull, and so, has a limited arc to the front of the craft when firing at ground targets... It's purpose is delivering troops, not hosing the ground. If you want that capacity, get Storm Talons... AND the ST can escort the SR, to ensure that you get the coverage that you're looking for

So how's the plasma cannons turret supposed to work you figure? Fliers can't get hit by blast templates and all....

sudojoe wrote:

IMHO, the SR's turret is anti-air, and the ST is the anti-ground. The SR does NOT have the ability to fire through it's hull, and so, has a limited arc to the front of the craft when firing at ground targets... It's purpose is delivering troops, not hosing the ground. If you want that capacity, get Storm Talons... AND the ST can escort the SR, to ensure that you get the coverage that you're looking for

So how's the plasma cannons turret supposed to work you figure? Fliers can't get hit by blast templates and all....

GW obviously intended it to be decorative rather than functional.

Its a flare gun, to celebrate victory after a hard fought game.

Awesome! Flare gun!
Very Orky.

I don't have a clue how it's supposed to work on that note... Seems like it would work as flakk, maybe?

The answer to this thread is that there is a 12-14" blind spot around the stormraven's top turret, so the assault cannon is relatively useless.

The plasma cannon is also relatively useless. Both of these weapons would be ones you want to fire to support your assault unit's charge. As you cannot do this, the only viable option for turret gun is the TLLC, because you can fire it at far off tanks, and the dead spot doesn't matter in this case.

Lock thread please?

If you have a Plasma Cannon (like me) then you use POTMS and you target something to the left or right of the stormraven.

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You know those rules quotes int eh thread?

Those ones. I'm not doing your work for you by repeating myself here.

That's because there is no such rule.
This is starting to look a bit sad now. How can you claim that your standpoint is supported by the rules, then when asked where insist that it's not your job to provide a reference?

When the references have already been provided in the thread, no I do not have to repeat myself due to one posters inabilityor unwillingness to read back through. Try looking back, references to the rules have been given many times.

"A bit sad" - I agree with. rules quotes have been given many times, how about you find rules allowance to use converted miniatures - you know, those ones that arent Citadel Miniatures any longer?

Sudojoe - no agree to disagree, as you have shown not a shred of rules support.

You're looking to excuse MFA.

Nos, if you are so adamant you are correct then please post a page number. I have looked through the thread and cannot see you referencing a page number to support your stance since this argument began between you, Sudojoe, and Testify.

Horst wrote:The answer to this thread is that there is a 12-14" blind spot around the stormraven's top turret, so the assault cannon is relatively useless.

The plasma cannon is also relatively useless. Both of these weapons would be ones you want to fire to support your assault unit's charge. As you cannot do this, the only viable option for turret gun is the TLLC, because you can fire it at far off tanks, and the dead spot doesn't matter in this case.

Lock thread please?

I'm sorry but how does that make it useless? It can still fire at units 14-24" away. If it were a weapon with a 12" range it would be useless but it isn't.

As it is it is just a weapon which can fire at any air target within range and at ground targets within a minimum and maximum range, just like my Tau Hammerhead can't fire a Submunition round at anything within 2.5" of its nose because the blast would hit it as well (even though that blast would not be able to actually damage the tank at all).

Useless is when it cannot do anything.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Horst wrote:The answer to this thread is that there is a 12-14" blind spot around the stormraven's top turret, so the assault cannon is relatively useless.

The plasma cannon is also relatively useless. Both of these weapons would be ones you want to fire to support your assault unit's charge. As you cannot do this, the only viable option for turret gun is the TLLC, because you can fire it at far off tanks, and the dead spot doesn't matter in this case.

Lock thread please?

I'm sorry but how does that make it useless? It can still fire at units 14-24" away. If it were a weapon with a 12" range it would be useless but it isn't.

As it is it is just a weapon which can fire at any air target within range and at ground targets within a minimum and maximum range, just like my Tau Hammerhead can't fire a Submunition round at anything within 2.5" of its nose because the blast would hit it as well (even though that blast would not be able to actually damage the tank at all).

Useless is when it cannot do anything.

Its useless at the purpose you'd most want it for... supporting your units assault.

Its use is going to be, instead, shooting at things further away. Might as well have a weapon designed for range then.

edit - a 2.5" dead spot is NOT comparable to a 14" dead spot... and for anti-air, TLLC >>> TLAC

WhoopieMonster wrote:Nos, if you are so adamant you are correct then please post a page number. I have looked through the thread and cannot see you referencing a page number to support your stance since this argument began between you, Sudojoe, and Testify.

Page 2. THe Citadel Miniatures used to play the game
Page 3 Base sizes

They have all been given before.

Horst - you do realise it can still happily support? Your units assault 8 - 18 inches away from your vehicle, so the deadspot as you call it isnt exactly that useless.

Sorry the model has some designed in defects. Deal with it.

Horst wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Horst wrote:The answer to this thread is that there is a 12-14" blind spot around the stormraven's top turret, so the assault cannon is relatively useless.

The plasma cannon is also relatively useless. Both of these weapons would be ones you want to fire to support your assault unit's charge. As you cannot do this, the only viable option for turret gun is the TLLC, because you can fire it at far off tanks, and the dead spot doesn't matter in this case.

Lock thread please?

I'm sorry but how does that make it useless? It can still fire at units 14-24" away. If it were a weapon with a 12" range it would be useless but it isn't.

As it is it is just a weapon which can fire at any air target within range and at ground targets within a minimum and maximum range, just like my Tau Hammerhead can't fire a Submunition round at anything within 2.5" of its nose because the blast would hit it as well (even though that blast would not be able to actually damage the tank at all).

Useless is when it cannot do anything.

Its useless at the purpose you'd most want it for... supporting your units assault.

Its use is going to be, instead, shooting at things further away. Might as well have a weapon designed for range then.

edit - a 2.5" dead spot is NOT comparable to a 14" dead spot... and for anti-air, TLLC >>> TLAC

It's normal for a vehicle to have some weapons options which are rather "pointless" and some which are no-brainers, it's always been that way in just about every codex.

Also remember that in 6th edition, you:

-Disembark within 6 inches
-Charge up to 12 inches

Meaning your charge targets are going to be >6 inches away, and typically, about 12 inches out...where your range starts to come into play. And typically, you wouldnt want to use a vehicles gun to support chargers - you run the risk of taking your unit out of assault range.

And as I've said before, your blindspot is not that large, it is that large to shoot at the flat ground in front of the raven, however the models you're firing at do have a height, so they're going to intersect the angle earlier than that. You don't have to see the bottoms of their feet to fire on them.

The success rate for a 6" charge is like 70%... and it decreases every inch after that. I want to drop my guys off within 12" of the target almost always, so I can have a nearly 100% chance of making the charge.

If your deploying far back enough to actually use the assault cannon, you run the risk of A) not making the charge in the first place, or B) killing 2-3 models from the unit your trying to charge, increasing the risk of A. Of course, killing 2-3 models wouldn't matter if your deploying 3" away from them to begin with, but if your deploying at 6-8" out, your fail rate for charges becomes MUCH higher.


So, the assault cannon is useless. I just wish it came with a disclaimer on the vehicle, warning people that because GW did a terrible job with flier rules combined with the model design, the weapon has a 14" blind spot.

Thats odd, having played against a lot of people with SR theyve never found it to be useless.

THey make an excellent anti flyer (or light AV vehicle in general) weapon, especially when combined with PotMS

If you cant see it's utility, then it really isnt our or GWs fault.

... I'm not saying the stormraven itself is useless.

The assault cannon is a poor choice with this limitation, and it would be best to not even include it as an option with these limitations.. the TLLC is far better.

I never said that the SR itself is useless. IF you noticed the context it was all about the TLAC being very good.

The cannon is a VERY good choice at killing light AV, same as it ever was

It is a VERY good choice at killing fliers

Your categorical denial of the plainly obvious utility of the TLAC jsut because it isnt quite as versatile as you wanted IS NOT the fault of GW nor the posters on dakka. The model has some built in, designed in limitations - undeniable given the fact the vertical arc rules are unchanged since its release - and you have to weigh those up when deciding how to arm the model.

Target has a point, you only have to be able to see the top of the unit so it's only not good at hitting short units (oh crap they're fielding squats). Can anybody get a messure on how close a Daemon prince could be? Being as I believe the SR was originally intended for AA instead of AtG fighting that's more relevent because DP are FMC sometimes...If I was a TO I'd let them shoot them seeing as they are supposed to be elevated but that's just my opinion.

Also you should note that the average charge distance is 7, with movement of 6 when disembarking. so you'll generally should be around 13 away form a unit when your troops disembark and you can shoot at it. OMG 1 inch of unseen squad?! Guess it is closer to 2.5 inches of restricted fire. Also note that you can hit the very last unit in a squad so hordes like orks are even more vulnerable to SR fire

edit: I didn't mean to sound like I'm attacking the OP cuz I get the point of the thread. What tactics can the SR be used for if it has this blind spot. So to that I say as I see it the SR really should be more of a transport/tank busting vehicle. Seeing as fliers are just flying tanks for the most part this also lets the SR be great AA support for a time where we are seeing limited AA availible in general. So in conclusion the SR shouldn't be just another kills everything unit, That's why they made fliers IMHO so we would have to show more variety in our lists not just spam tanks and win.

Every codex has at least one unit/weapon/rule that is "useless", by someones definition.

A lot of people really like the shoota-boy mobs.
I personally think shoota-boyz have been worthless in every edition... Until now.
I've spoken to one or two Ork-erz that swear that the slugga/choppa boyz are useless, but they are the way that I've always played them.

One arguement is that w/ the shootaz, you get more shots, and you won't get all your boyz into CC, so you want more shots.
My arguement is, Orkz have a BS so that they can hear their guns firing... And I won't get all my boyz into CC, so I want as many CC-Attacks as I can get.

With the Snap Shot rule, those shoota boyz are looking a whole lot better, because their BS 2 is no longer the issue.

But facts are facts... If I want to hit the target when I shoot them, I take gretchin. If I want to survive a shot, and hit the target w/ an engine block, I take orkz.

If you want support, take a Storm Talon. If you want transport, take a Storm Raven. If you want both, take a Storm Raven, escorted by a Storm Talon. Then no one can tell you that you can't hit them. PLUS, you can put the TLLC on the SR, and the TLAC on the ST, and have both! Which I would hate, as an Ork...

You know, the Storm Eagle has more of a "blind spot" than the Storm Raven, because those missiles are all the way at the rear!

And we Orkz don't get any love in the ranged Anti-tank area! (enters into dark alliance w/ the Dark Eldar for all that Blaster-y goodness )

protonhunter wrote:Target has a point, you only have to be able to see the top of the unit so it's only not good at hitting short units (oh crap they're fielding squats). Can anybody get a messure on how close a Daemon prince could be? Being as I believe the SR was originally intended for AA instead of AtG fighting that's more relevent because DP are FMC sometimes...If I was a TO I'd let them shoot them seeing as they are supposed to be elevated but that's just my opinion.

Also you should note that the average charge distance is 7, with movement of 6 when disembarking. so you'll generally should be around 13 away form a unit when your troops disembark and you can shoot at it. OMG 1 inch of unseen squad?! Guess it is closer to 2.5 inches of restricted fire. Also note that you can hit the very last unit in a squad so hordes like orks are even more vulnerable to SR fire

edit: I didn't mean to sound like I'm attacking the OP cuz I get the point of the thread. What tactics can the SR be used for if it has this blind spot. So to that I say as I see it the SR really should be more of a transport/tank busting vehicle. Seeing as fliers are just flying tanks for the most part this also lets the SR be great AA support for a time where we are seeing limited AA availible in general. So in conclusion the SR shouldn't be just another kills everything unit, That's why they made fliers IMHO so we would have to show more variety in our lists not just spam tanks and win.

I don't care what the average charge distance is. With new variable assault range rules, your pretty foolish if you don't get the vehicle in as close as possible to drop off the cargo.

And yes, a weapon with literally half its range GONE to a blind spot is pretty damn useless. You are much better off with a lascannon, where only 25% of its range is a dead zone.

Horst wrote:The success rate for a 6" charge is like 70%... and it decreases every inch after that. I want to drop my guys off within 12" of the target almost always, so I can have a nearly 100% chance of making the charge.

If your deploying far back enough to actually use the assault cannon, you run the risk of A) not making the charge in the first place, or B) killing 2-3 models from the unit your trying to charge, increasing the risk of A. Of course, killing 2-3 models wouldn't matter if your deploying 3" away from them to begin with, but if your deploying at 6-8" out, your fail rate for charges becomes MUCH higher.


So, the assault cannon is useless. I just wish it came with a disclaimer on the vehicle, warning people that because GW did a terrible job with flier rules combined with the model design, the weapon has a 14" blind spot.

It. Does. Not. Have. A. 14. Inch. Blind. Spot.

Models have height, they are not flat slips of paper. I'll measure the real blindspot when I get home, but it's not nearly that bad.

about the missiles on the storm eagle...

They are literally useless against anything but air targets. You will NEVER be able to hit a ground target with them, unless its level with the flying base. Yet another reason I believe GW just overlooked firing arcs when designing these rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Target wrote:

It. Does. Not. Have. A. 14. Inch. Blind. Spot.

Models have height, they are not flat slips of paper. I'll measure the real blindspot when I get home, but it's not nearly that bad.

Maybe I suck at measuring. its possible, i wasn't using a protractor.

If its 6" or less, I'll shut up and deal, because I can live with a 6" dead spot around the vehicle.

"I don't care what the average charge distance is. With new variable assault range rules, your pretty foolish if you don't get the vehicle in as close as possible to drop off the cargo."

You can only move 6" before dropping off cargo, who then move up to 6" away.

Throwing in a reroll and that charge is more like 9".

"And yes, a weapon with literally half its range GONE to a blind spot is pretty damn useless. You are much better off with a lascannon, where only 25% of its range is a dead zone. "
Wrong. I gave you 2 very good "non useless" reasons for the TLAC, which you continue to ignore in your apparent desire to see nothing but the bad in something.

It also isnt half its range against everything. The game isnt played on a flat plane, you do realise that right?

Nobody wants that...
Dealing is fine...
But don't "shut up"...

That's how a lot of these little rules foibles/Machavelian-schemes get brought to light.
I for one never thought about the vertical arc of fire, and have had my boyz hosed by those stupid TLAC a LOT.
Now I can cry and whine if Cameron tries to shoot at them from too close... We'll probably just decide it doesn't matter, but it gives me something to whine about!
I like whining... It brings me joy... But only if it's funny/sensible whining.
Otherwise it's boring.

Oh, and you're also ignoring that the blind spot can be beneficial to you. You cannot wound models out of LOS of the weapon, which in this case would be at the front of the unit you want to assault.

Take a reasonably spread out unit, usual anti blast formation. You have a good chance of only being able to see the rear of the unit, meaning wounds can only be allocated against the models at the back - often where key models are now located - and they wont affect your chances of making the charge, unlike most other times people shoot at units.

Stop. Looking. at. The. Bad. The sky isnt falling, it isnt as bad as you think!

I just discovered the ignore feature on this forum. Everyone in this thread now agrees with me!

I'm happy.

So whe presented with reasoned arguments showing how things arent as sky-falling as you made out, you ignore those?

Impressive.

And on that note ...